All Content

Presenter: Jordan Messler, MD, SHFM

Summary: The main objective of this lecture was to understand the culture that often limits physician engagement. It also offered insights on how to best understand motivators for engagement, and tried to focus on strategies to improve and create an environment for physician engagement.

Despite strong evidence, there remains a refusal to confront healthcare provider’s severe quality problems. There is a high rate of failure, considering that 80% of major initiatives don’t meet their objectives. Dr. Messler pointed out that the second principle of the "Key Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group" is an engaged hospitalist. To make this more complicated, 40% of hospitalists report inpatient census that exceed safe levels at least once a month; and 52% of hospitalists have signs of burnout.

Dr. Messler explained are intrinsic and extrinsic motivators: the culture of the group will impact the extrinsic motivation factors when it tries to encourage physician to do their work because they expected of themselves, not because some else is looking over their shoulders. Among intrinsic motivators: a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose drives a culture of not only do the work but also improve it. Some hospitalist groups are trying to explore new approaches, including protective time for physicians to allow them to get involved in committee and QI projects.

Applying behavioral economics concepts (science of human motivation) can help HMGs design incentives among such domains as inertia (by simplifying processes), immediacy (giving bonus right after achieving goals), mental accounting (using paper checks for rewards).

HM Takeaways:

• There is lack of awareness of physician disengagement.
• Burn out is the opposite of engagement and affects patient quality.
• There are intrinsic and extrinsic factors that drives engagement.
• By creating a culture of ownership, mastery, autonomy, and rediscovery of purpose and right mix of incentives physicians can engage more.
• SHM has an Engagement Survey that can help get to know baseline motivators driving among specific groups.

Dr. Villagra is a hospitalist in Batesville, Ark., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

 

 

Presenter: Jordan Messler, MD, SHFM

Summary: The main objective of this lecture was to understand the culture that often limits physician engagement. It also offered insights on how to best understand motivators for engagement, and tried to focus on strategies to improve and create an environment for physician engagement.

Despite strong evidence, there remains a refusal to confront healthcare provider’s severe quality problems. There is a high rate of failure, considering that 80% of major initiatives don’t meet their objectives. Dr. Messler pointed out that the second principle of the "Key Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group" is an engaged hospitalist. To make this more complicated, 40% of hospitalists report inpatient census that exceed safe levels at least once a month; and 52% of hospitalists have signs of burnout.

Dr. Messler explained are intrinsic and extrinsic motivators: the culture of the group will impact the extrinsic motivation factors when it tries to encourage physician to do their work because they expected of themselves, not because some else is looking over their shoulders. Among intrinsic motivators: a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose drives a culture of not only do the work but also improve it. Some hospitalist groups are trying to explore new approaches, including protective time for physicians to allow them to get involved in committee and QI projects.

Applying behavioral economics concepts (science of human motivation) can help HMGs design incentives among such domains as inertia (by simplifying processes), immediacy (giving bonus right after achieving goals), mental accounting (using paper checks for rewards).

HM Takeaways:

• There is lack of awareness of physician disengagement.
• Burn out is the opposite of engagement and affects patient quality.
• There are intrinsic and extrinsic factors that drives engagement.
• By creating a culture of ownership, mastery, autonomy, and rediscovery of purpose and right mix of incentives physicians can engage more.
• SHM has an Engagement Survey that can help get to know baseline motivators driving among specific groups.

Dr. Villagra is a hospitalist in Batesville, Ark., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

 

 

Presenter: Jordan Messler, MD, SHFM

Summary: The main objective of this lecture was to understand the culture that often limits physician engagement. It also offered insights on how to best understand motivators for engagement, and tried to focus on strategies to improve and create an environment for physician engagement.

Despite strong evidence, there remains a refusal to confront healthcare provider’s severe quality problems. There is a high rate of failure, considering that 80% of major initiatives don’t meet their objectives. Dr. Messler pointed out that the second principle of the "Key Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group" is an engaged hospitalist. To make this more complicated, 40% of hospitalists report inpatient census that exceed safe levels at least once a month; and 52% of hospitalists have signs of burnout.

Dr. Messler explained are intrinsic and extrinsic motivators: the culture of the group will impact the extrinsic motivation factors when it tries to encourage physician to do their work because they expected of themselves, not because some else is looking over their shoulders. Among intrinsic motivators: a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose drives a culture of not only do the work but also improve it. Some hospitalist groups are trying to explore new approaches, including protective time for physicians to allow them to get involved in committee and QI projects.

Applying behavioral economics concepts (science of human motivation) can help HMGs design incentives among such domains as inertia (by simplifying processes), immediacy (giving bonus right after achieving goals), mental accounting (using paper checks for rewards).

HM Takeaways:

• There is lack of awareness of physician disengagement.
• Burn out is the opposite of engagement and affects patient quality.
• There are intrinsic and extrinsic factors that drives engagement.
• By creating a culture of ownership, mastery, autonomy, and rediscovery of purpose and right mix of incentives physicians can engage more.
• SHM has an Engagement Survey that can help get to know baseline motivators driving among specific groups.

