Opinion

Last month, I wrote about the attributes of hospitalist practices that I associate with success. This month, I’ll do the opposite. That is, I’ll write about strategies your practice could, or even should, do without. Of course, all of these things are open to debate, and some thoughtful people might (and in my experience, probably will) arrive at different conclusions.

So I offer my list as food for thought, and if your practice relies on some of these strategies, you shouldn’t feel threatened by my opinion. But you might want to think about whether they’ve been made part of your practice by design, or if things just evolved this way without careful consideration of alternatives. I’ve listed them in no particular order.

Fixed-duration day shifts. My sense is that the majority of practices have a day shift with a predetermined start and end. That is, the hospitalist is expected to arrive and depart at the same time each day.

This seems to make a lot of sense, but it ignores the dramatic variations in workload a practice will have. For example, a practice that is appropriately staffed with four daytime hospitalists, and schedules each of them to work a 12-hour shift, provides 48 hours of daytime hospitalist manpower each day. But that will turn out to be precisely the right level of staffing only a few days a year. On all other days, daytime staffing will be optimal with a different number of hours. So it would make sense for the doctors to work more or less on those days.

Telling doctors that their shift always starts at the same time has significant lifestyle advantages. But it can inhibit the doctors who would be happy to start earlier to address more discharges early in the day and potentially go home earlier. So, just like most other doctors at your hospital have, why not let the doctors have significant latitude in when they start and stop working each day? In most cases, it might be necessary to have a time by which every doctor must be available to respond to pages (and one who must be on-site before the night doctor leaves), but they should feel free to actually arrive and start working when they choose. Most will make good choices and will likely feel a little more empowered and happy with their work.

And, at the end of the day, it might be reasonable to allow some of the day-shift doctors to leave when their work is done, and allow the others to stay to handle admissions until the night shift takes over. Those who leave early might still be required to respond to pages until a specified time.

Shifts that don’t involve rounding on “continuity” patients, such as night and evening (“swing”) shifts, usually should be arranged with predetermined start. I wrote in more detail on this topic in January 2007 and October 2010.

Contractual vacation provisions. Hospitalists should have significant amounts of time off. We work a lot of evenings, nights, and weekends, and we must have liberal amounts of time away from work. But for many practices, there is no advantage in classifying this time as vacation (or CME, etc.) time. In most cases, it makes the most sense to simply specify how much work (e.g. number of shifts) a doctor is to do each year and not specify a number of days or hours of vacation time. For more detail, read “The Vacation Conundrum” from March 2007.

If your practice has a vacation system that works well, then stick with it. But if you or your administrators are going nuts trying to categorize nonworking days between vacation and days the doctor simply wasn’t scheduled, then it might be best to stop trying. Just settle on the number of shifts (or some other metric) that a doctor is to work each year.

Tenure-based salary increases. It makes a lot of sense to pay doctors in most specialties an increasing salary based on his or her tenure with the practice. As they build a patient population and a referral stream, they generate more revenue and should benefit accordingly. But a new hospitalist who joins an existing group almost never has to build the referrals. In most cases, the group hired the doctor because the referrals are already coming and the practice needs more help, or the new doctor is replacing a departing one. So paying a new hospitalist a lower salary that increases automatically every few years isn’t really a raise earned by the doctor’s improved financial performance. Usually it’s just a system of withholding money that could be available for compensation for the doctor’s first few years in the practice. This lower starting salary might adversely impact recruiting. For more, see “Compensation Conundrum” from December 2009.

Poor roles for nonphysician providers (NPPs). I’ve worked with a lot of practices that have NPs and PAs (and, in some cases, RNs) who are doing what amounts to clerical work. They’re faxing discharge summaries, making calls to schedule patient appointments, dividing up the overnight admissions for the day rounders, etc.

Don’t make this mistake. Hire a secretary for that sort of work. And be sure that the roles occupied by trained clinicians (PAs, NPs, RNs, etc.) are professionally satisfying and will position them to make an effective contribution to the practice.

For more on this topic, see “The 411 on NPPs” from September 2008 and “Role Refinement” from September 2009; the latter features the perspective of Ryan Genzink, a thoughtful PA-C from Michigan.

Blinded performance reporting. First, make sure your practice provides regular, meaningful reports on each doctor’s performance and the group as a whole. This usually takes the form of a dashboard or report card. In my experience, too few practices do this. Make sure your group isn’t in that category.

Groups that do provide performance data often allow each doctor to see only his or her data. If data about other individuals in the group are provided, the names have often been removed. With exception of certain human resources issues (e.g. counseling a doctor to prevent termination), I think all performance data in the group should be shared by name with the whole group. In most practices, everyone should know by name which doctors are the high and low producers, each doctor’s compensation, and CPT coding practices (e.g. the portion of discharges coded at the high level).

When clinical performance can be attributed to individual providers, report those metrics openly, too. This usually creates greater cohesion within the group and helps foster a mentality of practice ownership. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Last month, I wrote about the attributes of hospitalist practices that I associate with success. This month, I’ll do the opposite. That is, I’ll write about strategies your practice could, or even should, do without. Of course, all of these things are open to debate, and some thoughtful people might (and in my experience, probably will) arrive at different conclusions.

So I offer my list as food for thought, and if your practice relies on some of these strategies, you shouldn’t feel threatened by my opinion. But you might want to think about whether they’ve been made part of your practice by design, or if things just evolved this way without careful consideration of alternatives. I’ve listed them in no particular order.

Fixed-duration day shifts. My sense is that the majority of practices have a day shift with a predetermined start and end. That is, the hospitalist is expected to arrive and depart at the same time each day.

This seems to make a lot of sense, but it ignores the dramatic variations in workload a practice will have. For example, a practice that is appropriately staffed with four daytime hospitalists, and schedules each of them to work a 12-hour shift, provides 48 hours of daytime hospitalist manpower each day. But that will turn out to be precisely the right level of staffing only a few days a year. On all other days, daytime staffing will be optimal with a different number of hours. So it would make sense for the doctors to work more or less on those days.

Telling doctors that their shift always starts at the same time has significant lifestyle advantages. But it can inhibit the doctors who would be happy to start earlier to address more discharges early in the day and potentially go home earlier. So, just like most other doctors at your hospital have, why not let the doctors have significant latitude in when they start and stop working each day? In most cases, it might be necessary to have a time by which every doctor must be available to respond to pages (and one who must be on-site before the night doctor leaves), but they should feel free to actually arrive and start working when they choose. Most will make good choices and will likely feel a little more empowered and happy with their work.

And, at the end of the day, it might be reasonable to allow some of the day-shift doctors to leave when their work is done, and allow the others to stay to handle admissions until the night shift takes over. Those who leave early might still be required to respond to pages until a specified time.

Shifts that don’t involve rounding on “continuity” patients, such as night and evening (“swing”) shifts, usually should be arranged with predetermined start. I wrote in more detail on this topic in January 2007 and October 2010.

Contractual vacation provisions. Hospitalists should have significant amounts of time off. We work a lot of evenings, nights, and weekends, and we must have liberal amounts of time away from work. But for many practices, there is no advantage in classifying this time as vacation (or CME, etc.) time. In most cases, it makes the most sense to simply specify how much work (e.g. number of shifts) a doctor is to do each year and not specify a number of days or hours of vacation time. For more detail, read “The Vacation Conundrum” from March 2007.

If your practice has a vacation system that works well, then stick with it. But if you or your administrators are going nuts trying to categorize nonworking days between vacation and days the doctor simply wasn’t scheduled, then it might be best to stop trying. Just settle on the number of shifts (or some other metric) that a doctor is to work each year.

Tenure-based salary increases. It makes a lot of sense to pay doctors in most specialties an increasing salary based on his or her tenure with the practice. As they build a patient population and a referral stream, they generate more revenue and should benefit accordingly. But a new hospitalist who joins an existing group almost never has to build the referrals. In most cases, the group hired the doctor because the referrals are already coming and the practice needs more help, or the new doctor is replacing a departing one. So paying a new hospitalist a lower salary that increases automatically every few years isn’t really a raise earned by the doctor’s improved financial performance. Usually it’s just a system of withholding money that could be available for compensation for the doctor’s first few years in the practice. This lower starting salary might adversely impact recruiting. For more, see “Compensation Conundrum” from December 2009.

Poor roles for nonphysician providers (NPPs). I’ve worked with a lot of practices that have NPs and PAs (and, in some cases, RNs) who are doing what amounts to clerical work. They’re faxing discharge summaries, making calls to schedule patient appointments, dividing up the overnight admissions for the day rounders, etc.

Don’t make this mistake. Hire a secretary for that sort of work. And be sure that the roles occupied by trained clinicians (PAs, NPs, RNs, etc.) are professionally satisfying and will position them to make an effective contribution to the practice.

For more on this topic, see “The 411 on NPPs” from September 2008 and “Role Refinement” from September 2009; the latter features the perspective of Ryan Genzink, a thoughtful PA-C from Michigan.

Blinded performance reporting. First, make sure your practice provides regular, meaningful reports on each doctor’s performance and the group as a whole. This usually takes the form of a dashboard or report card. In my experience, too few practices do this. Make sure your group isn’t in that category.

Groups that do provide performance data often allow each doctor to see only his or her data. If data about other individuals in the group are provided, the names have often been removed. With exception of certain human resources issues (e.g. counseling a doctor to prevent termination), I think all performance data in the group should be shared by name with the whole group. In most practices, everyone should know by name which doctors are the high and low producers, each doctor’s compensation, and CPT coding practices (e.g. the portion of discharges coded at the high level).

When clinical performance can be attributed to individual providers, report those metrics openly, too. This usually creates greater cohesion within the group and helps foster a mentality of practice ownership. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Last month, I wrote about the attributes of hospitalist practices that I associate with success. This month, I’ll do the opposite. That is, I’ll write about strategies your practice could, or even should, do without. Of course, all of these things are open to debate, and some thoughtful people might (and in my experience, probably will) arrive at different conclusions.

So I offer my list as food for thought, and if your practice relies on some of these strategies, you shouldn’t feel threatened by my opinion. But you might want to think about whether they’ve been made part of your practice by design, or if things just evolved this way without careful consideration of alternatives. I’ve listed them in no particular order.

Fixed-duration day shifts. My sense is that the majority of practices have a day shift with a predetermined start and end. That is, the hospitalist is expected to arrive and depart at the same time each day.

This seems to make a lot of sense, but it ignores the dramatic variations in workload a practice will have. For example, a practice that is appropriately staffed with four daytime hospitalists, and schedules each of them to work a 12-hour shift, provides 48 hours of daytime hospitalist manpower each day. But that will turn out to be precisely the right level of staffing only a few days a year. On all other days, daytime staffing will be optimal with a different number of hours. So it would make sense for the doctors to work more or less on those days.

Telling doctors that their shift always starts at the same time has significant lifestyle advantages. But it can inhibit the doctors who would be happy to start earlier to address more discharges early in the day and potentially go home earlier. So, just like most other doctors at your hospital have, why not let the doctors have significant latitude in when they start and stop working each day? In most cases, it might be necessary to have a time by which every doctor must be available to respond to pages (and one who must be on-site before the night doctor leaves), but they should feel free to actually arrive and start working when they choose. Most will make good choices and will likely feel a little more empowered and happy with their work.

And, at the end of the day, it might be reasonable to allow some of the day-shift doctors to leave when their work is done, and allow the others to stay to handle admissions until the night shift takes over. Those who leave early might still be required to respond to pages until a specified time.

Shifts that don’t involve rounding on “continuity” patients, such as night and evening (“swing”) shifts, usually should be arranged with predetermined start. I wrote in more detail on this topic in January 2007 and October 2010.

Contractual vacation provisions. Hospitalists should have significant amounts of time off. We work a lot of evenings, nights, and weekends, and we must have liberal amounts of time away from work. But for many practices, there is no advantage in classifying this time as vacation (or CME, etc.) time. In most cases, it makes the most sense to simply specify how much work (e.g. number of shifts) a doctor is to do each year and not specify a number of days or hours of vacation time. For more detail, read “The Vacation Conundrum” from March 2007.

If your practice has a vacation system that works well, then stick with it. But if you or your administrators are going nuts trying to categorize nonworking days between vacation and days the doctor simply wasn’t scheduled, then it might be best to stop trying. Just settle on the number of shifts (or some other metric) that a doctor is to work each year.

Tenure-based salary increases. It makes a lot of sense to pay doctors in most specialties an increasing salary based on his or her tenure with the practice. As they build a patient population and a referral stream, they generate more revenue and should benefit accordingly. But a new hospitalist who joins an existing group almost never has to build the referrals. In most cases, the group hired the doctor because the referrals are already coming and the practice needs more help, or the new doctor is replacing a departing one. So paying a new hospitalist a lower salary that increases automatically every few years isn’t really a raise earned by the doctor’s improved financial performance. Usually it’s just a system of withholding money that could be available for compensation for the doctor’s first few years in the practice. This lower starting salary might adversely impact recruiting. For more, see “Compensation Conundrum” from December 2009.

Poor roles for nonphysician providers (NPPs). I’ve worked with a lot of practices that have NPs and PAs (and, in some cases, RNs) who are doing what amounts to clerical work. They’re faxing discharge summaries, making calls to schedule patient appointments, dividing up the overnight admissions for the day rounders, etc.

Don’t make this mistake. Hire a secretary for that sort of work. And be sure that the roles occupied by trained clinicians (PAs, NPs, RNs, etc.) are professionally satisfying and will position them to make an effective contribution to the practice.

For more on this topic, see “The 411 on NPPs” from September 2008 and “Role Refinement” from September 2009; the latter features the perspective of Ryan Genzink, a thoughtful PA-C from Michigan.

Blinded performance reporting. First, make sure your practice provides regular, meaningful reports on each doctor’s performance and the group as a whole. This usually takes the form of a dashboard or report card. In my experience, too few practices do this. Make sure your group isn’t in that category.

Groups that do provide performance data often allow each doctor to see only his or her data. If data about other individuals in the group are provided, the names have often been removed. With exception of certain human resources issues (e.g. counseling a doctor to prevent termination), I think all performance data in the group should be shared by name with the whole group. In most practices, everyone should know by name which doctors are the high and low producers, each doctor’s compensation, and CPT coding practices (e.g. the portion of discharges coded at the high level).

When clinical performance can be attributed to individual providers, report those metrics openly, too. This usually creates greater cohesion within the group and helps foster a mentality of practice ownership. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Some parents of very young children – those 6 years old and younger – will come to you exhausted, feeling inadequate as parents, and even angry at their children.

Parents will report that their children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are very difficult at home and in preschool. Probably when their children were around age 2, 3, or 4 years old, their parents began wondering if the youngsters were immature, were more impulsive, and had a shorter attention span, compared with peers.

Pediatricians will recognize this pattern as likely ADHD and, in addition to making an accurate diagnosis, know that much is at stake in guiding and supporting parents. A critical relationship is at risk as the child's behavior evokes criticism and a negative tone from parents. Pediatricians should help parents set reasonable expectations and focus on behaviors and activities that build self-esteem. For some families, this work can be difficult and time consuming, requiring counseling and behavioral reward training – probably better delegated to a mental health specialist.

Attention span, impulsivity, and motoric hyperactivity are active concerns every waking hour of the child's day. Certain demands in preschool, at a longer dinner, or in church may exacerbate the symptoms, whereas playing in the park or playing a fun-filled computer game may ease the symptoms. The pediatrician can sort through a typical day and recommend approaches that are consistent with developmentally reasonable expectations, and modified for the child's ADHD symptoms.

Family history is another consideration. About 30% of children with ADHD come from fathers who had or have the disorder. Reminding a father of his difficulties growing up or any ongoing ADHD symptoms can be helpful in eliciting some empathy from him for his child's suffering.

Beyond family life, ADHD will affect the choice of school and activities. Based on what works for the child, consider how many hours a child should spend in preschool and how much structure is helpful. How will the culture of the school fit the child's style? Remember that the last thing a child with ADHD needs is an early school experience characterized by criticism and a sense of not being able to please teachers. A school with more recess and activity opportunities, as well as after-school programs, might be a good choice, and might offer some respite for parents.

As part of building self-esteem, ask parents if there is anything the child is really good at. For example, I treated a 6-year-old with ADHD who was gifted with computers. He was able to teach his peers and play games with friends, and he felt genuine pride working with a machine that was tolerant and nonjudgmental, and could be reset as needed. Might this not lead to a path of an after-school computer club or computer summer camp (that of course would include other activities)? Other young children may show strength in music, art, or a sport, and these activities are at least as important as remediating weaknesses.

Awareness of the different ADHD subtypes is important in general, but also can guide you in when to refer these children. Some kids with ADHD are more moody or depressed, some are more anxious, and others are more physically aggressive. Consider referral to a child and adolescent psychiatrist if one of these subtypes becomes more difficult to manage. A mental health consultation can help these higher-risk children.

Some children with ADHD also have learning disabilities, and diagnosis at a young age, before school failure, is invaluable. If you suspect this in a particular patient, you might want to recommend some early testing through the schools to avoid creation of unrealistic expectations in the classroom.

Parents may tell you their children are impulsive. While other kids are more predictable when playing in the sandbox, their children with ADHD may do something unpredictable. They might jump out of the sandbox or grab a toy from another child, for example. A mother of a 3-year-old with ADHD will stay closer to the sandbox because she doesn't know what that child is going to do next.

Typically, the child also will have a shorter attention span. The parents cannot relax because they know the sandbox, or a particular project in the sandbox, won't hold their child as long. Other children may be occupied for 15, 20, or even 30 minutes, but their young child with ADHD might last only 3 or 4 minutes and then need to move on. That, as you can imagine, is going to make the parenting demands much higher. Remember this doesn't happen for just 1 or 2 hours per day; children with true ADHD are going to be like this from the time they get up until the time they go to sleep.

All these behaviors associated with ADHD set these children up for a fair amount of criticism. The parents are tempted, especially if they don't understand the disorder, to say: “Don't do that!”; “Put that down!”; “I just bought you this – why don't you want to play with it?”; “Why can't you play like your friend Johnny does?”; “Why can't you sit still for a minute while Mommy fixes dinner?”

These children are subject to a lot of negative feedback from their environment. The world is not very tolerant of a young child, or even an older child, with ADHD. My guess is if these children are in preschool, the teacher is having the same issues with their behaviors. They may get criticized during circle time or while doing a certain project. Except for recess and lunch, they are going to be under a lot of scrutiny and most of the feedback is going to be negative.

We can see how children with ADHD, in a typical day, can hear 10, if not 25, negative comments. That is about two to three per hour. That degree of criticism begins to become part of how they see themselves, and they become fairly self-critical.

One of the key risks from ADHD at this young age is that it's hard for these children to differentiate if what they are doing is bad or if they are bad. Their self-esteem is very vulnerable. One principle that guides a lot of my management of these youngsters with ADHD is figuring out how to protect or enhance their self-esteem. Therefore, one of the initial things I ask parents to do is to think about how much negative criticism their child is hearing. Next, I ask them to think about what are reasonable expectations for that particular child.

Any opportunity to build self-esteem and build a sense of success based on reasonable expectations is worthwhile. A lot of parents will start sports for their children when they are 4 or 5. Kids with ADHD don't do very well in the outfield of T-ball because they are distracted. They don't stand out there waiting for the hit, and then they get yelled at for missing the ball. Help parents choose a sport that fits their children. I've seen some ADHD kids be goalies because they have to pay attention for a few seconds when the ball is coming, and then when the ball is somewhere else they can daydream with impunity. A lot of children with ADHD do well with swimming, for example, because there are fewer rules and they have a little more freedom. Others thrive with the structure and sense of accomplishment that comes from the “belt” system of karate.