Dr. Villagra is a hospitalist in Batesville, Ark., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

 

 

Presenter: Jim Pile, MD, Cleveland Clinic

Summary: The following three infectious diagnoses are relatively uncommon but important not to miss as they are associated with high mortality, especially when diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Remembering these key points can help you make the diagnosis:

• Bacterial meningitis: Many patients do not have the classic triad—fever, nuchal rigidity, and altered mental status—but nearly all have at least one of these signs, and most have headache. The jolt accentuation test—horizontal movement of the head causing exacerbation of the headache—is more sensitive than nuchal rigidity in these cases. Diagnosis is confirmed by lumbar puncture. It appears safe to not to perform head CT in patients

• Spinal epidural abscess: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, hemodialysis, UTI, trauma, epidural anesthesia, trauma/surgery. Presentation is acute to indolent and usually consists of four stages: central back pain, radicular pain, neurologic deficits, paralysis; fever variable. Checking ESR can be helpful as it is elevated in most cases. MRI is imaging study of choice. Initial management includes antibiotics to coverage Staph Aureus and gram negative rods and surgery consultation.
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, trauma/surgery, ETOH, immunosuppression (Type I); muscle trauma, skin integrity deficits (Type II). Clinical suspicion is paramount. Specific clues include: pain out of proportion, anesthesia, systemic toxicity, rapid progression, bullae/crepitus, and failure to respond to antibiotics. Initial management includes initiation of B-lactam/lactamase inhibitor or carbapenem plus clindamycin and MRSA coverage, imaging and prompt surgical consultation (as delayed/inadequate surgery associated with poor prognosis.

Key Takeaway

Clinical suspicion is key to diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, spinal epidural abscesses, and necrotizing soft tissue infections, and delays in diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased mortality.TH

Presenter: Jim Pile, MD, Cleveland Clinic

Summary: The following three infectious diagnoses are relatively uncommon but important not to miss as they are associated with high mortality, especially when diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Remembering these key points can help you make the diagnosis:

• Bacterial meningitis: Many patients do not have the classic triad—fever, nuchal rigidity, and altered mental status—but nearly all have at least one of these signs, and most have headache. The jolt accentuation test—horizontal movement of the head causing exacerbation of the headache—is more sensitive than nuchal rigidity in these cases. Diagnosis is confirmed by lumbar puncture. It appears safe to not to perform head CT in patients

• Spinal epidural abscess: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, hemodialysis, UTI, trauma, epidural anesthesia, trauma/surgery. Presentation is acute to indolent and usually consists of four stages: central back pain, radicular pain, neurologic deficits, paralysis; fever variable. Checking ESR can be helpful as it is elevated in most cases. MRI is imaging study of choice. Initial management includes antibiotics to coverage Staph Aureus and gram negative rods and surgery consultation.
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, trauma/surgery, ETOH, immunosuppression (Type I); muscle trauma, skin integrity deficits (Type II). Clinical suspicion is paramount. Specific clues include: pain out of proportion, anesthesia, systemic toxicity, rapid progression, bullae/crepitus, and failure to respond to antibiotics. Initial management includes initiation of B-lactam/lactamase inhibitor or carbapenem plus clindamycin and MRSA coverage, imaging and prompt surgical consultation (as delayed/inadequate surgery associated with poor prognosis.

Key Takeaway

Clinical suspicion is key to diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, spinal epidural abscesses, and necrotizing soft tissue infections, and delays in diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased mortality.TH

Presenter: Jim Pile, MD, Cleveland Clinic

Summary: The following three infectious diagnoses are relatively uncommon but important not to miss as they are associated with high mortality, especially when diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Remembering these key points can help you make the diagnosis:

• Bacterial meningitis: Many patients do not have the classic triad—fever, nuchal rigidity, and altered mental status—but nearly all have at least one of these signs, and most have headache. The jolt accentuation test—horizontal movement of the head causing exacerbation of the headache—is more sensitive than nuchal rigidity in these cases. Diagnosis is confirmed by lumbar puncture. It appears safe to not to perform head CT in patients

• Spinal epidural abscess: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, hemodialysis, UTI, trauma, epidural anesthesia, trauma/surgery. Presentation is acute to indolent and usually consists of four stages: central back pain, radicular pain, neurologic deficits, paralysis; fever variable. Checking ESR can be helpful as it is elevated in most cases. MRI is imaging study of choice. Initial management includes antibiotics to coverage Staph Aureus and gram negative rods and surgery consultation.
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, trauma/surgery, ETOH, immunosuppression (Type I); muscle trauma, skin integrity deficits (Type II). Clinical suspicion is paramount. Specific clues include: pain out of proportion, anesthesia, systemic toxicity, rapid progression, bullae/crepitus, and failure to respond to antibiotics. Initial management includes initiation of B-lactam/lactamase inhibitor or carbapenem plus clindamycin and MRSA coverage, imaging and prompt surgical consultation (as delayed/inadequate surgery associated with poor prognosis.