Clearly one of the most effective treatments for the symptoms of ADHD is medication. Medication will increase attention span in school, church, or at dinner. Of course, every parent has concerns about how young to start children on medication, or whether to use medication at all. For those families, the first set of efforts may be directed to setting reasonable expectations and reviewing daily activities.

This focus will help, but will not be enough, and medication will be a critical part of treatment. Medication adds some risk, but the benefits to the child's functioning and self-esteem often outweigh these risks.

One of the things that medication probably does best is reduce the amount of negative feedback because the child will not be as impulsive and will appear to have a longer attention span. Again, you can ask too much of a child, but you will see higher expectations if the child is taking medication that is working correctly. Once ADHD is diagnosed in a young child, the pediatrician has a key role in trying to protect and enhance the child's self-esteem, advising on the child's day-to-day functioning, and supporting the overall care with appropriate use of medications.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Some parents of very young children – those 6 years old and younger – will come to you exhausted, feeling inadequate as parents, and even angry at their children.

Parents will report that their children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are very difficult at home and in preschool. Probably when their children were around age 2, 3, or 4 years old, their parents began wondering if the youngsters were immature, were more impulsive, and had a shorter attention span, compared with peers.

Pediatricians will recognize this pattern as likely ADHD and, in addition to making an accurate diagnosis, know that much is at stake in guiding and supporting parents. A critical relationship is at risk as the child's behavior evokes criticism and a negative tone from parents. Pediatricians should help parents set reasonable expectations and focus on behaviors and activities that build self-esteem. For some families, this work can be difficult and time consuming, requiring counseling and behavioral reward training – probably better delegated to a mental health specialist.

Attention span, impulsivity, and motoric hyperactivity are active concerns every waking hour of the child's day. Certain demands in preschool, at a longer dinner, or in church may exacerbate the symptoms, whereas playing in the park or playing a fun-filled computer game may ease the symptoms. The pediatrician can sort through a typical day and recommend approaches that are consistent with developmentally reasonable expectations, and modified for the child's ADHD symptoms.

Family history is another consideration. About 30% of children with ADHD come from fathers who had or have the disorder. Reminding a father of his difficulties growing up or any ongoing ADHD symptoms can be helpful in eliciting some empathy from him for his child's suffering.

Beyond family life, ADHD will affect the choice of school and activities. Based on what works for the child, consider how many hours a child should spend in preschool and how much structure is helpful. How will the culture of the school fit the child's style? Remember that the last thing a child with ADHD needs is an early school experience characterized by criticism and a sense of not being able to please teachers. A school with more recess and activity opportunities, as well as after-school programs, might be a good choice, and might offer some respite for parents.

As part of building self-esteem, ask parents if there is anything the child is really good at. For example, I treated a 6-year-old with ADHD who was gifted with computers. He was able to teach his peers and play games with friends, and he felt genuine pride working with a machine that was tolerant and nonjudgmental, and could be reset as needed. Might this not lead to a path of an after-school computer club or computer summer camp (that of course would include other activities)? Other young children may show strength in music, art, or a sport, and these activities are at least as important as remediating weaknesses.

Awareness of the different ADHD subtypes is important in general, but also can guide you in when to refer these children. Some kids with ADHD are more moody or depressed, some are more anxious, and others are more physically aggressive. Consider referral to a child and adolescent psychiatrist if one of these subtypes becomes more difficult to manage. A mental health consultation can help these higher-risk children.

Some children with ADHD also have learning disabilities, and diagnosis at a young age, before school failure, is invaluable. If you suspect this in a particular patient, you might want to recommend some early testing through the schools to avoid creation of unrealistic expectations in the classroom.

Parents may tell you their children are impulsive. While other kids are more predictable when playing in the sandbox, their children with ADHD may do something unpredictable. They might jump out of the sandbox or grab a toy from another child, for example. A mother of a 3-year-old with ADHD will stay closer to the sandbox because she doesn't know what that child is going to do next.

Typically, the child also will have a shorter attention span. The parents cannot relax because they know the sandbox, or a particular project in the sandbox, won't hold their child as long. Other children may be occupied for 15, 20, or even 30 minutes, but their young child with ADHD might last only 3 or 4 minutes and then need to move on. That, as you can imagine, is going to make the parenting demands much higher. Remember this doesn't happen for just 1 or 2 hours per day; children with true ADHD are going to be like this from the time they get up until the time they go to sleep.

All these behaviors associated with ADHD set these children up for a fair amount of criticism. The parents are tempted, especially if they don't understand the disorder, to say: “Don't do that!”; “Put that down!”; “I just bought you this – why don't you want to play with it?”; “Why can't you play like your friend Johnny does?”; “Why can't you sit still for a minute while Mommy fixes dinner?”

These children are subject to a lot of negative feedback from their environment. The world is not very tolerant of a young child, or even an older child, with ADHD. My guess is if these children are in preschool, the teacher is having the same issues with their behaviors. They may get criticized during circle time or while doing a certain project. Except for recess and lunch, they are going to be under a lot of scrutiny and most of the feedback is going to be negative.

We can see how children with ADHD, in a typical day, can hear 10, if not 25, negative comments. That is about two to three per hour. That degree of criticism begins to become part of how they see themselves, and they become fairly self-critical.

One of the key risks from ADHD at this young age is that it's hard for these children to differentiate if what they are doing is bad or if they are bad. Their self-esteem is very vulnerable. One principle that guides a lot of my management of these youngsters with ADHD is figuring out how to protect or enhance their self-esteem. Therefore, one of the initial things I ask parents to do is to think about how much negative criticism their child is hearing. Next, I ask them to think about what are reasonable expectations for that particular child.

Any opportunity to build self-esteem and build a sense of success based on reasonable expectations is worthwhile. A lot of parents will start sports for their children when they are 4 or 5. Kids with ADHD don't do very well in the outfield of T-ball because they are distracted. They don't stand out there waiting for the hit, and then they get yelled at for missing the ball. Help parents choose a sport that fits their children. I've seen some ADHD kids be goalies because they have to pay attention for a few seconds when the ball is coming, and then when the ball is somewhere else they can daydream with impunity. A lot of children with ADHD do well with swimming, for example, because there are fewer rules and they have a little more freedom. Others thrive with the structure and sense of accomplishment that comes from the “belt” system of karate.

Clearly one of the most effective treatments for the symptoms of ADHD is medication. Medication will increase attention span in school, church, or at dinner. Of course, every parent has concerns about how young to start children on medication, or whether to use medication at all. For those families, the first set of efforts may be directed to setting reasonable expectations and reviewing daily activities.

This focus will help, but will not be enough, and medication will be a critical part of treatment. Medication adds some risk, but the benefits to the child's functioning and self-esteem often outweigh these risks.

One of the things that medication probably does best is reduce the amount of negative feedback because the child will not be as impulsive and will appear to have a longer attention span. Again, you can ask too much of a child, but you will see higher expectations if the child is taking medication that is working correctly. Once ADHD is diagnosed in a young child, the pediatrician has a key role in trying to protect and enhance the child's self-esteem, advising on the child's day-to-day functioning, and supporting the overall care with appropriate use of medications.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Some parents of very young children – those 6 years old and younger – will come to you exhausted, feeling inadequate as parents, and even angry at their children.

Parents will report that their children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are very difficult at home and in preschool. Probably when their children were around age 2, 3, or 4 years old, their parents began wondering if the youngsters were immature, were more impulsive, and had a shorter attention span, compared with peers.

Pediatricians will recognize this pattern as likely ADHD and, in addition to making an accurate diagnosis, know that much is at stake in guiding and supporting parents. A critical relationship is at risk as the child's behavior evokes criticism and a negative tone from parents. Pediatricians should help parents set reasonable expectations and focus on behaviors and activities that build self-esteem. For some families, this work can be difficult and time consuming, requiring counseling and behavioral reward training – probably better delegated to a mental health specialist.

Attention span, impulsivity, and motoric hyperactivity are active concerns every waking hour of the child's day. Certain demands in preschool, at a longer dinner, or in church may exacerbate the symptoms, whereas playing in the park or playing a fun-filled computer game may ease the symptoms. The pediatrician can sort through a typical day and recommend approaches that are consistent with developmentally reasonable expectations, and modified for the child's ADHD symptoms.

Family history is another consideration. About 30% of children with ADHD come from fathers who had or have the disorder. Reminding a father of his difficulties growing up or any ongoing ADHD symptoms can be helpful in eliciting some empathy from him for his child's suffering.

Beyond family life, ADHD will affect the choice of school and activities. Based on what works for the child, consider how many hours a child should spend in preschool and how much structure is helpful. How will the culture of the school fit the child's style? Remember that the last thing a child with ADHD needs is an early school experience characterized by criticism and a sense of not being able to please teachers. A school with more recess and activity opportunities, as well as after-school programs, might be a good choice, and might offer some respite for parents.

As part of building self-esteem, ask parents if there is anything the child is really good at. For example, I treated a 6-year-old with ADHD who was gifted with computers. He was able to teach his peers and play games with friends, and he felt genuine pride working with a machine that was tolerant and nonjudgmental, and could be reset as needed. Might this not lead to a path of an after-school computer club or computer summer camp (that of course would include other activities)? Other young children may show strength in music, art, or a sport, and these activities are at least as important as remediating weaknesses.

Awareness of the different ADHD subtypes is important in general, but also can guide you in when to refer these children. Some kids with ADHD are more moody or depressed, some are more anxious, and others are more physically aggressive. Consider referral to a child and adolescent psychiatrist if one of these subtypes becomes more difficult to manage. A mental health consultation can help these higher-risk children.

Some children with ADHD also have learning disabilities, and diagnosis at a young age, before school failure, is invaluable. If you suspect this in a particular patient, you might want to recommend some early testing through the schools to avoid creation of unrealistic expectations in the classroom.

Parents may tell you their children are impulsive. While other kids are more predictable when playing in the sandbox, their children with ADHD may do something unpredictable. They might jump out of the sandbox or grab a toy from another child, for example. A mother of a 3-year-old with ADHD will stay closer to the sandbox because she doesn't know what that child is going to do next.

Typically, the child also will have a shorter attention span. The parents cannot relax because they know the sandbox, or a particular project in the sandbox, won't hold their child as long. Other children may be occupied for 15, 20, or even 30 minutes, but their young child with ADHD might last only 3 or 4 minutes and then need to move on. That, as you can imagine, is going to make the parenting demands much higher. Remember this doesn't happen for just 1 or 2 hours per day; children with true ADHD are going to be like this from the time they get up until the time they go to sleep.

All these behaviors associated with ADHD set these children up for a fair amount of criticism. The parents are tempted, especially if they don't understand the disorder, to say: “Don't do that!”; “Put that down!”; “I just bought you this – why don't you want to play with it?”; “Why can't you play like your friend Johnny does?”; “Why can't you sit still for a minute while Mommy fixes dinner?”

These children are subject to a lot of negative feedback from their environment. The world is not very tolerant of a young child, or even an older child, with ADHD. My guess is if these children are in preschool, the teacher is having the same issues with their behaviors. They may get criticized during circle time or while doing a certain project. Except for recess and lunch, they are going to be under a lot of scrutiny and most of the feedback is going to be negative.

We can see how children with ADHD, in a typical day, can hear 10, if not 25, negative comments. That is about two to three per hour. That degree of criticism begins to become part of how they see themselves, and they become fairly self-critical.

One of the key risks from ADHD at this young age is that it's hard for these children to differentiate if what they are doing is bad or if they are bad. Their self-esteem is very vulnerable. One principle that guides a lot of my management of these youngsters with ADHD is figuring out how to protect or enhance their self-esteem. Therefore, one of the initial things I ask parents to do is to think about how much negative criticism their child is hearing. Next, I ask them to think about what are reasonable expectations for that particular child.

Any opportunity to build self-esteem and build a sense of success based on reasonable expectations is worthwhile. A lot of parents will start sports for their children when they are 4 or 5. Kids with ADHD don't do very well in the outfield of T-ball because they are distracted. They don't stand out there waiting for the hit, and then they get yelled at for missing the ball. Help parents choose a sport that fits their children. I've seen some ADHD kids be goalies because they have to pay attention for a few seconds when the ball is coming, and then when the ball is somewhere else they can daydream with impunity. A lot of children with ADHD do well with swimming, for example, because there are fewer rules and they have a little more freedom. Others thrive with the structure and sense of accomplishment that comes from the “belt” system of karate.

Clearly one of the most effective treatments for the symptoms of ADHD is medication. Medication will increase attention span in school, church, or at dinner. Of course, every parent has concerns about how young to start children on medication, or whether to use medication at all. For those families, the first set of efforts may be directed to setting reasonable expectations and reviewing daily activities.

This focus will help, but will not be enough, and medication will be a critical part of treatment. Medication adds some risk, but the benefits to the child's functioning and self-esteem often outweigh these risks.

One of the things that medication probably does best is reduce the amount of negative feedback because the child will not be as impulsive and will appear to have a longer attention span. Again, you can ask too much of a child, but you will see higher expectations if the child is taking medication that is working correctly. Once ADHD is diagnosed in a young child, the pediatrician has a key role in trying to protect and enhance the child's self-esteem, advising on the child's day-to-day functioning, and supporting the overall care with appropriate use of medications.

I’m often asked about the attributes associated with high-functioning practices, so I thought I’d offer a list of them in this column. I’ve written entire columns about some of them in prior issues of The Hospitalist, so I will provide only brief commentary about each of them here.

I think this list can serve as a valuable frame of reference for any hospitalist practice, though it is geared more toward nonacademic settings. It is based on my own career as a hospitalist, which spans more than 20 years, and 15 years’ work as a consultant with nearly 300 institutions around the country. While I think my experience has given me a valuable perspective, others might reasonably omit some attributes listed here or add others.

I believe the single most important measure of a practice is excellent outcomes for its patients. That said, all of the attributes I describe here have more to do with excellent operational, or business, performance. It is possible for a practice to have all of these attributes and still provide disappointing clinical quality for its patients, but that seems really unlikely to me. And even a practice that provides superior clinical care probably won’t be able to do so for long without high-functioning business operations.

I think each of these attributes might be a cause of a practice’s excellent performance, but it is possible that some are a result of it. They are listed in no particular order.

A culture of practice ownership. The most important attribute associated with a high-functioning practice is that the providers in the group maintain a mindset of practice ownership. Even if you are employees of a hospital or other organization, you should think of yourselves as owners of the practice’s performance. When problems arise, you shouldn’t simply assume it is up to the practice leader alone, or an administrator outside of the practice to solve it. Instead, each doctor should always be thinking about how to improve the practice and taking action to make it happen. For more, see “Foster Ownership Culture” in the August 2008 issue, or visit my website and take a quiz (http://nelsonflores.com/html/quiz.html) to assess your ownership culture.

An effective group leader. All groups need a leader who takes the role seriously and doesn’t just view the job description as making the work schedule and attending more meetings than the other hospitalists. (Unfortunately, my experience is that this is precisely what a lot of leaders think.) Of the many markers that effective leaders display, one that seems pretty reliable to me is whether the group has routinely scheduled meetings, with an agenda provided in advance and minutes circulated a few days later. I wrote about effective group leaders in a June 2008 column titled “Follow the Money.”

Autonomy in making decisions. Even when you are an employee of a larger entity, the practice should be structured so that hospitalists have as much autonomy in decision-making as possible. For example, you should always be able to adjust the group’s work schedule (e.g. when shifts start and stop). You also should have a lot of say about your staffing and workload. The latter typically requires that the group is connected to the financial consequences of its choices, which usually means a compensation system based, to a significant degree, on productivity.

While still common for hospitalists, when the largest salary component is fixed, it will always follow that someone outside the group (e.g. an administrator at the hospital) will end up deciding how hard you will have to work to justify the promised salary. And the hospitalists will almost always find fault with that person’s decision—a recipe for constant frustration that inhibits the development of an ownership culture, among other things.

Each doctor sees the job as more than just providing care to patients. In addition to providing quality care for your patients, each hospitalist in the group must work to improve the performance of the hospital. This means work on clinical protocols, medical staff functions (e.g. credentials committee), documentation and coding for both CPT and DRG billing, etc.

Strong social connections. Every high-performing practice I’ve worked with is notable for the social connections between the hospitalists themselves, as well as between hospitalists and other physicians, nursing staff, and administrators. This shouldn’t be taken lightly. Social connections matter—a lot. And while the hospitalists in most groups feel reasonably connected with one another, too often they feel isolated from the other doctors and administrators at the hospital. I wrote some more thoughts about this in a June 2010 column, “Square Peg, Square Hole.”

Hospitalists actively involved in recruiting for their practice. The hospitalists themselves—at a minimum, the group leader—should be very involved in recruiting new members for the group. Professional recruiters are very valuable but can be a lot more effective if the hospitalists themselves participate in the process. The group will land better candidates that way. For more, see “We’re Hiring,” from July 2008.

Hospitalists know data about their performance. Too many practices fail to provide routine data about each provider’s clinical and financial performance. Make sure your group isn’t in this category. Develop a routine report of key metrics for your practice. Usually it is fine, and best, to provide to the whole group unblinded performance data about each individual hospitalist. For more information, check out “Measuring Hospitalist Performance: Metrics, Reports, and Dashboards” on the SHM website.

Don’t rely solely on consensus-based decision-making. Relying on consensus is reasonable for most decisions, if a group has about eight to 10 members. Larger groups need to decide how they’ll make decisions if consensus can’t be reached easily. And they need to have the discipline to stick to their agreed upon process, usually a vote. For more on this subject, see “Play by the Rules” in the December 2007 issue. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I’m often asked about the attributes associated with high-functioning practices, so I thought I’d offer a list of them in this column. I’ve written entire columns about some of them in prior issues of The Hospitalist, so I will provide only brief commentary about each of them here.

I think this list can serve as a valuable frame of reference for any hospitalist practice, though it is geared more toward nonacademic settings. It is based on my own career as a hospitalist, which spans more than 20 years, and 15 years’ work as a consultant with nearly 300 institutions around the country. While I think my experience has given me a valuable perspective, others might reasonably omit some attributes listed here or add others.

I believe the single most important measure of a practice is excellent outcomes for its patients. That said, all of the attributes I describe here have more to do with excellent operational, or business, performance. It is possible for a practice to have all of these attributes and still provide disappointing clinical quality for its patients, but that seems really unlikely to me. And even a practice that provides superior clinical care probably won’t be able to do so for long without high-functioning business operations.

I think each of these attributes might be a cause of a practice’s excellent performance, but it is possible that some are a result of it. They are listed in no particular order.

A culture of practice ownership. The most important attribute associated with a high-functioning practice is that the providers in the group maintain a mindset of practice ownership. Even if you are employees of a hospital or other organization, you should think of yourselves as owners of the practice’s performance. When problems arise, you shouldn’t simply assume it is up to the practice leader alone, or an administrator outside of the practice to solve it. Instead, each doctor should always be thinking about how to improve the practice and taking action to make it happen. For more, see “Foster Ownership Culture” in the August 2008 issue, or visit my website and take a quiz (http://nelsonflores.com/html/quiz.html) to assess your ownership culture.

An effective group leader. All groups need a leader who takes the role seriously and doesn’t just view the job description as making the work schedule and attending more meetings than the other hospitalists. (Unfortunately, my experience is that this is precisely what a lot of leaders think.) Of the many markers that effective leaders display, one that seems pretty reliable to me is whether the group has routinely scheduled meetings, with an agenda provided in advance and minutes circulated a few days later. I wrote about effective group leaders in a June 2008 column titled “Follow the Money.”

Autonomy in making decisions. Even when you are an employee of a larger entity, the practice should be structured so that hospitalists have as much autonomy in decision-making as possible. For example, you should always be able to adjust the group’s work schedule (e.g. when shifts start and stop). You also should have a lot of say about your staffing and workload. The latter typically requires that the group is connected to the financial consequences of its choices, which usually means a compensation system based, to a significant degree, on productivity.

While still common for hospitalists, when the largest salary component is fixed, it will always follow that someone outside the group (e.g. an administrator at the hospital) will end up deciding how hard you will have to work to justify the promised salary. And the hospitalists will almost always find fault with that person’s decision—a recipe for constant frustration that inhibits the development of an ownership culture, among other things.

Each doctor sees the job as more than just providing care to patients. In addition to providing quality care for your patients, each hospitalist in the group must work to improve the performance of the hospital. This means work on clinical protocols, medical staff functions (e.g. credentials committee), documentation and coding for both CPT and DRG billing, etc.

Strong social connections. Every high-performing practice I’ve worked with is notable for the social connections between the hospitalists themselves, as well as between hospitalists and other physicians, nursing staff, and administrators. This shouldn’t be taken lightly. Social connections matter—a lot. And while the hospitalists in most groups feel reasonably connected with one another, too often they feel isolated from the other doctors and administrators at the hospital. I wrote some more thoughts about this in a June 2010 column, “Square Peg, Square Hole.”

Hospitalists actively involved in recruiting for their practice. The hospitalists themselves—at a minimum, the group leader—should be very involved in recruiting new members for the group. Professional recruiters are very valuable but can be a lot more effective if the hospitalists themselves participate in the process. The group will land better candidates that way. For more, see “We’re Hiring,” from July 2008.

Hospitalists know data about their performance. Too many practices fail to provide routine data about each provider’s clinical and financial performance. Make sure your group isn’t in this category. Develop a routine report of key metrics for your practice. Usually it is fine, and best, to provide to the whole group unblinded performance data about each individual hospitalist. For more information, check out “Measuring Hospitalist Performance: Metrics, Reports, and Dashboards” on the SHM website.

Don’t rely solely on consensus-based decision-making. Relying on consensus is reasonable for most decisions, if a group has about eight to 10 members. Larger groups need to decide how they’ll make decisions if consensus can’t be reached easily. And they need to have the discipline to stick to their agreed upon process, usually a vote. For more on this subject, see “Play by the Rules” in the December 2007 issue. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I’m often asked about the attributes associated with high-functioning practices, so I thought I’d offer a list of them in this column. I’ve written entire columns about some of them in prior issues of The Hospitalist, so I will provide only brief commentary about each of them here.

I think this list can serve as a valuable frame of reference for any hospitalist practice, though it is geared more toward nonacademic settings. It is based on my own career as a hospitalist, which spans more than 20 years, and 15 years’ work as a consultant with nearly 300 institutions around the country. While I think my experience has given me a valuable perspective, others might reasonably omit some attributes listed here or add others.

I believe the single most important measure of a practice is excellent outcomes for its patients. That said, all of the attributes I describe here have more to do with excellent operational, or business, performance. It is possible for a practice to have all of these attributes and still provide disappointing clinical quality for its patients, but that seems really unlikely to me. And even a practice that provides superior clinical care probably won’t be able to do so for long without high-functioning business operations.

I think each of these attributes might be a cause of a practice’s excellent performance, but it is possible that some are a result of it. They are listed in no particular order.

A culture of practice ownership. The most important attribute associated with a high-functioning practice is that the providers in the group maintain a mindset of practice ownership. Even if you are employees of a hospital or other organization, you should think of yourselves as owners of the practice’s performance. When problems arise, you shouldn’t simply assume it is up to the practice leader alone, or an administrator outside of the practice to solve it. Instead, each doctor should always be thinking about how to improve the practice and taking action to make it happen. For more, see “Foster Ownership Culture” in the August 2008 issue, or visit my website and take a quiz (http://nelsonflores.com/html/quiz.html) to assess your ownership culture.

An effective group leader. All groups need a leader who takes the role seriously and doesn’t just view the job description as making the work schedule and attending more meetings than the other hospitalists. (Unfortunately, my experience is that this is precisely what a lot of leaders think.) Of the many markers that effective leaders display, one that seems pretty reliable to me is whether the group has routinely scheduled meetings, with an agenda provided in advance and minutes circulated a few days later. I wrote about effective group leaders in a June 2008 column titled “Follow the Money.”

Autonomy in making decisions. Even when you are an employee of a larger entity, the practice should be structured so that hospitalists have as much autonomy in decision-making as possible. For example, you should always be able to adjust the group’s work schedule (e.g. when shifts start and stop). You also should have a lot of say about your staffing and workload. The latter typically requires that the group is connected to the financial consequences of its choices, which usually means a compensation system based, to a significant degree, on productivity.

While still common for hospitalists, when the largest salary component is fixed, it will always follow that someone outside the group (e.g. an administrator at the hospital) will end up deciding how hard you will have to work to justify the promised salary. And the hospitalists will almost always find fault with that person’s decision—a recipe for constant frustration that inhibits the development of an ownership culture, among other things.

Each doctor sees the job as more than just providing care to patients. In addition to providing quality care for your patients, each hospitalist in the group must work to improve the performance of the hospital. This means work on clinical protocols, medical staff functions (e.g. credentials committee), documentation and coding for both CPT and DRG billing, etc.

Strong social connections. Every high-performing practice I’ve worked with is notable for the social connections between the hospitalists themselves, as well as between hospitalists and other physicians, nursing staff, and administrators. This shouldn’t be taken lightly. Social connections matter—a lot. And while the hospitalists in most groups feel reasonably connected with one another, too often they feel isolated from the other doctors and administrators at the hospital. I wrote some more thoughts about this in a June 2010 column, “Square Peg, Square Hole.”

Hospitalists actively involved in recruiting for their practice. The hospitalists themselves—at a minimum, the group leader—should be very involved in recruiting new members for the group. Professional recruiters are very valuable but can be a lot more effective if the hospitalists themselves participate in the process. The group will land better candidates that way. For more, see “We’re Hiring,” from July 2008.

Hospitalists know data about their performance. Too many practices fail to provide routine data about each provider’s clinical and financial performance. Make sure your group isn’t in this category. Develop a routine report of key metrics for your practice. Usually it is fine, and best, to provide to the whole group unblinded performance data about each individual hospitalist. For more information, check out “Measuring Hospitalist Performance: Metrics, Reports, and Dashboards” on the SHM website.

Don’t rely solely on consensus-based decision-making. Relying on consensus is reasonable for most decisions, if a group has about eight to 10 members. Larger groups need to decide how they’ll make decisions if consensus can’t be reached easily. And they need to have the discipline to stick to their agreed upon process, usually a vote. For more on this subject, see “Play by the Rules” in the December 2007 issue. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I like to ask laypeople what they think “hospitalist” means. For years, I was confident that they had never heard the term, but now my question is more often met with an accurate response.

A hotel desk clerk in 1998 actually made one of the cleverest guesses I’ve ever heard. For the whole day, she and her colleagues had in front of them a sign that read “Hospitalist Meeting in the Ballroom,” which got them talking about what in the world a hospitalist is. Seeing from my badge that I was attending that meeting, she asked me what the term meant, but she first gamely provided her best guess: “Someone who makes lists of hospitals.”

There seems to be no end to the number of healthcare-related nouns and verbs to which someone attaches the suffix “ist.” Some days I request so many consults that I’m just a “referralist” (one who refers patients; surely this is a term we can do without). But don’t let the headline of this column confuse you: I really am addressing the lists used to determine which doctor to refer patients to.

Hospitalist Referrals

The first of two common referral lists for hospitalists is a directory of primary-care physicians (PCPs) and clinics, as well as some other providers that refer patients to the hospitalist. Nearly all hospitalist groups maintain such a list, and they might apply a variety of terms such as “subscriber” (which refers to hospitalists) and “nonsubscriber” physicians.

Because most HM groups care for patients who come from all or nearly all of the PCPs in an area, it is often simpler to just create a short list of those providers who don’t refer to the hospitalists. In many hospitals, there are just four or five providers on that list. ED providers are the ones who most often access this list. When visiting other hospitals, I often see a paper copy of the list taped up at the provider workstations in the ED.

Consult Who?

The other, and much less common, type of referral list governs which doctors the hospitalists are to consult. There are two strategies that come up when thinking about this kind of list.

Do what the ED doctors do. ED physicians typically are constrained by the list of on-call physicians for each specialty, and are to always consult that doctor rather than another. For example, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Taylor for any patient in need of a general surgeon and doesn’t have a prior relationship with one. Tomorrow, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Simon. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Simon are to be contacted because they are the ones on call for the ED those days. Even if the ED doctor would rather consult Dr. Simon today (maybe she is more able, affable, and available than Dr. Taylor), that isn’t an option, because it is Dr. Taylor’s name on the ED on-call roster today.

Each PCP creates a referral list for hospitalists to follow. New hospitalist practices often agree to follow the consulting patterns of each referring PCP. This can increase PCP acceptance of the HM model, and after all, the GI doctor consulted by the hospitalist during the few days in the hospital is the same one who will be working with the PCP when the patient has outpatient issues requiring GI specialty care. This usually means that the hospitalist carries a list of each PCP, and which GI doctor, orthopedist, etc., that particular PCP likes to consult. When the hospitalist needs an ortho consult, she first verifies the PCP this patient sees, then pulls out the list to see the orthopedist(s) that PCP prefers.

In most settings, either form of a mandated referral list is a poor system for hospitalists and is best avoided. Instead, the hospitalists should be free to deviate from the ED call list as they see fit. And while they should be attentive to the consulting preferences of each PCP, it is best not to promise the PCPs that their preference will always be followed. Providing the hospitalists this latitude means they can tailor the choice of consultant to the patient’s needs and the level of service (i.e. able, affable, available) each provides. And, at least in theory, when there are competing providers in a given specialty, they will have an incentive to provide better service to the hospitalist as a way of ensuring future referrals.

Practical Considerations

Even though I think it is optimal for hospitalists to have a lot of latitude in which doctors they consult, there are some practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, if the patient’s PCP is in a group that also has surgeons, it will be best to call one of them, and not a competing surgeon, when the patient has surgical needs. And the hospitalists as a group should usually make some effort to avoid never consulting a particular provider or group, as that could lead the “blackballed” doctor or group to complain enough that the medical staff or hospital leadership might force the hospitalists to follow the ED call roster when choosing referrals.

The number of physicians seeking hospital employment, which is steadily increasing these days, will in many settings increase sensitivities around referral patterns. For example, if your hospital has had three competing general surgery groups and one chooses to become hospital-employed, then the other two groups are likely to worry a lot that the hospitalists might be directed by the hospital to preferentially refer to the newly employed surgeons. Even if your hospitalist group has never had any sort of encouragement to do this, it could be very hard to convince the non-hospital-employed surgeons of this. This could become such a sensitive issue that it might be necessary to carefully track the number of referrals to each surgical group.

And to prevent arguments like “You just consult us on the bad or uninsured patients,” you might also need to track the nature of the patient’s problem and insurance status, and whether the referral led to a procedure. The best approach will be to try to prevent these sorts of things from coming up by maintaining good communication and relations with other physician groups and thinking deliberately about your referral patterns. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I like to ask laypeople what they think “hospitalist” means. For years, I was confident that they had never heard the term, but now my question is more often met with an accurate response.

A hotel desk clerk in 1998 actually made one of the cleverest guesses I’ve ever heard. For the whole day, she and her colleagues had in front of them a sign that read “Hospitalist Meeting in the Ballroom,” which got them talking about what in the world a hospitalist is. Seeing from my badge that I was attending that meeting, she asked me what the term meant, but she first gamely provided her best guess: “Someone who makes lists of hospitals.”

There seems to be no end to the number of healthcare-related nouns and verbs to which someone attaches the suffix “ist.” Some days I request so many consults that I’m just a “referralist” (one who refers patients; surely this is a term we can do without). But don’t let the headline of this column confuse you: I really am addressing the lists used to determine which doctor to refer patients to.

Hospitalist Referrals

The first of two common referral lists for hospitalists is a directory of primary-care physicians (PCPs) and clinics, as well as some other providers that refer patients to the hospitalist. Nearly all hospitalist groups maintain such a list, and they might apply a variety of terms such as “subscriber” (which refers to hospitalists) and “nonsubscriber” physicians.

Because most HM groups care for patients who come from all or nearly all of the PCPs in an area, it is often simpler to just create a short list of those providers who don’t refer to the hospitalists. In many hospitals, there are just four or five providers on that list. ED providers are the ones who most often access this list. When visiting other hospitals, I often see a paper copy of the list taped up at the provider workstations in the ED.

Consult Who?

The other, and much less common, type of referral list governs which doctors the hospitalists are to consult. There are two strategies that come up when thinking about this kind of list.

Do what the ED doctors do. ED physicians typically are constrained by the list of on-call physicians for each specialty, and are to always consult that doctor rather than another. For example, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Taylor for any patient in need of a general surgeon and doesn’t have a prior relationship with one. Tomorrow, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Simon. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Simon are to be contacted because they are the ones on call for the ED those days. Even if the ED doctor would rather consult Dr. Simon today (maybe she is more able, affable, and available than Dr. Taylor), that isn’t an option, because it is Dr. Taylor’s name on the ED on-call roster today.

Each PCP creates a referral list for hospitalists to follow. New hospitalist practices often agree to follow the consulting patterns of each referring PCP. This can increase PCP acceptance of the HM model, and after all, the GI doctor consulted by the hospitalist during the few days in the hospital is the same one who will be working with the PCP when the patient has outpatient issues requiring GI specialty care. This usually means that the hospitalist carries a list of each PCP, and which GI doctor, orthopedist, etc., that particular PCP likes to consult. When the hospitalist needs an ortho consult, she first verifies the PCP this patient sees, then pulls out the list to see the orthopedist(s) that PCP prefers.

In most settings, either form of a mandated referral list is a poor system for hospitalists and is best avoided. Instead, the hospitalists should be free to deviate from the ED call list as they see fit. And while they should be attentive to the consulting preferences of each PCP, it is best not to promise the PCPs that their preference will always be followed. Providing the hospitalists this latitude means they can tailor the choice of consultant to the patient’s needs and the level of service (i.e. able, affable, available) each provides. And, at least in theory, when there are competing providers in a given specialty, they will have an incentive to provide better service to the hospitalist as a way of ensuring future referrals.

Practical Considerations

Even though I think it is optimal for hospitalists to have a lot of latitude in which doctors they consult, there are some practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, if the patient’s PCP is in a group that also has surgeons, it will be best to call one of them, and not a competing surgeon, when the patient has surgical needs. And the hospitalists as a group should usually make some effort to avoid never consulting a particular provider or group, as that could lead the “blackballed” doctor or group to complain enough that the medical staff or hospital leadership might force the hospitalists to follow the ED call roster when choosing referrals.

The number of physicians seeking hospital employment, which is steadily increasing these days, will in many settings increase sensitivities around referral patterns. For example, if your hospital has had three competing general surgery groups and one chooses to become hospital-employed, then the other two groups are likely to worry a lot that the hospitalists might be directed by the hospital to preferentially refer to the newly employed surgeons. Even if your hospitalist group has never had any sort of encouragement to do this, it could be very hard to convince the non-hospital-employed surgeons of this. This could become such a sensitive issue that it might be necessary to carefully track the number of referrals to each surgical group.

And to prevent arguments like “You just consult us on the bad or uninsured patients,” you might also need to track the nature of the patient’s problem and insurance status, and whether the referral led to a procedure. The best approach will be to try to prevent these sorts of things from coming up by maintaining good communication and relations with other physician groups and thinking deliberately about your referral patterns. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I like to ask laypeople what they think “hospitalist” means. For years, I was confident that they had never heard the term, but now my question is more often met with an accurate response.

A hotel desk clerk in 1998 actually made one of the cleverest guesses I’ve ever heard. For the whole day, she and her colleagues had in front of them a sign that read “Hospitalist Meeting in the Ballroom,” which got them talking about what in the world a hospitalist is. Seeing from my badge that I was attending that meeting, she asked me what the term meant, but she first gamely provided her best guess: “Someone who makes lists of hospitals.”

There seems to be no end to the number of healthcare-related nouns and verbs to which someone attaches the suffix “ist.” Some days I request so many consults that I’m just a “referralist” (one who refers patients; surely this is a term we can do without). But don’t let the headline of this column confuse you: I really am addressing the lists used to determine which doctor to refer patients to.

Hospitalist Referrals

The first of two common referral lists for hospitalists is a directory of primary-care physicians (PCPs) and clinics, as well as some other providers that refer patients to the hospitalist. Nearly all hospitalist groups maintain such a list, and they might apply a variety of terms such as “subscriber” (which refers to hospitalists) and “nonsubscriber” physicians.

Because most HM groups care for patients who come from all or nearly all of the PCPs in an area, it is often simpler to just create a short list of those providers who don’t refer to the hospitalists. In many hospitals, there are just four or five providers on that list. ED providers are the ones who most often access this list. When visiting other hospitals, I often see a paper copy of the list taped up at the provider workstations in the ED.

Consult Who?

The other, and much less common, type of referral list governs which doctors the hospitalists are to consult. There are two strategies that come up when thinking about this kind of list.

Do what the ED doctors do. ED physicians typically are constrained by the list of on-call physicians for each specialty, and are to always consult that doctor rather than another. For example, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Taylor for any patient in need of a general surgeon and doesn’t have a prior relationship with one. Tomorrow, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Simon. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Simon are to be contacted because they are the ones on call for the ED those days. Even if the ED doctor would rather consult Dr. Simon today (maybe she is more able, affable, and available than Dr. Taylor), that isn’t an option, because it is Dr. Taylor’s name on the ED on-call roster today.

Each PCP creates a referral list for hospitalists to follow. New hospitalist practices often agree to follow the consulting patterns of each referring PCP. This can increase PCP acceptance of the HM model, and after all, the GI doctor consulted by the hospitalist during the few days in the hospital is the same one who will be working with the PCP when the patient has outpatient issues requiring GI specialty care. This usually means that the hospitalist carries a list of each PCP, and which GI doctor, orthopedist, etc., that particular PCP likes to consult. When the hospitalist needs an ortho consult, she first verifies the PCP this patient sees, then pulls out the list to see the orthopedist(s) that PCP prefers.

In most settings, either form of a mandated referral list is a poor system for hospitalists and is best avoided. Instead, the hospitalists should be free to deviate from the ED call list as they see fit. And while they should be attentive to the consulting preferences of each PCP, it is best not to promise the PCPs that their preference will always be followed. Providing the hospitalists this latitude means they can tailor the choice of consultant to the patient’s needs and the level of service (i.e. able, affable, available) each provides. And, at least in theory, when there are competing providers in a given specialty, they will have an incentive to provide better service to the hospitalist as a way of ensuring future referrals.

Practical Considerations

Even though I think it is optimal for hospitalists to have a lot of latitude in which doctors they consult, there are some practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, if the patient’s PCP is in a group that also has surgeons, it will be best to call one of them, and not a competing surgeon, when the patient has surgical needs. And the hospitalists as a group should usually make some effort to avoid never consulting a particular provider or group, as that could lead the “blackballed” doctor or group to complain enough that the medical staff or hospital leadership might force the hospitalists to follow the ED call roster when choosing referrals.