Key Takeaway

Clinical suspicion is key to diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, spinal epidural abscesses, and necrotizing soft tissue infections, and delays in diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased mortality.TH

HM16 Presenters: Mangla Gulati, MD, FACP, FHM, and Ian Jenkins, MD

Summary: There is some evidence that hospital adverse events may be decreasing. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report of Partnership for Patients data found that there were 1.3 million hospital-acquired conditions prevented from 2011-2013, translating to 50,000 lives saved and $12 billion in savings. However, there is still much work to be done. Here are some major themes from the recent literature that may inform your own QI projects:

• Electronic medical records (EMR): Increased adoption raises concerns for unintended consequences which could detract from patient safety. These are derived from case reports, claims databases, reports through patient safety organizations. Consider reviewing alerts, advisories, and hard-stops within your hospital’s EMR.
• Improving diagnosis: Misdiagnosis affects 10% of Americans but measurement of this phenomenon remains difficult. Strategies to improve diagnosis include: focus on collaboration, teaching diagnostic skills, IT and algorithmic support, feedback and blame reduction, and reimbursement reform. There is growing recognition that hospitalists are well positioned to engage in these efforts.
• Hand hygiene: Multiple culture and environmental contributors to poor compliance (i.e., 40% compliance rate) and few good intervention studies. Recent studies have focused on the development of cause-specific plans and targeted interventions. Consider applying a targeted solutions tool to a project at your hospital.
• “Second victim”: Healthcare providers frequently experience emotional distress following patient safety events but there is a lack of resources to support providers after such an event. Consider implementing a “care for the caregiver” program at your hospital.
• Sepsis: North Shore-LIJ hospital system (in collaboration with the IHI) received the 2014 Eisenberg Award for developing and implementing a Sepsis Recognition Program and tool-kit. Such collaborations may be useful for driving and magnifying your QI initiatives.
• Patient experience: Recent studies emphasize the importance of patients being actively involved in their medical decisions and providing meaningful feedback. Consider implementing a patient/family council and getting involved with local patient experience initiatives.
• Incident reporting systems (IRS): Widespread under-reporting raises concerns over the value of IRS. Consider modifying or minimizing IRS and/or giving reports to local units to ignite safety culture.
• Discharge before noon (DBN): Delayed discharges may result in lost revenue and poor patient satisfaction. Wertheimer et al. reported on a successful intervention to increase DBN in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Check out their intervention and consider something similar at your hospital.
• Patient monitoring: Vital sign measurements are often poorly timed, integrated and/or communicated. Recent studies of wireless Electronic Physiologic Surveillance System devices in hospitals have shown positive outcomes.TH

HM16 Presenters: Mangla Gulati, MD, FACP, FHM, and Ian Jenkins, MD

Summary: There is some evidence that hospital adverse events may be decreasing. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report of Partnership for Patients data found that there were 1.3 million hospital-acquired conditions prevented from 2011-2013, translating to 50,000 lives saved and $12 billion in savings. However, there is still much work to be done. Here are some major themes from the recent literature that may inform your own QI projects:

• Electronic medical records (EMR): Increased adoption raises concerns for unintended consequences which could detract from patient safety. These are derived from case reports, claims databases, reports through patient safety organizations. Consider reviewing alerts, advisories, and hard-stops within your hospital’s EMR.
• Improving diagnosis: Misdiagnosis affects 10% of Americans but measurement of this phenomenon remains difficult. Strategies to improve diagnosis include: focus on collaboration, teaching diagnostic skills, IT and algorithmic support, feedback and blame reduction, and reimbursement reform. There is growing recognition that hospitalists are well positioned to engage in these efforts.
• Hand hygiene: Multiple culture and environmental contributors to poor compliance (i.e., 40% compliance rate) and few good intervention studies. Recent studies have focused on the development of cause-specific plans and targeted interventions. Consider applying a targeted solutions tool to a project at your hospital.
• “Second victim”: Healthcare providers frequently experience emotional distress following patient safety events but there is a lack of resources to support providers after such an event. Consider implementing a “care for the caregiver” program at your hospital.
• Sepsis: North Shore-LIJ hospital system (in collaboration with the IHI) received the 2014 Eisenberg Award for developing and implementing a Sepsis Recognition Program and tool-kit. Such collaborations may be useful for driving and magnifying your QI initiatives.
• Patient experience: Recent studies emphasize the importance of patients being actively involved in their medical decisions and providing meaningful feedback. Consider implementing a patient/family council and getting involved with local patient experience initiatives.
• Incident reporting systems (IRS): Widespread under-reporting raises concerns over the value of IRS. Consider modifying or minimizing IRS and/or giving reports to local units to ignite safety culture.
• Discharge before noon (DBN): Delayed discharges may result in lost revenue and poor patient satisfaction. Wertheimer et al. reported on a successful intervention to increase DBN in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Check out their intervention and consider something similar at your hospital.
• Patient monitoring: Vital sign measurements are often poorly timed, integrated and/or communicated. Recent studies of wireless Electronic Physiologic Surveillance System devices in hospitals have shown positive outcomes.TH

HM16 Presenters: Mangla Gulati, MD, FACP, FHM, and Ian Jenkins, MD

Summary: There is some evidence that hospital adverse events may be decreasing. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report of Partnership for Patients data found that there were 1.3 million hospital-acquired conditions prevented from 2011-2013, translating to 50,000 lives saved and $12 billion in savings. However, there is still much work to be done. Here are some major themes from the recent literature that may inform your own QI projects:

• Electronic medical records (EMR): Increased adoption raises concerns for unintended consequences which could detract from patient safety. These are derived from case reports, claims databases, reports through patient safety organizations. Consider reviewing alerts, advisories, and hard-stops within your hospital’s EMR.
• Improving diagnosis: Misdiagnosis affects 10% of Americans but measurement of this phenomenon remains difficult. Strategies to improve diagnosis include: focus on collaboration, teaching diagnostic skills, IT and algorithmic support, feedback and blame reduction, and reimbursement reform. There is growing recognition that hospitalists are well positioned to engage in these efforts.
• Hand hygiene: Multiple culture and environmental contributors to poor compliance (i.e., 40% compliance rate) and few good intervention studies. Recent studies have focused on the development of cause-specific plans and targeted interventions. Consider applying a targeted solutions tool to a project at your hospital.
• “Second victim”: Healthcare providers frequently experience emotional distress following patient safety events but there is a lack of resources to support providers after such an event. Consider implementing a “care for the caregiver” program at your hospital.
• Sepsis: North Shore-LIJ hospital system (in collaboration with the IHI) received the 2014 Eisenberg Award for developing and implementing a Sepsis Recognition Program and tool-kit. Such collaborations may be useful for driving and magnifying your QI initiatives.
• Patient experience: Recent studies emphasize the importance of patients being actively involved in their medical decisions and providing meaningful feedback. Consider implementing a patient/family council and getting involved with local patient experience initiatives.
• Incident reporting systems (IRS): Widespread under-reporting raises concerns over the value of IRS. Consider modifying or minimizing IRS and/or giving reports to local units to ignite safety culture.
• Discharge before noon (DBN): Delayed discharges may result in lost revenue and poor patient satisfaction. Wertheimer et al. reported on a successful intervention to increase DBN in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Check out their intervention and consider something similar at your hospital.
• Patient monitoring: Vital sign measurements are often poorly timed, integrated and/or communicated. Recent studies of wireless Electronic Physiologic Surveillance System devices in hospitals have shown positive outcomes.TH

Thanks to all who attended HM16 in San Diego! From the featured speakers—Acting Assistant Secretary for Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Karen DeSalvo, MD, MPH, MSc, and faculty—to the attendees and staff, it would not have been such a success without you and your enthusiasm.

Join us again in 2017! Save the dates for another premier networking and educational event in Las Vegas. HM17 is slated for May 1–4, 2017, at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. More details will be coming soon.

Thanks to all who attended HM16 in San Diego! From the featured speakers—Acting Assistant Secretary for Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Karen DeSalvo, MD, MPH, MSc, and faculty—to the attendees and staff, it would not have been such a success without you and your enthusiasm.

Join us again in 2017! Save the dates for another premier networking and educational event in Las Vegas. HM17 is slated for May 1–4, 2017, at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. More details will be coming soon.

Thanks to all who attended HM16 in San Diego! From the featured speakers—Acting Assistant Secretary for Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Karen DeSalvo, MD, MPH, MSc, and faculty—to the attendees and staff, it would not have been such a success without you and your enthusiasm.

Join us again in 2017! Save the dates for another premier networking and educational event in Las Vegas. HM17 is slated for May 1–4, 2017, at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. More details will be coming soon.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The Sepsis Definitions Task Force, using expanded quantitative information, has updated its definitions for sepsis and septic shock and the clinical criteria underlying them.

Two reports and one summary communication published in JAMA February 23 detail the processes used to reach the consensus

definitions that have remained largely unchanged for more than two decades.

"The new definitions and clinical criteria of sepsis and septic shock are aimed to help clinicians at the bedside recognize these deadly syndromes and start therapy promptly," Dr. Christopher W. Seymour, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, told Reuters Health by email.

"After two years of deliberations and research, we were surprised to uncover the broad differences in how clinicians approach sepsis, and variety of criteria used in septic shock trials in the past decade. This mandated a re-examination of the criteria, strong efforts to speak a common language, and generate simple, easy to use criteria," Dr. Seymour said.

Dr. Seymour and colleagues recommended elimination of the terms sepsis syndrome, septicemia, and severe sepsis and settled on the definition of sepsis as "life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection."

They explored several sets of clinical criteria and their predictive validity for hospital mortality, including the Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA), Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and a simplified qSOFA model that included Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 or less, systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less, and respiratory rate of 22/min or more (1 point each; score range, 0-3).

For intensive care unit encounters with suspected infection, SOFA came out on top, whereas for encounters with suspected infection outside of the ICU, qSOFA offered the best predictive validity for in-hospital mortality.

"Sepsis has no gold standard for diagnosis," Dr. Seymour said. "Given its complex pathophysiology and our evolving knowledge base, the current definition and criteria for sepsis represent a first step. Our field will need to continue to embark on improvements in the practicality, validity, and scientific rationale for sepsis definitions/criteria in future iterations."

He added,"We also hope that physicians recognize that, for the first time, these criteria derive from new data analyses in real patients. More than 700,000 encounters in 170 hospitals were studied to evaluate existing and new sepsis criteria."