The number of physicians seeking hospital employment, which is steadily increasing these days, will in many settings increase sensitivities around referral patterns. For example, if your hospital has had three competing general surgery groups and one chooses to become hospital-employed, then the other two groups are likely to worry a lot that the hospitalists might be directed by the hospital to preferentially refer to the newly employed surgeons. Even if your hospitalist group has never had any sort of encouragement to do this, it could be very hard to convince the non-hospital-employed surgeons of this. This could become such a sensitive issue that it might be necessary to carefully track the number of referrals to each surgical group.

And to prevent arguments like “You just consult us on the bad or uninsured patients,” you might also need to track the nature of the patient’s problem and insurance status, and whether the referral led to a procedure. The best approach will be to try to prevent these sorts of things from coming up by maintaining good communication and relations with other physician groups and thinking deliberately about your referral patterns. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Different forms of trauma can cause posttraumatic stress disorder in children, whether from an objective event like a car crash or sports injury to trauma involving loved ones, such as domestic violence, abuse, or neglect.

Pediatricians can help by routinely screening for dysfunction and by asking questions at annual well-child visits. Overt symptoms include fear related to the trauma such as avoiding the traumatic setting or activity. Less specific symptoms include anxiety, avoidance, social isolation, depression, and low self-esteem.

If a standard screen such as the Pediatric Symptom Checklist or another instrument reveals psychosocial dysfunction, you have to determine the cause of dysfunction, and PTSD should certainly be considered.

Is there family discord leading to violence in the home? If you suspect PTSD, ask a child what happened and why he or she thinks it happened. Determine if the child is blaming himself or herself in any way. Is the child grieving following a permanent injury and/or loss of a loved one? How have the parents discussed any traumatic event with the child? Do the parents feel traumatized by the child's experience?

If PTSD is a possibility, ask if the child is experiencing flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, and/or any related anxiety.

Some symptoms are expected after a traumatic event or following cancer or critical care treatment experienced as traumatic. Most children and adolescents overcome the fear of riding in a car or playing the sport that resulted in the trauma.

However, symptoms that persist for a month or more, with avoidance and associated anxiety, are core to the diagnosis of PTSD. The anxiety can build and be self-reinforcing so as to interfere with daily functioning. At this point, consider referral to a mental health specialist, preferably one with some experience in PTSD treatment. A specialist can help the patient overcome his or her anxiety and return to functioning through cognitive and behavioral techniques such as reframing the events, dealing with any guilt, and staged exposure to the anxiety.

If one of your patients experienced a car crash or other major trauma, you will likely know about it, already be treating the child, and should be planning to monitor them for signs of PTSD. In contrast, detection of subtle PTSD is more challenging, particularly if the trauma is unknown or occurred years ago. Trauma related to domestic violence or sexual abuse first requires consideration of this possibility and then gentle, empathic, and persistent questioning.

Triggers for reliving/reexperiencing the trauma also can be straightforward. For example, a child who gets into a car with a similar interior design years after a crash can immediately experience and emotionally return to the trauma. Other triggers are less obvious, such as a teenage girl who was held down and forced to have sex against her will, who later feels constrained by tight clothing and immediately relives the fear and anguish.

Like many presentations in pediatrics, management of PTSD depends on the developmental stage of the child, including his or her cognitive abilities and emotional state. For example, infants or toddlers might not be able to make much sense of what is happening when they witness domestic violence. Terror, fear, and confusion are their most likely reactions.

School-age children aged 5–8 years would not fully understand either, but they will try to make some sense of the domestic violence. Assuming no one reassures them otherwise, they also may feel that something they did sparked or contributed to the violence. For example, if they overhear arguments around issues in the family and hear their name mentioned, they may quickly assume that they are the cause of the domestic violence. This can lead to feelings of guilt, self-criticism, and unworthiness.

Adolescents will experience some of the same reactions as younger children. They will still experience shock, even if they are better equipped to conceptualize the domestic violence. Some will feel powerless because they cannot end the strife, particularly at a time when they are supposed to have more control over the real world. Teens might feel they have not lived up to expectations and perceive some blame. Others may choose to flee, find support through friends, and/or may deal with their feelings using substances.

Act when you encounter a patient who feels very guilty about parental fighting or who justifies abuse because he feels worthless or was told repeatedly he was a bad child. Help him realize he was not responsible for the conflict and that no one deserves abuse. Discuss other, more realistic possibilities for the family paradigm.

These are not easy conversations. Some pediatricians will feel comfortable working at this depth, others will prefer to refer.

Healing from PTSD related to family violence, sexual abuse, or criminal activity is a several-step process. As one's sense of guilt diminishes, other emotions such as anger at not being better protected or valued need to be addressed. Finally, there needs to be some grieving for what was lacking and some acceptance of what was possible. This is not a simple process; however, it is worthwhile because if their PTSD remains untreated, there is a greater likelihood they will continue to relive traumatic memories as adults.

There is some controversy as to whether talking through the traumatic event over and over truly helps. Some clinicians feel that a certain amount of supportive discussion in a calm way makes sense, especially early. But solely repeating the details of the event may re-traumatize the child and intensify negative feelings, especially if the memories are very vivid.

Cognitive and behavioral approaches can help the child reframe their trauma. An example is exposure therapy, where the child is carefully reexposed to the trauma in stages while they learn to reframe and diminish the intensity of the experience. Often, ideas about the trauma come out that can be examined objectively to try to lessen some of those traumatic feelings.

Exposure therapy also can incorporate gradual steps to help the child overcome their fear. If a person survived a plane crash, the first step might be to take him or her to the airport, then to board an airplane without taking off, and so forth. This approach reintroduces the trauma without eliciting a full response. You don't want the brain to go on “red alert” again. In a state of hyperarousal, reliving the trauma may do more harm than good.

The terrified moments that children experience during a traumatic sequence tend to get burned into their memories much more strongly than everyday events. A school-age child might remember nothing about an uneventful trip in the car, but if a traumatic accident happens, often she remembers almost every detail. She recalls descriptive elements of what happened as well as the emotional fright or anguish very vividly.

Sometimes vivid, traumatic memories will enter your patient's mind spontaneously without him knowing why. In other cases, there are triggers. Sometimes these flashbacks arise shortly following trauma and sometimes they take years.

Pediatricians can do their patients and families a service if they are aware of PTSD either after an overt event like a car accident or by considering trauma in an anxious or dysfunctional child.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Different forms of trauma can cause posttraumatic stress disorder in children, whether from an objective event like a car crash or sports injury to trauma involving loved ones, such as domestic violence, abuse, or neglect.

Pediatricians can help by routinely screening for dysfunction and by asking questions at annual well-child visits. Overt symptoms include fear related to the trauma such as avoiding the traumatic setting or activity. Less specific symptoms include anxiety, avoidance, social isolation, depression, and low self-esteem.

If a standard screen such as the Pediatric Symptom Checklist or another instrument reveals psychosocial dysfunction, you have to determine the cause of dysfunction, and PTSD should certainly be considered.

Is there family discord leading to violence in the home? If you suspect PTSD, ask a child what happened and why he or she thinks it happened. Determine if the child is blaming himself or herself in any way. Is the child grieving following a permanent injury and/or loss of a loved one? How have the parents discussed any traumatic event with the child? Do the parents feel traumatized by the child's experience?

If PTSD is a possibility, ask if the child is experiencing flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, and/or any related anxiety.

Some symptoms are expected after a traumatic event or following cancer or critical care treatment experienced as traumatic. Most children and adolescents overcome the fear of riding in a car or playing the sport that resulted in the trauma.

However, symptoms that persist for a month or more, with avoidance and associated anxiety, are core to the diagnosis of PTSD. The anxiety can build and be self-reinforcing so as to interfere with daily functioning. At this point, consider referral to a mental health specialist, preferably one with some experience in PTSD treatment. A specialist can help the patient overcome his or her anxiety and return to functioning through cognitive and behavioral techniques such as reframing the events, dealing with any guilt, and staged exposure to the anxiety.

If one of your patients experienced a car crash or other major trauma, you will likely know about it, already be treating the child, and should be planning to monitor them for signs of PTSD. In contrast, detection of subtle PTSD is more challenging, particularly if the trauma is unknown or occurred years ago. Trauma related to domestic violence or sexual abuse first requires consideration of this possibility and then gentle, empathic, and persistent questioning.

Triggers for reliving/reexperiencing the trauma also can be straightforward. For example, a child who gets into a car with a similar interior design years after a crash can immediately experience and emotionally return to the trauma. Other triggers are less obvious, such as a teenage girl who was held down and forced to have sex against her will, who later feels constrained by tight clothing and immediately relives the fear and anguish.

Like many presentations in pediatrics, management of PTSD depends on the developmental stage of the child, including his or her cognitive abilities and emotional state. For example, infants or toddlers might not be able to make much sense of what is happening when they witness domestic violence. Terror, fear, and confusion are their most likely reactions.

School-age children aged 5–8 years would not fully understand either, but they will try to make some sense of the domestic violence. Assuming no one reassures them otherwise, they also may feel that something they did sparked or contributed to the violence. For example, if they overhear arguments around issues in the family and hear their name mentioned, they may quickly assume that they are the cause of the domestic violence. This can lead to feelings of guilt, self-criticism, and unworthiness.

Adolescents will experience some of the same reactions as younger children. They will still experience shock, even if they are better equipped to conceptualize the domestic violence. Some will feel powerless because they cannot end the strife, particularly at a time when they are supposed to have more control over the real world. Teens might feel they have not lived up to expectations and perceive some blame. Others may choose to flee, find support through friends, and/or may deal with their feelings using substances.

Act when you encounter a patient who feels very guilty about parental fighting or who justifies abuse because he feels worthless or was told repeatedly he was a bad child. Help him realize he was not responsible for the conflict and that no one deserves abuse. Discuss other, more realistic possibilities for the family paradigm.

These are not easy conversations. Some pediatricians will feel comfortable working at this depth, others will prefer to refer.

Healing from PTSD related to family violence, sexual abuse, or criminal activity is a several-step process. As one's sense of guilt diminishes, other emotions such as anger at not being better protected or valued need to be addressed. Finally, there needs to be some grieving for what was lacking and some acceptance of what was possible. This is not a simple process; however, it is worthwhile because if their PTSD remains untreated, there is a greater likelihood they will continue to relive traumatic memories as adults.

There is some controversy as to whether talking through the traumatic event over and over truly helps. Some clinicians feel that a certain amount of supportive discussion in a calm way makes sense, especially early. But solely repeating the details of the event may re-traumatize the child and intensify negative feelings, especially if the memories are very vivid.

Cognitive and behavioral approaches can help the child reframe their trauma. An example is exposure therapy, where the child is carefully reexposed to the trauma in stages while they learn to reframe and diminish the intensity of the experience. Often, ideas about the trauma come out that can be examined objectively to try to lessen some of those traumatic feelings.

Exposure therapy also can incorporate gradual steps to help the child overcome their fear. If a person survived a plane crash, the first step might be to take him or her to the airport, then to board an airplane without taking off, and so forth. This approach reintroduces the trauma without eliciting a full response. You don't want the brain to go on “red alert” again. In a state of hyperarousal, reliving the trauma may do more harm than good.

The terrified moments that children experience during a traumatic sequence tend to get burned into their memories much more strongly than everyday events. A school-age child might remember nothing about an uneventful trip in the car, but if a traumatic accident happens, often she remembers almost every detail. She recalls descriptive elements of what happened as well as the emotional fright or anguish very vividly.

Sometimes vivid, traumatic memories will enter your patient's mind spontaneously without him knowing why. In other cases, there are triggers. Sometimes these flashbacks arise shortly following trauma and sometimes they take years.

Pediatricians can do their patients and families a service if they are aware of PTSD either after an overt event like a car accident or by considering trauma in an anxious or dysfunctional child.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Different forms of trauma can cause posttraumatic stress disorder in children, whether from an objective event like a car crash or sports injury to trauma involving loved ones, such as domestic violence, abuse, or neglect.

Pediatricians can help by routinely screening for dysfunction and by asking questions at annual well-child visits. Overt symptoms include fear related to the trauma such as avoiding the traumatic setting or activity. Less specific symptoms include anxiety, avoidance, social isolation, depression, and low self-esteem.

If a standard screen such as the Pediatric Symptom Checklist or another instrument reveals psychosocial dysfunction, you have to determine the cause of dysfunction, and PTSD should certainly be considered.

Is there family discord leading to violence in the home? If you suspect PTSD, ask a child what happened and why he or she thinks it happened. Determine if the child is blaming himself or herself in any way. Is the child grieving following a permanent injury and/or loss of a loved one? How have the parents discussed any traumatic event with the child? Do the parents feel traumatized by the child's experience?

If PTSD is a possibility, ask if the child is experiencing flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, and/or any related anxiety.

Some symptoms are expected after a traumatic event or following cancer or critical care treatment experienced as traumatic. Most children and adolescents overcome the fear of riding in a car or playing the sport that resulted in the trauma.

However, symptoms that persist for a month or more, with avoidance and associated anxiety, are core to the diagnosis of PTSD. The anxiety can build and be self-reinforcing so as to interfere with daily functioning. At this point, consider referral to a mental health specialist, preferably one with some experience in PTSD treatment. A specialist can help the patient overcome his or her anxiety and return to functioning through cognitive and behavioral techniques such as reframing the events, dealing with any guilt, and staged exposure to the anxiety.

If one of your patients experienced a car crash or other major trauma, you will likely know about it, already be treating the child, and should be planning to monitor them for signs of PTSD. In contrast, detection of subtle PTSD is more challenging, particularly if the trauma is unknown or occurred years ago. Trauma related to domestic violence or sexual abuse first requires consideration of this possibility and then gentle, empathic, and persistent questioning.

Triggers for reliving/reexperiencing the trauma also can be straightforward. For example, a child who gets into a car with a similar interior design years after a crash can immediately experience and emotionally return to the trauma. Other triggers are less obvious, such as a teenage girl who was held down and forced to have sex against her will, who later feels constrained by tight clothing and immediately relives the fear and anguish.

Like many presentations in pediatrics, management of PTSD depends on the developmental stage of the child, including his or her cognitive abilities and emotional state. For example, infants or toddlers might not be able to make much sense of what is happening when they witness domestic violence. Terror, fear, and confusion are their most likely reactions.

School-age children aged 5–8 years would not fully understand either, but they will try to make some sense of the domestic violence. Assuming no one reassures them otherwise, they also may feel that something they did sparked or contributed to the violence. For example, if they overhear arguments around issues in the family and hear their name mentioned, they may quickly assume that they are the cause of the domestic violence. This can lead to feelings of guilt, self-criticism, and unworthiness.

Adolescents will experience some of the same reactions as younger children. They will still experience shock, even if they are better equipped to conceptualize the domestic violence. Some will feel powerless because they cannot end the strife, particularly at a time when they are supposed to have more control over the real world. Teens might feel they have not lived up to expectations and perceive some blame. Others may choose to flee, find support through friends, and/or may deal with their feelings using substances.

Act when you encounter a patient who feels very guilty about parental fighting or who justifies abuse because he feels worthless or was told repeatedly he was a bad child. Help him realize he was not responsible for the conflict and that no one deserves abuse. Discuss other, more realistic possibilities for the family paradigm.

These are not easy conversations. Some pediatricians will feel comfortable working at this depth, others will prefer to refer.

Healing from PTSD related to family violence, sexual abuse, or criminal activity is a several-step process. As one's sense of guilt diminishes, other emotions such as anger at not being better protected or valued need to be addressed. Finally, there needs to be some grieving for what was lacking and some acceptance of what was possible. This is not a simple process; however, it is worthwhile because if their PTSD remains untreated, there is a greater likelihood they will continue to relive traumatic memories as adults.

There is some controversy as to whether talking through the traumatic event over and over truly helps. Some clinicians feel that a certain amount of supportive discussion in a calm way makes sense, especially early. But solely repeating the details of the event may re-traumatize the child and intensify negative feelings, especially if the memories are very vivid.

Cognitive and behavioral approaches can help the child reframe their trauma. An example is exposure therapy, where the child is carefully reexposed to the trauma in stages while they learn to reframe and diminish the intensity of the experience. Often, ideas about the trauma come out that can be examined objectively to try to lessen some of those traumatic feelings.

Exposure therapy also can incorporate gradual steps to help the child overcome their fear. If a person survived a plane crash, the first step might be to take him or her to the airport, then to board an airplane without taking off, and so forth. This approach reintroduces the trauma without eliciting a full response. You don't want the brain to go on “red alert” again. In a state of hyperarousal, reliving the trauma may do more harm than good.

The terrified moments that children experience during a traumatic sequence tend to get burned into their memories much more strongly than everyday events. A school-age child might remember nothing about an uneventful trip in the car, but if a traumatic accident happens, often she remembers almost every detail. She recalls descriptive elements of what happened as well as the emotional fright or anguish very vividly.

Sometimes vivid, traumatic memories will enter your patient's mind spontaneously without him knowing why. In other cases, there are triggers. Sometimes these flashbacks arise shortly following trauma and sometimes they take years.

Pediatricians can do their patients and families a service if they are aware of PTSD either after an overt event like a car accident or by considering trauma in an anxious or dysfunctional child.

I rent cars regularly, and only occasionally do I get the same model twice. I’m ready to roll after spending a couple of minutes becoming familiar with a car that is new to me. I adjust the seat and climate control, etc. I resist fiddling with the radio until later. This seems OK to me.

The last time I started clinical practice in a new hospital, I did almost the same thing: I jumped right in and started seeing patients. Other than being provided with my password to the computer system and a dictation code, I had no orientation at all, not even to the hospital floor plan. This, too, seemed reasonable to me at the time. Now I see it differently.

Levels of Complexity

Years ago, learning a new hospital might not have been a lot more difficult than familiarizing yourself with a new rental car, so there didn’t seem to be much need for a detailed orientation. I’m generalizing here, but if you go back far enough in time, the general idea was that it was almost entirely up to the hospital and its staff to get to know the new doctor and how he or she practiced, rather than the doctor adapting to the hospital’s way of doing things.

While at one time hospitals and their systems might have been as similar to one another as a four-door Chevy is to a four-door Ford, today’s hospitals are far more complex. The appropriate transportation analogy might be one type of airplane to another.

The basics of what keeps a two-seat Cessna and a huge 747 flying are the same, but there are so many critical differences that specific training and certification are required for each. Even an accomplished professional pilot who is an ace in a 747 isn’t automatically certified to pilot a smaller 737. In fact, few professional pilots are certified to fly more than one type of commercial airplane at a time. One way to look at this is that the orientation to the plane is so complex that one person can’t be expected to maintain a high level of familiarity with the systems and operation of more than one at a time.

EHR: A Tipping Point

The complexity and unique attributes of hospitals have been increasing steadily for decades, but it seems to me that electronic health records (EHR) represent a huge increase in complexity. No longer can a doctor simply arrive at the hospital confident in her ability to fly this new plane. She will require a reasonably detailed introduction to the hospital’s EHR as part of an orientation that should ideally take place prior to seeing patients.

I worry that it will be increasingly difficult, and potentially unwise, for a doctor in any specialty to practice at more than one or two hospitals that don’t share the same EHR. If a doctor is not proficient in the use of the EHR at a particular site, two things are likely to happen: First, and most alarmingly, the new doctor would probably unintentionally miss important information in the EHR, or might not have time to contemplate the series of buttons to click to check all potentially relevant information. For example, he might not realize the patient already had a series of blood tests, because accessing them requires some unfamiliar clicks of the mouse.