Dr. Manu Shankar-Hari, from Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, and colleagues reviewed 44 studies of septic shock involving 166,479 patients and used a Delphi process to arrive at the new consensus definition: "septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone."

Dr. Shankar-Hari told Reuters Health by email, "The proposed definition for septic shock is a paradigm shift in illness concept. We wanted to provide consistency in diagnosing septic shock. The epidemiology of this illness as we measure currently is messy."

After examining six possible sets of clinical criteria, the group identified two criteria that proved most consistent with the proposed septic shock definition: hypotension requiring use of vasopressors to maintain mean blood pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L persisting after adequate fluid resuscitation.

In their summary report, Dr. Clifford S. Deutschman, from Hofstra-Northwell School of Medicine, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, New Hyde Park, New York, and colleagues on the Task Force write, "The proposed criteria should aid diagnostic categorization once initial assessment and immediate management are completed. qSOFA or SOFA may at some point be used as entry criteria for clinical trials."

 

"Greater clarity and consistency will also facilitate research and more accurate coding," they add.

Dr. Edward Abraham, from Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina, who wrote an editorial related to these reports, told Reuters Health by email, "While the new definitions advance the field, particularly from an epidemiologic viewpoint and potentially in helping to identify the economic impact associated with sepsis and septic shock, they are only of limited help in defining care for an individual patient or in designing clinical trials to examine new therapies for sepsis."

"As noted in the editorial, more discriminatory definitions, based on specific cellular and genomic alterations, are necessary to truly affect care for individual patients and to assist in the development of novel therapeutic approaches to sepsis and septic shock," he said.

A number of organizations supported this research and a number of coauthors reported disclosures.

 

 

 

 

 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The Sepsis Definitions Task Force, using expanded quantitative information, has updated its definitions for sepsis and septic shock and the clinical criteria underlying them.

Two reports and one summary communication published in JAMA February 23 detail the processes used to reach the consensus

definitions that have remained largely unchanged for more than two decades.

"The new definitions and clinical criteria of sepsis and septic shock are aimed to help clinicians at the bedside recognize these deadly syndromes and start therapy promptly," Dr. Christopher W. Seymour, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, told Reuters Health by email.

"After two years of deliberations and research, we were surprised to uncover the broad differences in how clinicians approach sepsis, and variety of criteria used in septic shock trials in the past decade. This mandated a re-examination of the criteria, strong efforts to speak a common language, and generate simple, easy to use criteria," Dr. Seymour said.

Dr. Seymour and colleagues recommended elimination of the terms sepsis syndrome, septicemia, and severe sepsis and settled on the definition of sepsis as "life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection."

They explored several sets of clinical criteria and their predictive validity for hospital mortality, including the Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA), Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and a simplified qSOFA model that included Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 or less, systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less, and respiratory rate of 22/min or more (1 point each; score range, 0-3).

For intensive care unit encounters with suspected infection, SOFA came out on top, whereas for encounters with suspected infection outside of the ICU, qSOFA offered the best predictive validity for in-hospital mortality.

"Sepsis has no gold standard for diagnosis," Dr. Seymour said. "Given its complex pathophysiology and our evolving knowledge base, the current definition and criteria for sepsis represent a first step. Our field will need to continue to embark on improvements in the practicality, validity, and scientific rationale for sepsis definitions/criteria in future iterations."

He added,"We also hope that physicians recognize that, for the first time, these criteria derive from new data analyses in real patients. More than 700,000 encounters in 170 hospitals were studied to evaluate existing and new sepsis criteria."

Dr. Manu Shankar-Hari, from Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, and colleagues reviewed 44 studies of septic shock involving 166,479 patients and used a Delphi process to arrive at the new consensus definition: "septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone."

Dr. Shankar-Hari told Reuters Health by email, "The proposed definition for septic shock is a paradigm shift in illness concept. We wanted to provide consistency in diagnosing septic shock. The epidemiology of this illness as we measure currently is messy."

After examining six possible sets of clinical criteria, the group identified two criteria that proved most consistent with the proposed septic shock definition: hypotension requiring use of vasopressors to maintain mean blood pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L persisting after adequate fluid resuscitation.

In their summary report, Dr. Clifford S. Deutschman, from Hofstra-Northwell School of Medicine, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, New Hyde Park, New York, and colleagues on the Task Force write, "The proposed criteria should aid diagnostic categorization once initial assessment and immediate management are completed. qSOFA or SOFA may at some point be used as entry criteria for clinical trials."

 

"Greater clarity and consistency will also facilitate research and more accurate coding," they add.

Dr. Edward Abraham, from Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina, who wrote an editorial related to these reports, told Reuters Health by email, "While the new definitions advance the field, particularly from an epidemiologic viewpoint and potentially in helping to identify the economic impact associated with sepsis and septic shock, they are only of limited help in defining care for an individual patient or in designing clinical trials to examine new therapies for sepsis."

"As noted in the editorial, more discriminatory definitions, based on specific cellular and genomic alterations, are necessary to truly affect care for individual patients and to assist in the development of novel therapeutic approaches to sepsis and septic shock," he said.