The other thing that might happen if a doctor is not proficient in the use of the hospital’s EHR is that he might be inclined to consult the hospitalist “just to cover all the bases.” In this case, that might be the same as asking the hospitalist to be involved as an EHR expert, rather than for medical expertise that the patient needs.

I practice at a hospital that recently installed a new information system, and some doctors have joked that if they can’t figure out how to use it, they will just consult a hospitalist to look up historical data, etc. I’m not aware of any study looking at this issue, but I suspect “soft” hospitalist consults increase when a hospital installs a new information system.

Rethink New Employee Orientation

I’m convinced that new doctors in all specialties that anticipate having a hospital patient volume above a predetermined threshold should be required to have a formal orientation to the hospital, especially for its information system. This is really important for hospitalists. Every practice should think carefully about a meaningful process of orientation to the hospital and the hospitalist practice itself. The latter would include things like scheduling issues, training in CPT coding, group governance and culture, etc.

My experience is that multistate hospitalist companies have pretty detailed orientation programs; for one thing, they can use this as a differentiator when marketing their services. But private hospitalist practices and groups employed by a single hospital usually have a pretty loose orientation process. It is tricky to find the sweet spot between valuable orientation activities and so much detail that the new doctor is overwhelmed or bored, and unlikely to remember much of what is presented.

And there certainly is a role for waiting to learn some things as the new doctor begins seeing patients. For example, my feeling is that a general orientation to the floor plan is sufficient and the new hire can best learn the details independently during the course of patient care. However, all hospitalists should have some reasonable level of proficiency in the EHR before seeing their first patients.

Hospital-Certified?

If you accept my premise that hospitals were once reasonably similar, like one rental car to another, but have now become as complex and different as jumbo jets, then we’re led to another question: Will we one day decide that a doctor must be certified to practice in a particular hospital by demonstrating knowledge and competence in that particular hospital’s systems and procedures?

Nearly all present-day credentialing and privileging related to a doctor’s work in a hospital focus on that doctor’s prior training and experience. In the case of pilots, there is a requirement to demonstrate proficiency when making a transition to a new airplane.

Maybe an analogous system of certification for a doctor to “fly” each hospital would be valuable for our patients. If training might not make sense for all doctors, then perhaps limit it to those, such as hospitalists, who will have a really high patient volume at the facility.

It would be dizzyingly complex to create and referee such a certification system, so I’m not sure anything like this will happen in my career. And the last thing I want is another set of bureaucratic hurdles.

But it might be worth thinking about how to ensure doctors at a particular hospital are expert enough in that hospital’s unique systems and operations. Start with your group’s orientation process. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is cofounder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I rent cars regularly, and only occasionally do I get the same model twice. I’m ready to roll after spending a couple of minutes becoming familiar with a car that is new to me. I adjust the seat and climate control, etc. I resist fiddling with the radio until later. This seems OK to me.

The last time I started clinical practice in a new hospital, I did almost the same thing: I jumped right in and started seeing patients. Other than being provided with my password to the computer system and a dictation code, I had no orientation at all, not even to the hospital floor plan. This, too, seemed reasonable to me at the time. Now I see it differently.

Levels of Complexity

Years ago, learning a new hospital might not have been a lot more difficult than familiarizing yourself with a new rental car, so there didn’t seem to be much need for a detailed orientation. I’m generalizing here, but if you go back far enough in time, the general idea was that it was almost entirely up to the hospital and its staff to get to know the new doctor and how he or she practiced, rather than the doctor adapting to the hospital’s way of doing things.

While at one time hospitals and their systems might have been as similar to one another as a four-door Chevy is to a four-door Ford, today’s hospitals are far more complex. The appropriate transportation analogy might be one type of airplane to another.

The basics of what keeps a two-seat Cessna and a huge 747 flying are the same, but there are so many critical differences that specific training and certification are required for each. Even an accomplished professional pilot who is an ace in a 747 isn’t automatically certified to pilot a smaller 737. In fact, few professional pilots are certified to fly more than one type of commercial airplane at a time. One way to look at this is that the orientation to the plane is so complex that one person can’t be expected to maintain a high level of familiarity with the systems and operation of more than one at a time.

EHR: A Tipping Point

The complexity and unique attributes of hospitals have been increasing steadily for decades, but it seems to me that electronic health records (EHR) represent a huge increase in complexity. No longer can a doctor simply arrive at the hospital confident in her ability to fly this new plane. She will require a reasonably detailed introduction to the hospital’s EHR as part of an orientation that should ideally take place prior to seeing patients.

I worry that it will be increasingly difficult, and potentially unwise, for a doctor in any specialty to practice at more than one or two hospitals that don’t share the same EHR. If a doctor is not proficient in the use of the EHR at a particular site, two things are likely to happen: First, and most alarmingly, the new doctor would probably unintentionally miss important information in the EHR, or might not have time to contemplate the series of buttons to click to check all potentially relevant information. For example, he might not realize the patient already had a series of blood tests, because accessing them requires some unfamiliar clicks of the mouse.

The other thing that might happen if a doctor is not proficient in the use of the hospital’s EHR is that he might be inclined to consult the hospitalist “just to cover all the bases.” In this case, that might be the same as asking the hospitalist to be involved as an EHR expert, rather than for medical expertise that the patient needs.

I practice at a hospital that recently installed a new information system, and some doctors have joked that if they can’t figure out how to use it, they will just consult a hospitalist to look up historical data, etc. I’m not aware of any study looking at this issue, but I suspect “soft” hospitalist consults increase when a hospital installs a new information system.

Rethink New Employee Orientation

I’m convinced that new doctors in all specialties that anticipate having a hospital patient volume above a predetermined threshold should be required to have a formal orientation to the hospital, especially for its information system. This is really important for hospitalists. Every practice should think carefully about a meaningful process of orientation to the hospital and the hospitalist practice itself. The latter would include things like scheduling issues, training in CPT coding, group governance and culture, etc.

My experience is that multistate hospitalist companies have pretty detailed orientation programs; for one thing, they can use this as a differentiator when marketing their services. But private hospitalist practices and groups employed by a single hospital usually have a pretty loose orientation process. It is tricky to find the sweet spot between valuable orientation activities and so much detail that the new doctor is overwhelmed or bored, and unlikely to remember much of what is presented.

And there certainly is a role for waiting to learn some things as the new doctor begins seeing patients. For example, my feeling is that a general orientation to the floor plan is sufficient and the new hire can best learn the details independently during the course of patient care. However, all hospitalists should have some reasonable level of proficiency in the EHR before seeing their first patients.

Hospital-Certified?

If you accept my premise that hospitals were once reasonably similar, like one rental car to another, but have now become as complex and different as jumbo jets, then we’re led to another question: Will we one day decide that a doctor must be certified to practice in a particular hospital by demonstrating knowledge and competence in that particular hospital’s systems and procedures?

Nearly all present-day credentialing and privileging related to a doctor’s work in a hospital focus on that doctor’s prior training and experience. In the case of pilots, there is a requirement to demonstrate proficiency when making a transition to a new airplane.

Maybe an analogous system of certification for a doctor to “fly” each hospital would be valuable for our patients. If training might not make sense for all doctors, then perhaps limit it to those, such as hospitalists, who will have a really high patient volume at the facility.

It would be dizzyingly complex to create and referee such a certification system, so I’m not sure anything like this will happen in my career. And the last thing I want is another set of bureaucratic hurdles.

But it might be worth thinking about how to ensure doctors at a particular hospital are expert enough in that hospital’s unique systems and operations. Start with your group’s orientation process. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is cofounder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I rent cars regularly, and only occasionally do I get the same model twice. I’m ready to roll after spending a couple of minutes becoming familiar with a car that is new to me. I adjust the seat and climate control, etc. I resist fiddling with the radio until later. This seems OK to me.

The last time I started clinical practice in a new hospital, I did almost the same thing: I jumped right in and started seeing patients. Other than being provided with my password to the computer system and a dictation code, I had no orientation at all, not even to the hospital floor plan. This, too, seemed reasonable to me at the time. Now I see it differently.

Levels of Complexity

Years ago, learning a new hospital might not have been a lot more difficult than familiarizing yourself with a new rental car, so there didn’t seem to be much need for a detailed orientation. I’m generalizing here, but if you go back far enough in time, the general idea was that it was almost entirely up to the hospital and its staff to get to know the new doctor and how he or she practiced, rather than the doctor adapting to the hospital’s way of doing things.

While at one time hospitals and their systems might have been as similar to one another as a four-door Chevy is to a four-door Ford, today’s hospitals are far more complex. The appropriate transportation analogy might be one type of airplane to another.

The basics of what keeps a two-seat Cessna and a huge 747 flying are the same, but there are so many critical differences that specific training and certification are required for each. Even an accomplished professional pilot who is an ace in a 747 isn’t automatically certified to pilot a smaller 737. In fact, few professional pilots are certified to fly more than one type of commercial airplane at a time. One way to look at this is that the orientation to the plane is so complex that one person can’t be expected to maintain a high level of familiarity with the systems and operation of more than one at a time.

EHR: A Tipping Point

The complexity and unique attributes of hospitals have been increasing steadily for decades, but it seems to me that electronic health records (EHR) represent a huge increase in complexity. No longer can a doctor simply arrive at the hospital confident in her ability to fly this new plane. She will require a reasonably detailed introduction to the hospital’s EHR as part of an orientation that should ideally take place prior to seeing patients.

I worry that it will be increasingly difficult, and potentially unwise, for a doctor in any specialty to practice at more than one or two hospitals that don’t share the same EHR. If a doctor is not proficient in the use of the EHR at a particular site, two things are likely to happen: First, and most alarmingly, the new doctor would probably unintentionally miss important information in the EHR, or might not have time to contemplate the series of buttons to click to check all potentially relevant information. For example, he might not realize the patient already had a series of blood tests, because accessing them requires some unfamiliar clicks of the mouse.

The other thing that might happen if a doctor is not proficient in the use of the hospital’s EHR is that he might be inclined to consult the hospitalist “just to cover all the bases.” In this case, that might be the same as asking the hospitalist to be involved as an EHR expert, rather than for medical expertise that the patient needs.

I practice at a hospital that recently installed a new information system, and some doctors have joked that if they can’t figure out how to use it, they will just consult a hospitalist to look up historical data, etc. I’m not aware of any study looking at this issue, but I suspect “soft” hospitalist consults increase when a hospital installs a new information system.

Rethink New Employee Orientation

I’m convinced that new doctors in all specialties that anticipate having a hospital patient volume above a predetermined threshold should be required to have a formal orientation to the hospital, especially for its information system. This is really important for hospitalists. Every practice should think carefully about a meaningful process of orientation to the hospital and the hospitalist practice itself. The latter would include things like scheduling issues, training in CPT coding, group governance and culture, etc.

My experience is that multistate hospitalist companies have pretty detailed orientation programs; for one thing, they can use this as a differentiator when marketing their services. But private hospitalist practices and groups employed by a single hospital usually have a pretty loose orientation process. It is tricky to find the sweet spot between valuable orientation activities and so much detail that the new doctor is overwhelmed or bored, and unlikely to remember much of what is presented.

And there certainly is a role for waiting to learn some things as the new doctor begins seeing patients. For example, my feeling is that a general orientation to the floor plan is sufficient and the new hire can best learn the details independently during the course of patient care. However, all hospitalists should have some reasonable level of proficiency in the EHR before seeing their first patients.

Hospital-Certified?

If you accept my premise that hospitals were once reasonably similar, like one rental car to another, but have now become as complex and different as jumbo jets, then we’re led to another question: Will we one day decide that a doctor must be certified to practice in a particular hospital by demonstrating knowledge and competence in that particular hospital’s systems and procedures?

Nearly all present-day credentialing and privileging related to a doctor’s work in a hospital focus on that doctor’s prior training and experience. In the case of pilots, there is a requirement to demonstrate proficiency when making a transition to a new airplane.

Maybe an analogous system of certification for a doctor to “fly” each hospital would be valuable for our patients. If training might not make sense for all doctors, then perhaps limit it to those, such as hospitalists, who will have a really high patient volume at the facility.

It would be dizzyingly complex to create and referee such a certification system, so I’m not sure anything like this will happen in my career. And the last thing I want is another set of bureaucratic hurdles.

But it might be worth thinking about how to ensure doctors at a particular hospital are expert enough in that hospital’s unique systems and operations. Start with your group’s orientation process. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is cofounder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Despite never advancing his musical tastes beyond the arena bands of the 1970s and ’80s (think Def Leppard), Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, has done a great job in securing informative and meaningful research and opinion for the journal. Did you see read the July/August 2010 issue of JHM? It is a great example of content uniquely relevant to hospitalists: several original research articles documenting how hospitalists spend their time. Anyone thinking about the best way to organize and operate a hospitalist practice should read through these studies, along with one published by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues in the March/April 2006 issue.¹ But as a service, I’ll provide a CliffsNotes version of them, along with some comments here.

Time-Motion Studies

What all the studies demonstrate is that academic hospitalists spend only about 15% to 20% of their time in direct patient care, generally defined as time spent taking a patient’s history and examination, meeting with families, etc. Indirect patient care, such as time spent reviewing records, documenting, and communicating with consultants and other patient care staff, consumes about 60% to 70% of their time. The remainder of time is spent in transit (around 7% of each day) and in personal activities.

Remember, all these studies reported on academic hospitalists in large academic medical centers. As noted in the discussion sections, the results in nonteaching community hospitals might be different. My guess is that community hospitalists spend about the same portion of time in the broad categories above, but the individual activities within each category might differ. So I’m willing to believe that these studies tell us something about the majority of hospitalists who practice outside of academia.

90 Minutes of Doctoring?

While the JHM studies assess hospitalist time in a number of different categories, I think it makes the most sense to divide our time into just two categories: “real doctoring” and other. We’ll probably never see a study that divides hospitalists’ time that way, as there would be endless debate about what is and isn’t real doctoring. But it is worth thinking about your work this way.

A lot of what the studies generally defined as indirect patient care is still “real doctoring.” Things like reviewing old records are critically important and typically can’t be done adequately by a nonclinician. But the 10 minutes you spent to get the CD of outside X-rays to show up on your computer, and rearranging the faxed pages so they’re all oriented the same way and in order, are not a good use of your time; a clerical person could do it.

I periodically have an experience that makes me think I spend too much time on patients’ social issues (e.g. long conversations about why Medicare won’t pay for a patient’s skilled nursing facility stay) and too little on “real doctoring.” One such experience is when I have a patient with an unusual pulmonary infiltrate and the radiologist is able to generate a much more comprehensive differential diagnosis than I can. This is embarrassing. Maybe the radiologist is just smarter than I am, but I think it could be because, compared to me, he spends more of his time every day thinking about “real medicine,” such as pulmonary diseases, and less time dealing with nonclinical issues.

Even though we’re paid for a full day’s work, I suspect many hospitalists might spend only about 90 minutes a day immersed in thought about “real medicine,” while doctors in most other specialties probably spend a lot more. If I’m right, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that after practicing for many years, the radiologist who spends several hours a day exercising his fund of medical knowledge probably has more command of some clinical things than a hospitalist who does so only 90 minutes a day. Actively practicing as a hospitalist might not be as effective a method of maintaining proficiency as it is in other specialties. More than many other specialties, we need to rely on self-study and continuing education courses to prevent erosion of our knowledge base.

I’ve just made up this 90-minute figure. I have no idea how accurate it might be, and, the JHM studies don’t offer a lot of insight either. Clearly, it varies a lot by individual doctor and practice setting. How much of your day do you think you spend on “real doctoring” vs. other activities?

What really matters is whether we’ve ended up with too much work that isn’t “real doctoring.” Sure, all of the work needs to be done, but the system isn’t served best when paying a doctor to do work a less expensive person could do.

Max “Doctoring” Time

I think most hospitalists, including me, are stuck spending too much time on activities that don’t add value. For example, while complete and informative documentation is essential, most of us probably spend too much time on it, in part because we’re trying to immunize against lawsuits and ensure our documentation matches the relevant coding regulations.

I think hospitalists have a communication burden that is higher than that of most other specialties. The JHM article by Tipping and colleagues notes that a time-motion study of ED doctors (Ann Emerg Med. 1998:31(1):87-91) found that they spent 13% of their time communicating with other providers and staff, compared with their finding that hospitalists spent 26% of their time communicating.² Only a portion of this communication is real doctoring. Discussing patient management with a surgeon is, but spending 20 minutes figuring out which surgeon is on call and how to reach her isn’t.

Tipping’s study also found that when patient census was above average, hospitalists spent less time communicating and documenting in the electronic record, even though the total time spent working on those days increased. Of course, it is possible that when the patient census is below average, we just work more slowly and let work fill the time available, and the reduced time spent documenting and communicating when busy simply reflects working more efficiently. But I suspect that when our patient census climbs above a certain point, or we’re made less efficient by things like implementing a new technology, we compensate in part by relying on consultants more to do the real doctoring we would otherwise be doing and communicating with them less.

All of us should be thinking about ways to make communication as efficient as possible so that we can spend less time doing it. I’m hopeful that we will figure out new ways to communicate (e-mail, text, IM, etc.) that are quicker and just as effective in certain situations.

Coda

I try to write most of my columns in a way that minimizes the editorializing and maximizes the practical advice. This month is an exception; it’s all editorializing. But I do have some advice for Dr. Williams: Investigate music options other than the arena bands of the 1980s. Try something like Alison Krauss’ live album or Puccini’s opera Gianni Schicchi, which has the beautiful aria O mio babbino caro.

Or do what I do: Ask former SHM board member Brad Flansbaum, MD, SFHM, for advice. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

References

1. O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Baker DW. How hospitalists spend their time: insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93.
2. Tipping MD, Forth VE, O’Leary KJ, et al. Where did the day go? A time-motion study of hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):323-328.

Despite never advancing his musical tastes beyond the arena bands of the 1970s and ’80s (think Def Leppard), Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, has done a great job in securing informative and meaningful research and opinion for the journal. Did you see read the July/August 2010 issue of JHM? It is a great example of content uniquely relevant to hospitalists: several original research articles documenting how hospitalists spend their time. Anyone thinking about the best way to organize and operate a hospitalist practice should read through these studies, along with one published by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues in the March/April 2006 issue.¹ But as a service, I’ll provide a CliffsNotes version of them, along with some comments here.

Time-Motion Studies

What all the studies demonstrate is that academic hospitalists spend only about 15% to 20% of their time in direct patient care, generally defined as time spent taking a patient’s history and examination, meeting with families, etc. Indirect patient care, such as time spent reviewing records, documenting, and communicating with consultants and other patient care staff, consumes about 60% to 70% of their time. The remainder of time is spent in transit (around 7% of each day) and in personal activities.

Remember, all these studies reported on academic hospitalists in large academic medical centers. As noted in the discussion sections, the results in nonteaching community hospitals might be different. My guess is that community hospitalists spend about the same portion of time in the broad categories above, but the individual activities within each category might differ. So I’m willing to believe that these studies tell us something about the majority of hospitalists who practice outside of academia.

90 Minutes of Doctoring?

While the JHM studies assess hospitalist time in a number of different categories, I think it makes the most sense to divide our time into just two categories: “real doctoring” and other. We’ll probably never see a study that divides hospitalists’ time that way, as there would be endless debate about what is and isn’t real doctoring. But it is worth thinking about your work this way.

A lot of what the studies generally defined as indirect patient care is still “real doctoring.” Things like reviewing old records are critically important and typically can’t be done adequately by a nonclinician. But the 10 minutes you spent to get the CD of outside X-rays to show up on your computer, and rearranging the faxed pages so they’re all oriented the same way and in order, are not a good use of your time; a clerical person could do it.