A number of organizations supported this research and a number of coauthors reported disclosures.

 

 

 

 

 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The Sepsis Definitions Task Force, using expanded quantitative information, has updated its definitions for sepsis and septic shock and the clinical criteria underlying them.

Two reports and one summary communication published in JAMA February 23 detail the processes used to reach the consensus

definitions that have remained largely unchanged for more than two decades.

"The new definitions and clinical criteria of sepsis and septic shock are aimed to help clinicians at the bedside recognize these deadly syndromes and start therapy promptly," Dr. Christopher W. Seymour, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, told Reuters Health by email.

"After two years of deliberations and research, we were surprised to uncover the broad differences in how clinicians approach sepsis, and variety of criteria used in septic shock trials in the past decade. This mandated a re-examination of the criteria, strong efforts to speak a common language, and generate simple, easy to use criteria," Dr. Seymour said.

Dr. Seymour and colleagues recommended elimination of the terms sepsis syndrome, septicemia, and severe sepsis and settled on the definition of sepsis as "life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection."

They explored several sets of clinical criteria and their predictive validity for hospital mortality, including the Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA), Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and a simplified qSOFA model that included Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 or less, systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less, and respiratory rate of 22/min or more (1 point each; score range, 0-3).

For intensive care unit encounters with suspected infection, SOFA came out on top, whereas for encounters with suspected infection outside of the ICU, qSOFA offered the best predictive validity for in-hospital mortality.

"Sepsis has no gold standard for diagnosis," Dr. Seymour said. "Given its complex pathophysiology and our evolving knowledge base, the current definition and criteria for sepsis represent a first step. Our field will need to continue to embark on improvements in the practicality, validity, and scientific rationale for sepsis definitions/criteria in future iterations."

He added,"We also hope that physicians recognize that, for the first time, these criteria derive from new data analyses in real patients. More than 700,000 encounters in 170 hospitals were studied to evaluate existing and new sepsis criteria."

Dr. Manu Shankar-Hari, from Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, and colleagues reviewed 44 studies of septic shock involving 166,479 patients and used a Delphi process to arrive at the new consensus definition: "septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone."

Dr. Shankar-Hari told Reuters Health by email, "The proposed definition for septic shock is a paradigm shift in illness concept. We wanted to provide consistency in diagnosing septic shock. The epidemiology of this illness as we measure currently is messy."

After examining six possible sets of clinical criteria, the group identified two criteria that proved most consistent with the proposed septic shock definition: hypotension requiring use of vasopressors to maintain mean blood pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L persisting after adequate fluid resuscitation.

In their summary report, Dr. Clifford S. Deutschman, from Hofstra-Northwell School of Medicine, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, New Hyde Park, New York, and colleagues on the Task Force write, "The proposed criteria should aid diagnostic categorization once initial assessment and immediate management are completed. qSOFA or SOFA may at some point be used as entry criteria for clinical trials."

 

"Greater clarity and consistency will also facilitate research and more accurate coding," they add.

Dr. Edward Abraham, from Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina, who wrote an editorial related to these reports, told Reuters Health by email, "While the new definitions advance the field, particularly from an epidemiologic viewpoint and potentially in helping to identify the economic impact associated with sepsis and septic shock, they are only of limited help in defining care for an individual patient or in designing clinical trials to examine new therapies for sepsis."

"As noted in the editorial, more discriminatory definitions, based on specific cellular and genomic alterations, are necessary to truly affect care for individual patients and to assist in the development of novel therapeutic approaches to sepsis and septic shock," he said.

A number of organizations supported this research and a number of coauthors reported disclosures.

 

 

 

 

 

Physicians Nasim Afsar, MD, SFHM, and Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, presented key leadership lessons to a standing-room-only audience at Hospital Medicine 2016, the “Year of the Hospitalist.” The value of leadership and management skills is important in every day decisions from co-management of patients to motivating your teams.

Dr. Afsar and Dr. Howell went into detailed tips for these leadership lessons:

1. Decision-making bias. It is important to be aware of bias in decisions. A technique to evaluate a decision and “de-bias” is the WRAP process: Widen your options, Reality-test your assumptions, Attain distance before deciding, and Prepare to be wrong.
2. Performance management. Feedback and 360 evaluations are helpful tools in appraising performance.
3. Motivation can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is essential for non-routine high level work in medicine. Understanding the motivation of a team member is very useful to the team leader.
4. Groups versus teams. The composition of a team is crucial to success. It is also important to be aware of team limitations and plan for these potential limitations.
5. Persuasion and influence. Six principles of persuasion are:

1. Demonstrate trustworthiness and expertise.
2. Social proof. Highlight existing norms or set new norms.
3. Highlight similarities.
4. A win-win situation with concessions shows willingness to participate.
5. Reach agreement.
6. An option that appears to be a rare offer is more desirable.