I periodically have an experience that makes me think I spend too much time on patients’ social issues (e.g. long conversations about why Medicare won’t pay for a patient’s skilled nursing facility stay) and too little on “real doctoring.” One such experience is when I have a patient with an unusual pulmonary infiltrate and the radiologist is able to generate a much more comprehensive differential diagnosis than I can. This is embarrassing. Maybe the radiologist is just smarter than I am, but I think it could be because, compared to me, he spends more of his time every day thinking about “real medicine,” such as pulmonary diseases, and less time dealing with nonclinical issues.

Even though we’re paid for a full day’s work, I suspect many hospitalists might spend only about 90 minutes a day immersed in thought about “real medicine,” while doctors in most other specialties probably spend a lot more. If I’m right, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that after practicing for many years, the radiologist who spends several hours a day exercising his fund of medical knowledge probably has more command of some clinical things than a hospitalist who does so only 90 minutes a day. Actively practicing as a hospitalist might not be as effective a method of maintaining proficiency as it is in other specialties. More than many other specialties, we need to rely on self-study and continuing education courses to prevent erosion of our knowledge base.

I’ve just made up this 90-minute figure. I have no idea how accurate it might be, and, the JHM studies don’t offer a lot of insight either. Clearly, it varies a lot by individual doctor and practice setting. How much of your day do you think you spend on “real doctoring” vs. other activities?

What really matters is whether we’ve ended up with too much work that isn’t “real doctoring.” Sure, all of the work needs to be done, but the system isn’t served best when paying a doctor to do work a less expensive person could do.

Max “Doctoring” Time

I think most hospitalists, including me, are stuck spending too much time on activities that don’t add value. For example, while complete and informative documentation is essential, most of us probably spend too much time on it, in part because we’re trying to immunize against lawsuits and ensure our documentation matches the relevant coding regulations.

I think hospitalists have a communication burden that is higher than that of most other specialties. The JHM article by Tipping and colleagues notes that a time-motion study of ED doctors (Ann Emerg Med. 1998:31(1):87-91) found that they spent 13% of their time communicating with other providers and staff, compared with their finding that hospitalists spent 26% of their time communicating.² Only a portion of this communication is real doctoring. Discussing patient management with a surgeon is, but spending 20 minutes figuring out which surgeon is on call and how to reach her isn’t.

Tipping’s study also found that when patient census was above average, hospitalists spent less time communicating and documenting in the electronic record, even though the total time spent working on those days increased. Of course, it is possible that when the patient census is below average, we just work more slowly and let work fill the time available, and the reduced time spent documenting and communicating when busy simply reflects working more efficiently. But I suspect that when our patient census climbs above a certain point, or we’re made less efficient by things like implementing a new technology, we compensate in part by relying on consultants more to do the real doctoring we would otherwise be doing and communicating with them less.

All of us should be thinking about ways to make communication as efficient as possible so that we can spend less time doing it. I’m hopeful that we will figure out new ways to communicate (e-mail, text, IM, etc.) that are quicker and just as effective in certain situations.

Coda

I try to write most of my columns in a way that minimizes the editorializing and maximizes the practical advice. This month is an exception; it’s all editorializing. But I do have some advice for Dr. Williams: Investigate music options other than the arena bands of the 1980s. Try something like Alison Krauss’ live album or Puccini’s opera Gianni Schicchi, which has the beautiful aria O mio babbino caro.

Or do what I do: Ask former SHM board member Brad Flansbaum, MD, SFHM, for advice. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

References

1. O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Baker DW. How hospitalists spend their time: insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93.
2. Tipping MD, Forth VE, O’Leary KJ, et al. Where did the day go? A time-motion study of hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):323-328.

Despite never advancing his musical tastes beyond the arena bands of the 1970s and ’80s (think Def Leppard), Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, has done a great job in securing informative and meaningful research and opinion for the journal. Did you see read the July/August 2010 issue of JHM? It is a great example of content uniquely relevant to hospitalists: several original research articles documenting how hospitalists spend their time. Anyone thinking about the best way to organize and operate a hospitalist practice should read through these studies, along with one published by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues in the March/April 2006 issue.¹ But as a service, I’ll provide a CliffsNotes version of them, along with some comments here.

Time-Motion Studies

What all the studies demonstrate is that academic hospitalists spend only about 15% to 20% of their time in direct patient care, generally defined as time spent taking a patient’s history and examination, meeting with families, etc. Indirect patient care, such as time spent reviewing records, documenting, and communicating with consultants and other patient care staff, consumes about 60% to 70% of their time. The remainder of time is spent in transit (around 7% of each day) and in personal activities.

Remember, all these studies reported on academic hospitalists in large academic medical centers. As noted in the discussion sections, the results in nonteaching community hospitals might be different. My guess is that community hospitalists spend about the same portion of time in the broad categories above, but the individual activities within each category might differ. So I’m willing to believe that these studies tell us something about the majority of hospitalists who practice outside of academia.

90 Minutes of Doctoring?

While the JHM studies assess hospitalist time in a number of different categories, I think it makes the most sense to divide our time into just two categories: “real doctoring” and other. We’ll probably never see a study that divides hospitalists’ time that way, as there would be endless debate about what is and isn’t real doctoring. But it is worth thinking about your work this way.

A lot of what the studies generally defined as indirect patient care is still “real doctoring.” Things like reviewing old records are critically important and typically can’t be done adequately by a nonclinician. But the 10 minutes you spent to get the CD of outside X-rays to show up on your computer, and rearranging the faxed pages so they’re all oriented the same way and in order, are not a good use of your time; a clerical person could do it.

I periodically have an experience that makes me think I spend too much time on patients’ social issues (e.g. long conversations about why Medicare won’t pay for a patient’s skilled nursing facility stay) and too little on “real doctoring.” One such experience is when I have a patient with an unusual pulmonary infiltrate and the radiologist is able to generate a much more comprehensive differential diagnosis than I can. This is embarrassing. Maybe the radiologist is just smarter than I am, but I think it could be because, compared to me, he spends more of his time every day thinking about “real medicine,” such as pulmonary diseases, and less time dealing with nonclinical issues.

Even though we’re paid for a full day’s work, I suspect many hospitalists might spend only about 90 minutes a day immersed in thought about “real medicine,” while doctors in most other specialties probably spend a lot more. If I’m right, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that after practicing for many years, the radiologist who spends several hours a day exercising his fund of medical knowledge probably has more command of some clinical things than a hospitalist who does so only 90 minutes a day. Actively practicing as a hospitalist might not be as effective a method of maintaining proficiency as it is in other specialties. More than many other specialties, we need to rely on self-study and continuing education courses to prevent erosion of our knowledge base.

I’ve just made up this 90-minute figure. I have no idea how accurate it might be, and, the JHM studies don’t offer a lot of insight either. Clearly, it varies a lot by individual doctor and practice setting. How much of your day do you think you spend on “real doctoring” vs. other activities?

What really matters is whether we’ve ended up with too much work that isn’t “real doctoring.” Sure, all of the work needs to be done, but the system isn’t served best when paying a doctor to do work a less expensive person could do.

Max “Doctoring” Time

I think most hospitalists, including me, are stuck spending too much time on activities that don’t add value. For example, while complete and informative documentation is essential, most of us probably spend too much time on it, in part because we’re trying to immunize against lawsuits and ensure our documentation matches the relevant coding regulations.

I think hospitalists have a communication burden that is higher than that of most other specialties. The JHM article by Tipping and colleagues notes that a time-motion study of ED doctors (Ann Emerg Med. 1998:31(1):87-91) found that they spent 13% of their time communicating with other providers and staff, compared with their finding that hospitalists spent 26% of their time communicating.² Only a portion of this communication is real doctoring. Discussing patient management with a surgeon is, but spending 20 minutes figuring out which surgeon is on call and how to reach her isn’t.

Tipping’s study also found that when patient census was above average, hospitalists spent less time communicating and documenting in the electronic record, even though the total time spent working on those days increased. Of course, it is possible that when the patient census is below average, we just work more slowly and let work fill the time available, and the reduced time spent documenting and communicating when busy simply reflects working more efficiently. But I suspect that when our patient census climbs above a certain point, or we’re made less efficient by things like implementing a new technology, we compensate in part by relying on consultants more to do the real doctoring we would otherwise be doing and communicating with them less.

All of us should be thinking about ways to make communication as efficient as possible so that we can spend less time doing it. I’m hopeful that we will figure out new ways to communicate (e-mail, text, IM, etc.) that are quicker and just as effective in certain situations.

Coda

I try to write most of my columns in a way that minimizes the editorializing and maximizes the practical advice. This month is an exception; it’s all editorializing. But I do have some advice for Dr. Williams: Investigate music options other than the arena bands of the 1980s. Try something like Alison Krauss’ live album or Puccini’s opera Gianni Schicchi, which has the beautiful aria O mio babbino caro.

Or do what I do: Ask former SHM board member Brad Flansbaum, MD, SFHM, for advice. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

References

1. O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Baker DW. How hospitalists spend their time: insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93.
2. Tipping MD, Forth VE, O’Leary KJ, et al. Where did the day go? A time-motion study of hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):323-328.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Adolescent substance use is a big, difficult issue. Alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana – and to a lesser extent, cocaine – are endemic to most high schools.

It's not at all unusual for high school juniors and seniors to drink or even to binge drink. In addition, about 15%-20% of them smoke cigarettes, depending on the community, and probably more than that try or intermittently smoke marijuana.

One approach is to educate parents about which children may be at higher risk for substance use.

For example, most teenagers are at some risk and need to be watched for any high-risk activities, especially drinking and driving or riding in a car with a friend who has been drinking. If parents begin to see a serious problem – such as binge drinking every weekend, obvious use of marijuana on a regular basis, or obvious use of cocaine – take it very seriously. Talk with patients and parents, and provide a referral for services as indicated.

Other kids might be at slightly higher risk in high school, based on their achievements. A good athlete who joins the varsity team in 9th or 10th grade, or the talented 9th-grader who lands the lead in the high school play, tend to spend more time with juniors and seniors. They get invited to parties and events outside their peer groups. Without the judgment of an older child and while trying to “keep up,” they might be more vulnerable to problematic substance use. The difference between a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old is enormous, and the peer pressure of being with seniors is considerable.

Recognize that some kids start high school already predisposed and at quite high risk for substance use problems: A patient with biologic or genetic risk factors; a patient with untreated depression or anxiety; and/or an adolescent with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are examples.

Left unaddressed, these kids are predisposed to earlier and more serious substance use. Some children with genetic and/or biological risk factors begin drinking heavily before their 14th birthday. In contrast, the typical age of onset for alcohol use includes some experimentation at 15 or 16 years that becomes binge drinking for some a year or two later.

Biology predisposes some adolescents to nicotine addiction or heavy use of marijuana or alcohol. While adolescent brains are in development and experience the expected stress of puberty and building an identity, some teenagers' brains may be more susceptible to addiction than others. In addition, genetics and environment can play a role, evidenced by the higher risks for children whose parents have a personal or family history of substance use problems. If there is a strong history of alcoholism in the family or if a parent is a recovering alcoholic, discuss with parents how their past might influence how they treat their teenager. Advise them what information should be shared to alert the teenager to the potential risks. It might help a child at age 12 or 13 to know that he or she may be especially vulnerable to the dangers of substance use, and this may well open up an avenue of communication and trust that could be helpful later.

Anxiety and depression also have genetic roots in some patients. Asking parents about their family history of substance abuse, depression, or serious mental health disorder should be a routine part of pediatric practice.

In addition, implementing screening tests makes sense in adolescence. Such screening tests are publicly available and reviewed by the American Academy of Pediatrics Bright Futures: Mental Health effort (http://brightfutures.aap.org/3rd_Edition_Guidelines_and_Pocket_Guide.htmlwww.aap.org/pcorss/demos/mht.html

Children with ADHD make up another high-risk group. They also seem to be more vulnerable to cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. These teenagers can be driven to find relief in these substances because of brain biology and/or secondary to the stress of living with their ADHD symptoms.

On the plus side, ADHD kids treated appropriately with stimulants and support services have lower levels of substance use and probably higher self-esteem. Ensure they have the best treatment possible for their ADHD to minimize their substance use risk as much as possible.

As they become young teenagers, they should have a full review of all their ADHD treatment and how their typical day plays out at school and at home. Consider some additional preventative counseling to help these children face their substance use challenges throughout adolescence.

Offer such guidance to all children and parents, but especially to those in one of these high-risk groups. Suggest strategies that support and reinforce their resiliency. A warm, positive relationship with an adult is a protective factor. Also, kids who feel connected to a school, church, or sports team tend to be a little more resilient to some of these influences.

Facilitate open, honest communication between the parent and adolescent. Many parents might not realize that this is more effective than are attempts to control their teen's behavior 24/7. Over-control is impossible given the lifestyle of most 15-, 16- or 17-year-olds. Between cell phones, cars, and the amount of time they are out of the house, parents cannot control them to a level of stopping all substance use.

Even if more control is possible, the effort works against the adolescent's developmental trajectory toward increasing autonomy. The real goal of adolescence in our culture is to learn how to live in the real world and to prepare for autonomy as young adults. High school is a preparation for college life and adulthood where good judgment, safety, and socialization are important learned behaviors. Teaching adolescents how to navigate all this is an essential role for physicians and parents.

Part of growing autonomy is privacy. While it is tempting to invade that privacy to learn about substance use or to clarify other concerns, it is not clear that such efforts support the long-term goals of raising a teenager. Such efforts at control and investigation, including blood or urine testing, are best reserved when the benefits outweigh the risks, when there is a substance abuse problem that needs to be addressed.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Adolescent substance use is a big, difficult issue. Alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana – and to a lesser extent, cocaine – are endemic to most high schools.

It's not at all unusual for high school juniors and seniors to drink or even to binge drink. In addition, about 15%-20% of them smoke cigarettes, depending on the community, and probably more than that try or intermittently smoke marijuana.

One approach is to educate parents about which children may be at higher risk for substance use.

For example, most teenagers are at some risk and need to be watched for any high-risk activities, especially drinking and driving or riding in a car with a friend who has been drinking. If parents begin to see a serious problem – such as binge drinking every weekend, obvious use of marijuana on a regular basis, or obvious use of cocaine – take it very seriously. Talk with patients and parents, and provide a referral for services as indicated.

Other kids might be at slightly higher risk in high school, based on their achievements. A good athlete who joins the varsity team in 9th or 10th grade, or the talented 9th-grader who lands the lead in the high school play, tend to spend more time with juniors and seniors. They get invited to parties and events outside their peer groups. Without the judgment of an older child and while trying to “keep up,” they might be more vulnerable to problematic substance use. The difference between a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old is enormous, and the peer pressure of being with seniors is considerable.

Recognize that some kids start high school already predisposed and at quite high risk for substance use problems: A patient with biologic or genetic risk factors; a patient with untreated depression or anxiety; and/or an adolescent with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are examples.

Left unaddressed, these kids are predisposed to earlier and more serious substance use. Some children with genetic and/or biological risk factors begin drinking heavily before their 14th birthday. In contrast, the typical age of onset for alcohol use includes some experimentation at 15 or 16 years that becomes binge drinking for some a year or two later.

Biology predisposes some adolescents to nicotine addiction or heavy use of marijuana or alcohol. While adolescent brains are in development and experience the expected stress of puberty and building an identity, some teenagers' brains may be more susceptible to addiction than others. In addition, genetics and environment can play a role, evidenced by the higher risks for children whose parents have a personal or family history of substance use problems. If there is a strong history of alcoholism in the family or if a parent is a recovering alcoholic, discuss with parents how their past might influence how they treat their teenager. Advise them what information should be shared to alert the teenager to the potential risks. It might help a child at age 12 or 13 to know that he or she may be especially vulnerable to the dangers of substance use, and this may well open up an avenue of communication and trust that could be helpful later.

Anxiety and depression also have genetic roots in some patients. Asking parents about their family history of substance abuse, depression, or serious mental health disorder should be a routine part of pediatric practice.

In addition, implementing screening tests makes sense in adolescence. Such screening tests are publicly available and reviewed by the American Academy of Pediatrics Bright Futures: Mental Health effort (http://brightfutures.aap.org/3rd_Edition_Guidelines_and_Pocket_Guide.htmlwww.aap.org/pcorss/demos/mht.html

Children with ADHD make up another high-risk group. They also seem to be more vulnerable to cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. These teenagers can be driven to find relief in these substances because of brain biology and/or secondary to the stress of living with their ADHD symptoms.

On the plus side, ADHD kids treated appropriately with stimulants and support services have lower levels of substance use and probably higher self-esteem. Ensure they have the best treatment possible for their ADHD to minimize their substance use risk as much as possible.

As they become young teenagers, they should have a full review of all their ADHD treatment and how their typical day plays out at school and at home. Consider some additional preventative counseling to help these children face their substance use challenges throughout adolescence.

Offer such guidance to all children and parents, but especially to those in one of these high-risk groups. Suggest strategies that support and reinforce their resiliency. A warm, positive relationship with an adult is a protective factor. Also, kids who feel connected to a school, church, or sports team tend to be a little more resilient to some of these influences.

Facilitate open, honest communication between the parent and adolescent. Many parents might not realize that this is more effective than are attempts to control their teen's behavior 24/7. Over-control is impossible given the lifestyle of most 15-, 16- or 17-year-olds. Between cell phones, cars, and the amount of time they are out of the house, parents cannot control them to a level of stopping all substance use.

Even if more control is possible, the effort works against the adolescent's developmental trajectory toward increasing autonomy. The real goal of adolescence in our culture is to learn how to live in the real world and to prepare for autonomy as young adults. High school is a preparation for college life and adulthood where good judgment, safety, and socialization are important learned behaviors. Teaching adolescents how to navigate all this is an essential role for physicians and parents.

Part of growing autonomy is privacy. While it is tempting to invade that privacy to learn about substance use or to clarify other concerns, it is not clear that such efforts support the long-term goals of raising a teenager. Such efforts at control and investigation, including blood or urine testing, are best reserved when the benefits outweigh the risks, when there is a substance abuse problem that needs to be addressed.

pdnews@elsevier.com

Adolescent substance use is a big, difficult issue. Alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana – and to a lesser extent, cocaine – are endemic to most high schools.

It's not at all unusual for high school juniors and seniors to drink or even to binge drink. In addition, about 15%-20% of them smoke cigarettes, depending on the community, and probably more than that try or intermittently smoke marijuana.

One approach is to educate parents about which children may be at higher risk for substance use.

For example, most teenagers are at some risk and need to be watched for any high-risk activities, especially drinking and driving or riding in a car with a friend who has been drinking. If parents begin to see a serious problem – such as binge drinking every weekend, obvious use of marijuana on a regular basis, or obvious use of cocaine – take it very seriously. Talk with patients and parents, and provide a referral for services as indicated.

Other kids might be at slightly higher risk in high school, based on their achievements. A good athlete who joins the varsity team in 9th or 10th grade, or the talented 9th-grader who lands the lead in the high school play, tend to spend more time with juniors and seniors. They get invited to parties and events outside their peer groups. Without the judgment of an older child and while trying to “keep up,” they might be more vulnerable to problematic substance use. The difference between a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old is enormous, and the peer pressure of being with seniors is considerable.

Recognize that some kids start high school already predisposed and at quite high risk for substance use problems: A patient with biologic or genetic risk factors; a patient with untreated depression or anxiety; and/or an adolescent with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are examples.

Left unaddressed, these kids are predisposed to earlier and more serious substance use. Some children with genetic and/or biological risk factors begin drinking heavily before their 14th birthday. In contrast, the typical age of onset for alcohol use includes some experimentation at 15 or 16 years that becomes binge drinking for some a year or two later.

Biology predisposes some adolescents to nicotine addiction or heavy use of marijuana or alcohol. While adolescent brains are in development and experience the expected stress of puberty and building an identity, some teenagers' brains may be more susceptible to addiction than others. In addition, genetics and environment can play a role, evidenced by the higher risks for children whose parents have a personal or family history of substance use problems. If there is a strong history of alcoholism in the family or if a parent is a recovering alcoholic, discuss with parents how their past might influence how they treat their teenager. Advise them what information should be shared to alert the teenager to the potential risks. It might help a child at age 12 or 13 to know that he or she may be especially vulnerable to the dangers of substance use, and this may well open up an avenue of communication and trust that could be helpful later.

Anxiety and depression also have genetic roots in some patients. Asking parents about their family history of substance abuse, depression, or serious mental health disorder should be a routine part of pediatric practice.

In addition, implementing screening tests makes sense in adolescence. Such screening tests are publicly available and reviewed by the American Academy of Pediatrics Bright Futures: Mental Health effort (http://brightfutures.aap.org/3rd_Edition_Guidelines_and_Pocket_Guide.htmlwww.aap.org/pcorss/demos/mht.html

Children with ADHD make up another high-risk group. They also seem to be more vulnerable to cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. These teenagers can be driven to find relief in these substances because of brain biology and/or secondary to the stress of living with their ADHD symptoms.

On the plus side, ADHD kids treated appropriately with stimulants and support services have lower levels of substance use and probably higher self-esteem. Ensure they have the best treatment possible for their ADHD to minimize their substance use risk as much as possible.

As they become young teenagers, they should have a full review of all their ADHD treatment and how their typical day plays out at school and at home. Consider some additional preventative counseling to help these children face their substance use challenges throughout adolescence.

Offer such guidance to all children and parents, but especially to those in one of these high-risk groups. Suggest strategies that support and reinforce their resiliency. A warm, positive relationship with an adult is a protective factor. Also, kids who feel connected to a school, church, or sports team tend to be a little more resilient to some of these influences.

Facilitate open, honest communication between the parent and adolescent. Many parents might not realize that this is more effective than are attempts to control their teen's behavior 24/7. Over-control is impossible given the lifestyle of most 15-, 16- or 17-year-olds. Between cell phones, cars, and the amount of time they are out of the house, parents cannot control them to a level of stopping all substance use.

Even if more control is possible, the effort works against the adolescent's developmental trajectory toward increasing autonomy. The real goal of adolescence in our culture is to learn how to live in the real world and to prepare for autonomy as young adults. High school is a preparation for college life and adulthood where good judgment, safety, and socialization are important learned behaviors. Teaching adolescents how to navigate all this is an essential role for physicians and parents.

Part of growing autonomy is privacy. While it is tempting to invade that privacy to learn about substance use or to clarify other concerns, it is not clear that such efforts support the long-term goals of raising a teenager. Such efforts at control and investigation, including blood or urine testing, are best reserved when the benefits outweigh the risks, when there is a substance abuse problem that needs to be addressed.

The providers in every hospitalist practice should be a good fit for the practice’s culture. They should have reasonable relationships with their colleagues in the practice, patients and families, and other staff at the hospital.

I can’t imagine anyone arguing with this point of view. But in my work with hundreds of hospitalist practices over the past 15 years, I’ve found that many practices seem to have a hard time ensuring their providers meet that standard. I can think of lots of reasons for this. The first that comes to mind is the difficult HM recruiting environment. Almost all hospitalist practices needed to grow quickly, and many lowered the bar in the qualifications and the fit of the candidates they hired to make sure they filled all of their positions.

Even if it later becomes clear a provider isn’t a good fit for the group culture, or worse still lacks the knowledge base and judgment to perform well, many practices are reluctant to replace the hospitalist because it might be difficult to find a replacement—and there is no guarantee the new person will perform any better. Because of this, a number of practices have ended up with providers who in many cases have a negative influence on others in the practice, and both the practice and the problem provider would be better off if the provider went elsewhere.

The Problem Physician

To their credit, most practices do act when a provider simply lacks the skill and judgment to perform adequately. This can mean close proctoring/mentoring for an extended period, or requiring specific CME course work to correct a skill that is lacking. But it also means reassigning the person to a different job, or termination.

But in the case of someone with a toxic personality, practices often are more reluctant to act. I’ll often hear the leadership of a practice say something like, “We knew Alice wasn’t a good fit for our practice within a few weeks of her start date.” The start date was several years ago and nothing has been done about this. Not surprisingly, Alice still performs poorly.

I’m not talking about someone who has occasional problems. I’m talking about people who cause problems almost every time they show up to work. Here are some real anecdotes, with fictitious names to ensure anonymity for the person and institution:

• Dr. Lee routinely disappears for several hours, during which he doesn’t answer pages. This even happens when he is the only doctor covering the practice.
• Dr. Lifeson, while generally getting along well with his fellow hospitalists and the nursing staff, can be counted on to complain bitterly about all levels of the hospital administration and leadership. He never misses an opportunity to try to convince other hospitalists that the leadership is not only inept, but also clearly has a malicious intent toward hospitalists.
• Dr. Peart complains incessantly about even tiny inequities in the work schedule or patient load. Others in the group have found that it is easier to ensure he always has the best schedule and lightest patient load, hoping they won’t have to hear his constant complaining. But even that hasn’t stemmed the steady downpour of negativity from him.

In all three of these cases, it seemed clear that the doctor should be terminated. And while the practice leadership agreed with me, they offered several excuses for why they hadn’t taken this step.

• “Who knows if we can find a replacement who will be any better?”
• “But he’s actually a decent doctor and doesn’t get a lot of complaints from patients.”
• “He’s such an angry guy, we worry about litigation if we fire him.”

I can’t offer any clear rule about when a practice should stop trying to improve a provider’s behavior and recognize that it is time to terminate the provider. But it is worth remembering that waiting too long has many costs, including the satisfaction of others in the group. Everyone will think less of the practice they are part of if poor behavior is tolerated.

Assess the Situation, Then Take Action

Most doctors who serve as the lead physician for their group have little or no experience dealing with problem behavior, let alone experience ensuring that necessary steps are followed prior to disciplining or terminating someone. But every hospital has someone who is very knowledgeable about these things; they should be engaged for advice, and, in the case of hospital-employed groups, should participate in the process of counseling and/or termination. It is important to take advantage of the expertise that is available.

Of course, the best approach is to prevent such problems from coming up. The best way to do this is to be very careful when hiring new providers. Checking references carefully is probably the best way to get an idea about whether someone might have behavior or personality problems. There are “job fit” survey instruments that you can use, but I’m not sure how effective they are, or how much value they add for a hospitalist practice beyond other means of assessing the candidate. And in the process of hiring someone, be sure to set behavior expectations very clearly. A new candidate should know that you will not tolerate not living up to behavioral expectations.

When dealing with bad behavior, make sure that you follow a careful and well-documented process. If someone still makes it through the hiring process only to be revealed as a troublemaker soon after their start date, don’t wait to sit that person down for very clear counseling; insist that their behavior change. Take notes of each meeting, and consider having the problem doctor sign and date the notes. While it might be easier to just wait and see if the first instance of bad behavior was an anomaly, that usually is a bad idea.

You should consider bringing the problem provider into the tent. The root of some bad behavior (i.e. criticism of leadership) is a person’s insecurity and lack of a feeling of ownership or control of their role in the practice. In that case, it might be reasonable to invite such a person into a role of greater responsibility in the practice so that they feel more in control. For example, a doctor who constantly complains about the work schedule might be invited to join the group’s executive committee or take on some other formal leadership role in the practice. This could backfire, so it should be tried only in carefully selected cases, and with the problem doctor’s clear understanding that they are being given a chance to have a bigger role in the practice but must improve their behavior or face serious consequences that could include termination.

I have seen this work beautifully in some cases, curing the problem behavior and turning the doctor into a valuable asset. I only wish there were a reliable way to know when to try this strategy. Sadly, it just requires judgment and intuition. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

The providers in every hospitalist practice should be a good fit for the practice’s culture. They should have reasonable relationships with their colleagues in the practice, patients and families, and other staff at the hospital.

I can’t imagine anyone arguing with this point of view. But in my work with hundreds of hospitalist practices over the past 15 years, I’ve found that many practices seem to have a hard time ensuring their providers meet that standard. I can think of lots of reasons for this. The first that comes to mind is the difficult HM recruiting environment. Almost all hospitalist practices needed to grow quickly, and many lowered the bar in the qualifications and the fit of the candidates they hired to make sure they filled all of their positions.

Even if it later becomes clear a provider isn’t a good fit for the group culture, or worse still lacks the knowledge base and judgment to perform well, many practices are reluctant to replace the hospitalist because it might be difficult to find a replacement—and there is no guarantee the new person will perform any better. Because of this, a number of practices have ended up with providers who in many cases have a negative influence on others in the practice, and both the practice and the problem provider would be better off if the provider went elsewhere.

The Problem Physician

To their credit, most practices do act when a provider simply lacks the skill and judgment to perform adequately. This can mean close proctoring/mentoring for an extended period, or requiring specific CME course work to correct a skill that is lacking. But it also means reassigning the person to a different job, or termination.

But in the case of someone with a toxic personality, practices often are more reluctant to act. I’ll often hear the leadership of a practice say something like, “We knew Alice wasn’t a good fit for our practice within a few weeks of her start date.” The start date was several years ago and nothing has been done about this. Not surprisingly, Alice still performs poorly.

I’m not talking about someone who has occasional problems. I’m talking about people who cause problems almost every time they show up to work. Here are some real anecdotes, with fictitious names to ensure anonymity for the person and institution:

• Dr. Lee routinely disappears for several hours, during which he doesn’t answer pages. This even happens when he is the only doctor covering the practice.
• Dr. Lifeson, while generally getting along well with his fellow hospitalists and the nursing staff, can be counted on to complain bitterly about all levels of the hospital administration and leadership. He never misses an opportunity to try to convince other hospitalists that the leadership is not only inept, but also clearly has a malicious intent toward hospitalists.
• Dr. Peart complains incessantly about even tiny inequities in the work schedule or patient load. Others in the group have found that it is easier to ensure he always has the best schedule and lightest patient load, hoping they won’t have to hear his constant complaining. But even that hasn’t stemmed the steady downpour of negativity from him.

In all three of these cases, it seemed clear that the doctor should be terminated. And while the practice leadership agreed with me, they offered several excuses for why they hadn’t taken this step.

• “Who knows if we can find a replacement who will be any better?”
• “But he’s actually a decent doctor and doesn’t get a lot of complaints from patients.”
• “He’s such an angry guy, we worry about litigation if we fire him.”

I can’t offer any clear rule about when a practice should stop trying to improve a provider’s behavior and recognize that it is time to terminate the provider. But it is worth remembering that waiting too long has many costs, including the satisfaction of others in the group. Everyone will think less of the practice they are part of if poor behavior is tolerated.

Assess the Situation, Then Take Action

Most doctors who serve as the lead physician for their group have little or no experience dealing with problem behavior, let alone experience ensuring that necessary steps are followed prior to disciplining or terminating someone. But every hospital has someone who is very knowledgeable about these things; they should be engaged for advice, and, in the case of hospital-employed groups, should participate in the process of counseling and/or termination. It is important to take advantage of the expertise that is available.

Of course, the best approach is to prevent such problems from coming up. The best way to do this is to be very careful when hiring new providers. Checking references carefully is probably the best way to get an idea about whether someone might have behavior or personality problems. There are “job fit” survey instruments that you can use, but I’m not sure how effective they are, or how much value they add for a hospitalist practice beyond other means of assessing the candidate. And in the process of hiring someone, be sure to set behavior expectations very clearly. A new candidate should know that you will not tolerate not living up to behavioral expectations.

When dealing with bad behavior, make sure that you follow a careful and well-documented process. If someone still makes it through the hiring process only to be revealed as a troublemaker soon after their start date, don’t wait to sit that person down for very clear counseling; insist that their behavior change. Take notes of each meeting, and consider having the problem doctor sign and date the notes. While it might be easier to just wait and see if the first instance of bad behavior was an anomaly, that usually is a bad idea.

You should consider bringing the problem provider into the tent. The root of some bad behavior (i.e. criticism of leadership) is a person’s insecurity and lack of a feeling of ownership or control of their role in the practice. In that case, it might be reasonable to invite such a person into a role of greater responsibility in the practice so that they feel more in control. For example, a doctor who constantly complains about the work schedule might be invited to join the group’s executive committee or take on some other formal leadership role in the practice. This could backfire, so it should be tried only in carefully selected cases, and with the problem doctor’s clear understanding that they are being given a chance to have a bigger role in the practice but must improve their behavior or face serious consequences that could include termination.

I have seen this work beautifully in some cases, curing the problem behavior and turning the doctor into a valuable asset. I only wish there were a reliable way to know when to try this strategy. Sadly, it just requires judgment and intuition. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

The providers in every hospitalist practice should be a good fit for the practice’s culture. They should have reasonable relationships with their colleagues in the practice, patients and families, and other staff at the hospital.

I can’t imagine anyone arguing with this point of view. But in my work with hundreds of hospitalist practices over the past 15 years, I’ve found that many practices seem to have a hard time ensuring their providers meet that standard. I can think of lots of reasons for this. The first that comes to mind is the difficult HM recruiting environment. Almost all hospitalist practices needed to grow quickly, and many lowered the bar in the qualifications and the fit of the candidates they hired to make sure they filled all of their positions.

Even if it later becomes clear a provider isn’t a good fit for the group culture, or worse still lacks the knowledge base and judgment to perform well, many practices are reluctant to replace the hospitalist because it might be difficult to find a replacement—and there is no guarantee the new person will perform any better. Because of this, a number of practices have ended up with providers who in many cases have a negative influence on others in the practice, and both the practice and the problem provider would be better off if the provider went elsewhere.

The Problem Physician

To their credit, most practices do act when a provider simply lacks the skill and judgment to perform adequately. This can mean close proctoring/mentoring for an extended period, or requiring specific CME course work to correct a skill that is lacking. But it also means reassigning the person to a different job, or termination.

But in the case of someone with a toxic personality, practices often are more reluctant to act. I’ll often hear the leadership of a practice say something like, “We knew Alice wasn’t a good fit for our practice within a few weeks of her start date.” The start date was several years ago and nothing has been done about this. Not surprisingly, Alice still performs poorly.

I’m not talking about someone who has occasional problems. I’m talking about people who cause problems almost every time they show up to work. Here are some real anecdotes, with fictitious names to ensure anonymity for the person and institution:

• Dr. Lee routinely disappears for several hours, during which he doesn’t answer pages. This even happens when he is the only doctor covering the practice.
• Dr. Lifeson, while generally getting along well with his fellow hospitalists and the nursing staff, can be counted on to complain bitterly about all levels of the hospital administration and leadership. He never misses an opportunity to try to convince other hospitalists that the leadership is not only inept, but also clearly has a malicious intent toward hospitalists.
• Dr. Peart complains incessantly about even tiny inequities in the work schedule or patient load. Others in the group have found that it is easier to ensure he always has the best schedule and lightest patient load, hoping they won’t have to hear his constant complaining. But even that hasn’t stemmed the steady downpour of negativity from him.

In all three of these cases, it seemed clear that the doctor should be terminated. And while the practice leadership agreed with me, they offered several excuses for why they hadn’t taken this step.

• “Who knows if we can find a replacement who will be any better?”
• “But he’s actually a decent doctor and doesn’t get a lot of complaints from patients.”
• “He’s such an angry guy, we worry about litigation if we fire him.”

I can’t offer any clear rule about when a practice should stop trying to improve a provider’s behavior and recognize that it is time to terminate the provider. But it is worth remembering that waiting too long has many costs, including the satisfaction of others in the group. Everyone will think less of the practice they are part of if poor behavior is tolerated.

Assess the Situation, Then Take Action

Most doctors who serve as the lead physician for their group have little or no experience dealing with problem behavior, let alone experience ensuring that necessary steps are followed prior to disciplining or terminating someone. But every hospital has someone who is very knowledgeable about these things; they should be engaged for advice, and, in the case of hospital-employed groups, should participate in the process of counseling and/or termination. It is important to take advantage of the expertise that is available.

Of course, the best approach is to prevent such problems from coming up. The best way to do this is to be very careful when hiring new providers. Checking references carefully is probably the best way to get an idea about whether someone might have behavior or personality problems. There are “job fit” survey instruments that you can use, but I’m not sure how effective they are, or how much value they add for a hospitalist practice beyond other means of assessing the candidate. And in the process of hiring someone, be sure to set behavior expectations very clearly. A new candidate should know that you will not tolerate not living up to behavioral expectations.

When dealing with bad behavior, make sure that you follow a careful and well-documented process. If someone still makes it through the hiring process only to be revealed as a troublemaker soon after their start date, don’t wait to sit that person down for very clear counseling; insist that their behavior change. Take notes of each meeting, and consider having the problem doctor sign and date the notes. While it might be easier to just wait and see if the first instance of bad behavior was an anomaly, that usually is a bad idea.

You should consider bringing the problem provider into the tent. The root of some bad behavior (i.e. criticism of leadership) is a person’s insecurity and lack of a feeling of ownership or control of their role in the practice. In that case, it might be reasonable to invite such a person into a role of greater responsibility in the practice so that they feel more in control. For example, a doctor who constantly complains about the work schedule might be invited to join the group’s executive committee or take on some other formal leadership role in the practice. This could backfire, so it should be tried only in carefully selected cases, and with the problem doctor’s clear understanding that they are being given a chance to have a bigger role in the practice but must improve their behavior or face serious consequences that could include termination.

I have seen this work beautifully in some cases, curing the problem behavior and turning the doctor into a valuable asset. I only wish there were a reliable way to know when to try this strategy. Sadly, it just requires judgment and intuition. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

www.CHADIS.compdnews@elsevier.com

“The preschool just called for the second time about Jason's behavior! What can I do?” This plea to you the pediatrician makes your stomach turn upside down. “What am I supposed to do about that?” you ask yourself. You're not there to see what is happening, and the parent isn't either.

This scenario is made even more difficult because the parents can be desperate for advice and quick solutions. It is incredibly inconvenient when a child is thrown out of child care or preschool for bad behavior, especially for parents who both work. Parents may even get hysterical because they immediately envision their darling failing to get into Harvard based on an inability to interact properly in preschool.

The differential diagnosis of this complaint takes some good sleuthing, but can make a big difference in the life of a young child.

Young children deal with social interaction issues that also confront grown-ups, but without the skills to navigate and manage them.

Learning social skills is a major benefit of preschool and kindergarten, particularly for children with few siblings or siblings of much different ages. The poem “All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” describes many of these social benefits, including learning to share, take turns, act kindly, and use manners. The poem does not mention some of the other less poetic skills developed at this age, however: learning how to tease successfully, pull your punches, stand tall when there is a bully, bounce back when people insult you or after you wet your pants, tell if someone is a real friend, and deal with a critical teacher who is screaming all the time.

Young children normally practice a social interaction known as “inclusion/exclusion,” where one day they say, “Oh, you're my best friend. Let's go have our secret club.” But the next day they say, “You're not my friend anymore. I've got a new best friend. You can't play with me.” In general, the best short- and long-term outcomes occur when children work out minor interaction problems on their own, with a little teacher support, but serious problems are handled privately by the adults.