Key Takeaways

• Consistently using a standard decision-making process, such as WRAP, can ensure better decision making.
• Financial compensation can be detrimental to intrinsic motivation and worsen performance.
• Make a conscious decision about when you need a group to help make decisions versus a team to work towards a common goal.
• Set specific goals for performance during feedback: include timeline, particular actions, and results that are expected.
• Social proof can be a powerful tool in persuasion.
• The SHM Leadership Academy is available to hospitalists interested in expanding leadership skills. TH

Dr. Hale is a pediatric hospitalist at Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts University Medical Center in Boston, and a former member of Team Hospitalist.

Physicians Nasim Afsar, MD, SFHM, and Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, presented key leadership lessons to a standing-room-only audience at Hospital Medicine 2016, the “Year of the Hospitalist.” The value of leadership and management skills is important in every day decisions from co-management of patients to motivating your teams.

Dr. Afsar and Dr. Howell went into detailed tips for these leadership lessons:

1. Decision-making bias. It is important to be aware of bias in decisions. A technique to evaluate a decision and “de-bias” is the WRAP process: Widen your options, Reality-test your assumptions, Attain distance before deciding, and Prepare to be wrong.
2. Performance management. Feedback and 360 evaluations are helpful tools in appraising performance.
3. Motivation can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is essential for non-routine high level work in medicine. Understanding the motivation of a team member is very useful to the team leader.
4. Groups versus teams. The composition of a team is crucial to success. It is also important to be aware of team limitations and plan for these potential limitations.
5. Persuasion and influence. Six principles of persuasion are:

1. Demonstrate trustworthiness and expertise.
2. Social proof. Highlight existing norms or set new norms.
3. Highlight similarities.
4. A win-win situation with concessions shows willingness to participate.
5. Reach agreement.
6. An option that appears to be a rare offer is more desirable.

Key Takeaways

• Consistently using a standard decision-making process, such as WRAP, can ensure better decision making.
• Financial compensation can be detrimental to intrinsic motivation and worsen performance.
• Make a conscious decision about when you need a group to help make decisions versus a team to work towards a common goal.
• Set specific goals for performance during feedback: include timeline, particular actions, and results that are expected.
• Social proof can be a powerful tool in persuasion.
• The SHM Leadership Academy is available to hospitalists interested in expanding leadership skills. TH

Dr. Hale is a pediatric hospitalist at Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts University Medical Center in Boston, and a former member of Team Hospitalist.

Physicians Nasim Afsar, MD, SFHM, and Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, presented key leadership lessons to a standing-room-only audience at Hospital Medicine 2016, the “Year of the Hospitalist.” The value of leadership and management skills is important in every day decisions from co-management of patients to motivating your teams.

Dr. Afsar and Dr. Howell went into detailed tips for these leadership lessons:

1. Decision-making bias. It is important to be aware of bias in decisions. A technique to evaluate a decision and “de-bias” is the WRAP process: Widen your options, Reality-test your assumptions, Attain distance before deciding, and Prepare to be wrong.
2. Performance management. Feedback and 360 evaluations are helpful tools in appraising performance.
3. Motivation can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is essential for non-routine high level work in medicine. Understanding the motivation of a team member is very useful to the team leader.
4. Groups versus teams. The composition of a team is crucial to success. It is also important to be aware of team limitations and plan for these potential limitations.
5. Persuasion and influence. Six principles of persuasion are:

1. Demonstrate trustworthiness and expertise.
2. Social proof. Highlight existing norms or set new norms.
3. Highlight similarities.
4. A win-win situation with concessions shows willingness to participate.
5. Reach agreement.
6. An option that appears to be a rare offer is more desirable.

Key Takeaways

• Consistently using a standard decision-making process, such as WRAP, can ensure better decision making.
• Financial compensation can be detrimental to intrinsic motivation and worsen performance.
• Make a conscious decision about when you need a group to help make decisions versus a team to work towards a common goal.
• Set specific goals for performance during feedback: include timeline, particular actions, and results that are expected.
• Social proof can be a powerful tool in persuasion.
• The SHM Leadership Academy is available to hospitalists interested in expanding leadership skills. TH

Dr. Hale is a pediatric hospitalist at Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts University Medical Center in Boston, and a former member of Team Hospitalist.

Dr. Vivek Murthy delivered an excellent opening address to Hospital Medicine 2016, the “Year of the Hospitalist.” He presented a key message that hospitalists can be major supporters of public health and disease prevention. He described the clean water crisis in Flint, Michigan as a tragedy that should not be occurring in the United States in the year 2016.

We need to renew our commitment to a strong foundation of public health. “Health is the key to opportunity,” Dr. Murthy stated. He reviewed four pillars for the foundation of good public health:

1. Make healthy choices a desired choice. We should try to establish exercise and good eating as a part of a normal lifestyle, not something onerous or difficult. Healthy choices can be a source of pleasure.
2. Change the environment to make healthy changes sustainable. The environment includes advertising and marketing of good choices, access to healthy foods, and access to increased activity. An example was local government commitments to increased walkable routes and parks will increase activity in a population.
3. Focus on the mind and spirit, not just the body.
4. Cultivate the ability to give and receive kindness.

Dr. Murthy left the hospitalist with three take-home questions:

1. Can a hospitalist leverage leadership to create a culture of healing?
2. Can a hospitalist be a force for change outside the hospital setting? Can you assist with nutrition wellness or safety projects outside of the hospital?
3. Can we inspire the next generation of physicians to work on public health and preventing illness?