Ask for specific information about one of the incidents from both the child and the parent. If a child comes home from school and says, “This kid called me names,” parents can ask, “What kind of names?” to distinguish normal teasing from a toxic environment that needs to be changed. Abnormal teasing is more vicious and adultlike, for example, a peer calling the child a “whore” or using a racial epithet.

Don't forget to suggest ways to pump up resilience such as getting sufficient sleep and proper nutrition.

Next, assess the child with problematic peer behavior for skill deficits. A child with a gap may act up to distract others from noticing, out of frustration or as result of discrimination the child experiences. Often children this age who are aggressive have shortcomings in language. They may speak a different language at home or still communicate only in two- or three-word phrases, and therefore are unable to keep up with others and feel – or actually are – left out. They don't have the repartee to negotiate social situations and can become the victim of taunting and teasing, a specialty of girls.

Children with gross motor skill deficits, particularly boys, also may experience difficulty keeping up with their peers. In some cases, they are rejected by the group for being unable to kick a soccer ball or to climb a jungle gym as well as others can, and they are angry as a result.

Check fine motor skills as well. A child with poor coordination may be slow to finish work and/or be ashamed of what they do produce. Children can be very self-critical at this age and even tear up their papers. If the teacher asks everyone to draw a truck, and another student pointedly says, 'That doesn't look like a truck,” the child might punch in return. The child is acting up in frustration.

While children at this age are just on the edge of acquiring “perspective taking” (considering another's point of view), in the most severe form, difficulty in doing this can be a sign of autism spectrum disorder. Peers quickly pick up on this and may tease them, call them names, and/or reject their awkward attempts to engage. Try telling them a joke or asking them to tell one, and you may see why.

You can help by addressing any detected skill deficits with language therapy or physical therapy. Importantly, suggest ways to build their skills while allowing them to bypass social humiliation. Let children who are not athletic skip recess, assigning them the task of getting out the snacks to avoid further humiliation. Then work on their motor skills through after-school karate instead.

Anxiety can spark aggression, too. If you are afraid, it seems better to strike first. If anxiety seems key, the parents and school will need to soften their handling of the child and help him or her put feelings into words to assist the child in not acting out.

Since some children will misbehave to get a teacher's attention, recommend that the parents drop in unannounced. Often the way a classroom appears (or is staffed) at 8 a.m. drop-off time is not the same way it operates at 10:30 a.m. Suggest a parent watch the part of the day their child complains about the most, which is frequently recess.

Even though there are bad situations and bad schools, most schools have great teachers and other professionals from whom parents can gain valuable information and advice.

Generally teachers can explain the timing of a child's troubles, for example, during circle time he cannot sit still or during craft time because his fine motor skills are not well developed. Having parents seek out these examples is the most efficient way to identify deficits in need of help.

Suggest parents speak to their child empathically instead of giving instructions. In this culture, boys especially are told to “keep a stiff upper lip” or “be a big soldier.” A better approach is to say, “Yes, it's tough when kids talk to you like that” or “I understand this really makes you sad and you feel like crying.”

It also helps when parents share a similar experience from their own childhood. For example, parents can say, “You know, when I was your age, I had an experience like this – I had a kid who was always on my case.”

Parents can promote social development as well. For example, role playing can clearly help a child develop appropriate socioemotional skills. Parents can use this strategy either before an incident – for example, to rehearse how a child might react to a bully in class – or afterward, to help the child determine what he or she might have said or done differently and prepare for the next time. Use of social stories can foster these skills (see www.socialstories.com

Parents who experienced a bad peer interaction as a preschooler or kindergartener may project their concerns on their child who may be doing just fine. The parents might be supersensitive to teasing, for example, and bring an otherwise minor incident to your attention and/or become overintrusive at school. Asking, “How was it for you when you were little? Did you ever run into anything like this?” may bring out past experiences as an important factor predisposing to overreaction. If they wet their pants in kindergarten and never got over it, realizing this connection makes it possible for them to back off and let the school and child handle the current problem.

Watch for red flags or warning signs that problematic behaviors are not within the range of normal stress. The child initially doing well at school who suddenly does not want to return is one example.

Sadly, you need to always consider whether there is abuse going on at school, including sexual abuse. Sudden adjustment problems at home, such as trouble sleeping, nightmares, or bed-wetting, also should raise your level of concern.

Also ask parents if their preschooler suddenly became more difficult to manage at home. Some children who experience negative peer interactions will cling to parents, but oppositional or defiant behavior is more common. Of course, 4-year-old children are notoriously brassy, so you cannot consider back talk a warning sign unless it is part of a sudden change in the normal flow of the child's behavior.

A child this stressed over school may need to be cared for at home or moved to a family day care situation

Unfortunately, the modern practice of grouping of kids of the same age together in a classroom increases the likelihood of interactions going badly. Ten 2-year-old children are not necessarily capable of peacefully spending hours together at a time. When a serious behavioral problem arises in this kind of setting, I frequently recommend family-based day care instead of center-based day care because children will be with others of different ages and different skill levels, and hopefully some of them will be more mature.

Support parents in deciding to pull the child out of a school if the situation is bad. If, for example, the school administration is unresponsive to or dismissive of a parent, removal of the child may be the best option. A new parent recently came to the parent group at our clinic. She reported that a teacher responded to her child's behavior problem by putting him in a closet, which would have been egregious enough, but the teacher also said that there were spiders and bugs in the closet that were going to get him before closing the door. I was flabbergasted. The school tried to defend the teacher for doing this, and my final advice was to “pull the kid.” Any school that ignorant of normal child development cannot be fixed.

www.CHADIS.compdnews@elsevier.com

“The preschool just called for the second time about Jason's behavior! What can I do?” This plea to you the pediatrician makes your stomach turn upside down. “What am I supposed to do about that?” you ask yourself. You're not there to see what is happening, and the parent isn't either.

This scenario is made even more difficult because the parents can be desperate for advice and quick solutions. It is incredibly inconvenient when a child is thrown out of child care or preschool for bad behavior, especially for parents who both work. Parents may even get hysterical because they immediately envision their darling failing to get into Harvard based on an inability to interact properly in preschool.

The differential diagnosis of this complaint takes some good sleuthing, but can make a big difference in the life of a young child.

Young children deal with social interaction issues that also confront grown-ups, but without the skills to navigate and manage them.

Learning social skills is a major benefit of preschool and kindergarten, particularly for children with few siblings or siblings of much different ages. The poem “All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” describes many of these social benefits, including learning to share, take turns, act kindly, and use manners. The poem does not mention some of the other less poetic skills developed at this age, however: learning how to tease successfully, pull your punches, stand tall when there is a bully, bounce back when people insult you or after you wet your pants, tell if someone is a real friend, and deal with a critical teacher who is screaming all the time.

Young children normally practice a social interaction known as “inclusion/exclusion,” where one day they say, “Oh, you're my best friend. Let's go have our secret club.” But the next day they say, “You're not my friend anymore. I've got a new best friend. You can't play with me.” In general, the best short- and long-term outcomes occur when children work out minor interaction problems on their own, with a little teacher support, but serious problems are handled privately by the adults.

Ask for specific information about one of the incidents from both the child and the parent. If a child comes home from school and says, “This kid called me names,” parents can ask, “What kind of names?” to distinguish normal teasing from a toxic environment that needs to be changed. Abnormal teasing is more vicious and adultlike, for example, a peer calling the child a “whore” or using a racial epithet.

Don't forget to suggest ways to pump up resilience such as getting sufficient sleep and proper nutrition.

Next, assess the child with problematic peer behavior for skill deficits. A child with a gap may act up to distract others from noticing, out of frustration or as result of discrimination the child experiences. Often children this age who are aggressive have shortcomings in language. They may speak a different language at home or still communicate only in two- or three-word phrases, and therefore are unable to keep up with others and feel – or actually are – left out. They don't have the repartee to negotiate social situations and can become the victim of taunting and teasing, a specialty of girls.

Children with gross motor skill deficits, particularly boys, also may experience difficulty keeping up with their peers. In some cases, they are rejected by the group for being unable to kick a soccer ball or to climb a jungle gym as well as others can, and they are angry as a result.

Check fine motor skills as well. A child with poor coordination may be slow to finish work and/or be ashamed of what they do produce. Children can be very self-critical at this age and even tear up their papers. If the teacher asks everyone to draw a truck, and another student pointedly says, 'That doesn't look like a truck,” the child might punch in return. The child is acting up in frustration.

While children at this age are just on the edge of acquiring “perspective taking” (considering another's point of view), in the most severe form, difficulty in doing this can be a sign of autism spectrum disorder. Peers quickly pick up on this and may tease them, call them names, and/or reject their awkward attempts to engage. Try telling them a joke or asking them to tell one, and you may see why.

You can help by addressing any detected skill deficits with language therapy or physical therapy. Importantly, suggest ways to build their skills while allowing them to bypass social humiliation. Let children who are not athletic skip recess, assigning them the task of getting out the snacks to avoid further humiliation. Then work on their motor skills through after-school karate instead.

Anxiety can spark aggression, too. If you are afraid, it seems better to strike first. If anxiety seems key, the parents and school will need to soften their handling of the child and help him or her put feelings into words to assist the child in not acting out.

Since some children will misbehave to get a teacher's attention, recommend that the parents drop in unannounced. Often the way a classroom appears (or is staffed) at 8 a.m. drop-off time is not the same way it operates at 10:30 a.m. Suggest a parent watch the part of the day their child complains about the most, which is frequently recess.

Even though there are bad situations and bad schools, most schools have great teachers and other professionals from whom parents can gain valuable information and advice.

Generally teachers can explain the timing of a child's troubles, for example, during circle time he cannot sit still or during craft time because his fine motor skills are not well developed. Having parents seek out these examples is the most efficient way to identify deficits in need of help.

Suggest parents speak to their child empathically instead of giving instructions. In this culture, boys especially are told to “keep a stiff upper lip” or “be a big soldier.” A better approach is to say, “Yes, it's tough when kids talk to you like that” or “I understand this really makes you sad and you feel like crying.”

It also helps when parents share a similar experience from their own childhood. For example, parents can say, “You know, when I was your age, I had an experience like this – I had a kid who was always on my case.”

Parents can promote social development as well. For example, role playing can clearly help a child develop appropriate socioemotional skills. Parents can use this strategy either before an incident – for example, to rehearse how a child might react to a bully in class – or afterward, to help the child determine what he or she might have said or done differently and prepare for the next time. Use of social stories can foster these skills (see www.socialstories.com

Parents who experienced a bad peer interaction as a preschooler or kindergartener may project their concerns on their child who may be doing just fine. The parents might be supersensitive to teasing, for example, and bring an otherwise minor incident to your attention and/or become overintrusive at school. Asking, “How was it for you when you were little? Did you ever run into anything like this?” may bring out past experiences as an important factor predisposing to overreaction. If they wet their pants in kindergarten and never got over it, realizing this connection makes it possible for them to back off and let the school and child handle the current problem.

Watch for red flags or warning signs that problematic behaviors are not within the range of normal stress. The child initially doing well at school who suddenly does not want to return is one example.

Sadly, you need to always consider whether there is abuse going on at school, including sexual abuse. Sudden adjustment problems at home, such as trouble sleeping, nightmares, or bed-wetting, also should raise your level of concern.

Also ask parents if their preschooler suddenly became more difficult to manage at home. Some children who experience negative peer interactions will cling to parents, but oppositional or defiant behavior is more common. Of course, 4-year-old children are notoriously brassy, so you cannot consider back talk a warning sign unless it is part of a sudden change in the normal flow of the child's behavior.

A child this stressed over school may need to be cared for at home or moved to a family day care situation

Unfortunately, the modern practice of grouping of kids of the same age together in a classroom increases the likelihood of interactions going badly. Ten 2-year-old children are not necessarily capable of peacefully spending hours together at a time. When a serious behavioral problem arises in this kind of setting, I frequently recommend family-based day care instead of center-based day care because children will be with others of different ages and different skill levels, and hopefully some of them will be more mature.

Support parents in deciding to pull the child out of a school if the situation is bad. If, for example, the school administration is unresponsive to or dismissive of a parent, removal of the child may be the best option. A new parent recently came to the parent group at our clinic. She reported that a teacher responded to her child's behavior problem by putting him in a closet, which would have been egregious enough, but the teacher also said that there were spiders and bugs in the closet that were going to get him before closing the door. I was flabbergasted. The school tried to defend the teacher for doing this, and my final advice was to “pull the kid.” Any school that ignorant of normal child development cannot be fixed.

www.CHADIS.compdnews@elsevier.com

“The preschool just called for the second time about Jason's behavior! What can I do?” This plea to you the pediatrician makes your stomach turn upside down. “What am I supposed to do about that?” you ask yourself. You're not there to see what is happening, and the parent isn't either.

This scenario is made even more difficult because the parents can be desperate for advice and quick solutions. It is incredibly inconvenient when a child is thrown out of child care or preschool for bad behavior, especially for parents who both work. Parents may even get hysterical because they immediately envision their darling failing to get into Harvard based on an inability to interact properly in preschool.

The differential diagnosis of this complaint takes some good sleuthing, but can make a big difference in the life of a young child.

Young children deal with social interaction issues that also confront grown-ups, but without the skills to navigate and manage them.

Learning social skills is a major benefit of preschool and kindergarten, particularly for children with few siblings or siblings of much different ages. The poem “All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” describes many of these social benefits, including learning to share, take turns, act kindly, and use manners. The poem does not mention some of the other less poetic skills developed at this age, however: learning how to tease successfully, pull your punches, stand tall when there is a bully, bounce back when people insult you or after you wet your pants, tell if someone is a real friend, and deal with a critical teacher who is screaming all the time.

Young children normally practice a social interaction known as “inclusion/exclusion,” where one day they say, “Oh, you're my best friend. Let's go have our secret club.” But the next day they say, “You're not my friend anymore. I've got a new best friend. You can't play with me.” In general, the best short- and long-term outcomes occur when children work out minor interaction problems on their own, with a little teacher support, but serious problems are handled privately by the adults.

Ask for specific information about one of the incidents from both the child and the parent. If a child comes home from school and says, “This kid called me names,” parents can ask, “What kind of names?” to distinguish normal teasing from a toxic environment that needs to be changed. Abnormal teasing is more vicious and adultlike, for example, a peer calling the child a “whore” or using a racial epithet.

Don't forget to suggest ways to pump up resilience such as getting sufficient sleep and proper nutrition.

Next, assess the child with problematic peer behavior for skill deficits. A child with a gap may act up to distract others from noticing, out of frustration or as result of discrimination the child experiences. Often children this age who are aggressive have shortcomings in language. They may speak a different language at home or still communicate only in two- or three-word phrases, and therefore are unable to keep up with others and feel – or actually are – left out. They don't have the repartee to negotiate social situations and can become the victim of taunting and teasing, a specialty of girls.

Children with gross motor skill deficits, particularly boys, also may experience difficulty keeping up with their peers. In some cases, they are rejected by the group for being unable to kick a soccer ball or to climb a jungle gym as well as others can, and they are angry as a result.

Check fine motor skills as well. A child with poor coordination may be slow to finish work and/or be ashamed of what they do produce. Children can be very self-critical at this age and even tear up their papers. If the teacher asks everyone to draw a truck, and another student pointedly says, 'That doesn't look like a truck,” the child might punch in return. The child is acting up in frustration.

While children at this age are just on the edge of acquiring “perspective taking” (considering another's point of view), in the most severe form, difficulty in doing this can be a sign of autism spectrum disorder. Peers quickly pick up on this and may tease them, call them names, and/or reject their awkward attempts to engage. Try telling them a joke or asking them to tell one, and you may see why.

You can help by addressing any detected skill deficits with language therapy or physical therapy. Importantly, suggest ways to build their skills while allowing them to bypass social humiliation. Let children who are not athletic skip recess, assigning them the task of getting out the snacks to avoid further humiliation. Then work on their motor skills through after-school karate instead.

Anxiety can spark aggression, too. If you are afraid, it seems better to strike first. If anxiety seems key, the parents and school will need to soften their handling of the child and help him or her put feelings into words to assist the child in not acting out.

Since some children will misbehave to get a teacher's attention, recommend that the parents drop in unannounced. Often the way a classroom appears (or is staffed) at 8 a.m. drop-off time is not the same way it operates at 10:30 a.m. Suggest a parent watch the part of the day their child complains about the most, which is frequently recess.

Even though there are bad situations and bad schools, most schools have great teachers and other professionals from whom parents can gain valuable information and advice.

Generally teachers can explain the timing of a child's troubles, for example, during circle time he cannot sit still or during craft time because his fine motor skills are not well developed. Having parents seek out these examples is the most efficient way to identify deficits in need of help.

Suggest parents speak to their child empathically instead of giving instructions. In this culture, boys especially are told to “keep a stiff upper lip” or “be a big soldier.” A better approach is to say, “Yes, it's tough when kids talk to you like that” or “I understand this really makes you sad and you feel like crying.”

It also helps when parents share a similar experience from their own childhood. For example, parents can say, “You know, when I was your age, I had an experience like this – I had a kid who was always on my case.”

Parents can promote social development as well. For example, role playing can clearly help a child develop appropriate socioemotional skills. Parents can use this strategy either before an incident – for example, to rehearse how a child might react to a bully in class – or afterward, to help the child determine what he or she might have said or done differently and prepare for the next time. Use of social stories can foster these skills (see www.socialstories.com

Parents who experienced a bad peer interaction as a preschooler or kindergartener may project their concerns on their child who may be doing just fine. The parents might be supersensitive to teasing, for example, and bring an otherwise minor incident to your attention and/or become overintrusive at school. Asking, “How was it for you when you were little? Did you ever run into anything like this?” may bring out past experiences as an important factor predisposing to overreaction. If they wet their pants in kindergarten and never got over it, realizing this connection makes it possible for them to back off and let the school and child handle the current problem.

Watch for red flags or warning signs that problematic behaviors are not within the range of normal stress. The child initially doing well at school who suddenly does not want to return is one example.

Sadly, you need to always consider whether there is abuse going on at school, including sexual abuse. Sudden adjustment problems at home, such as trouble sleeping, nightmares, or bed-wetting, also should raise your level of concern.

Also ask parents if their preschooler suddenly became more difficult to manage at home. Some children who experience negative peer interactions will cling to parents, but oppositional or defiant behavior is more common. Of course, 4-year-old children are notoriously brassy, so you cannot consider back talk a warning sign unless it is part of a sudden change in the normal flow of the child's behavior.

A child this stressed over school may need to be cared for at home or moved to a family day care situation

Unfortunately, the modern practice of grouping of kids of the same age together in a classroom increases the likelihood of interactions going badly. Ten 2-year-old children are not necessarily capable of peacefully spending hours together at a time. When a serious behavioral problem arises in this kind of setting, I frequently recommend family-based day care instead of center-based day care because children will be with others of different ages and different skill levels, and hopefully some of them will be more mature.

Support parents in deciding to pull the child out of a school if the situation is bad. If, for example, the school administration is unresponsive to or dismissive of a parent, removal of the child may be the best option. A new parent recently came to the parent group at our clinic. She reported that a teacher responded to her child's behavior problem by putting him in a closet, which would have been egregious enough, but the teacher also said that there were spiders and bugs in the closet that were going to get him before closing the door. I was flabbergasted. The school tried to defend the teacher for doing this, and my final advice was to “pull the kid.” Any school that ignorant of normal child development cannot be fixed.