Key Takeaways

1. Hospitalists can be major supporters of public health and disease prevention; and
2. The foundation of good public health includes the changes to make healthy choices a desired choice, change the environment to make healthy changes sustainable, focus on the mind and spirit, and cultivate the ability to give and receive kindness.

Dr. Vivek Murthy delivered an excellent opening address to Hospital Medicine 2016, the “Year of the Hospitalist.” He presented a key message that hospitalists can be major supporters of public health and disease prevention. He described the clean water crisis in Flint, Michigan as a tragedy that should not be occurring in the United States in the year 2016.

We need to renew our commitment to a strong foundation of public health. “Health is the key to opportunity,” Dr. Murthy stated. He reviewed four pillars for the foundation of good public health:

1. Make healthy choices a desired choice. We should try to establish exercise and good eating as a part of a normal lifestyle, not something onerous or difficult. Healthy choices can be a source of pleasure.
2. Change the environment to make healthy changes sustainable. The environment includes advertising and marketing of good choices, access to healthy foods, and access to increased activity. An example was local government commitments to increased walkable routes and parks will increase activity in a population.
3. Focus on the mind and spirit, not just the body.
4. Cultivate the ability to give and receive kindness.

Dr. Murthy left the hospitalist with three take-home questions:

1. Can a hospitalist leverage leadership to create a culture of healing?
2. Can a hospitalist be a force for change outside the hospital setting? Can you assist with nutrition wellness or safety projects outside of the hospital?
3. Can we inspire the next generation of physicians to work on public health and preventing illness?

Key Takeaways

1. Hospitalists can be major supporters of public health and disease prevention; and
2. The foundation of good public health includes the changes to make healthy choices a desired choice, change the environment to make healthy changes sustainable, focus on the mind and spirit, and cultivate the ability to give and receive kindness.

Dr. Vivek Murthy delivered an excellent opening address to Hospital Medicine 2016, the “Year of the Hospitalist.” He presented a key message that hospitalists can be major supporters of public health and disease prevention. He described the clean water crisis in Flint, Michigan as a tragedy that should not be occurring in the United States in the year 2016.

We need to renew our commitment to a strong foundation of public health. “Health is the key to opportunity,” Dr. Murthy stated. He reviewed four pillars for the foundation of good public health:

1. Make healthy choices a desired choice. We should try to establish exercise and good eating as a part of a normal lifestyle, not something onerous or difficult. Healthy choices can be a source of pleasure.
2. Change the environment to make healthy changes sustainable. The environment includes advertising and marketing of good choices, access to healthy foods, and access to increased activity. An example was local government commitments to increased walkable routes and parks will increase activity in a population.
3. Focus on the mind and spirit, not just the body.
4. Cultivate the ability to give and receive kindness.

Dr. Murthy left the hospitalist with three take-home questions:

1. Can a hospitalist leverage leadership to create a culture of healing?
2. Can a hospitalist be a force for change outside the hospital setting? Can you assist with nutrition wellness or safety projects outside of the hospital?
3. Can we inspire the next generation of physicians to work on public health and preventing illness?

Key Takeaways

1. Hospitalists can be major supporters of public health and disease prevention; and
2. The foundation of good public health includes the changes to make healthy choices a desired choice, change the environment to make healthy changes sustainable, focus on the mind and spirit, and cultivate the ability to give and receive kindness.

Presenter: Aziz Ansari, DO, FHM

Summary: With the implementation of ICD-10, correct and specific documentation to ensure proper patient diagnosis categorization has become increasingly important. Hospitalists are urged to understand the impact CDI has on quality and reimbursement.

Quality Impact: Documentation has a direct impact on quality reporting for mortality and complication rates, risk of mortality, as well as severity of illness. Documenting present on admission (POA) also directly impacts the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) classifications.

Reimbursement Impact: Documentation has a direct impact on expected length of stay, case mix index (CMI), cost reporting, and appropriate hospital reimbursement.

HM Takeaways:

• Be clear and specific.
• Document principle diagnosis and secondary diagnoses, and their associated interactions, are critically important.
• Ensure all diagnoses are a part of the discharge summary.
• Avoid saying “History of.”
• It’s OK to document “possible,” “probably,” “likely,” or “suspected.”
• Document “why” the patient has the diagnosis.
• List all differentials, and identify if ruled in or ruled out.
• Indicate acuity, even if obvious.

This presenter also reviewed common CDI opportunities in hospital medicine.

Note: This discussion was specific to the needs of the hospital patient diagnosis and billing, and not related to physician billing and CPT codes.

Presenter: Aziz Ansari, DO, FHM

Summary: With the implementation of ICD-10, correct and specific documentation to ensure proper patient diagnosis categorization has become increasingly important. Hospitalists are urged to understand the impact CDI has on quality and reimbursement.

Quality Impact: Documentation has a direct impact on quality reporting for mortality and complication rates, risk of mortality, as well as severity of illness. Documenting present on admission (POA) also directly impacts the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) classifications.

Reimbursement Impact: Documentation has a direct impact on expected length of stay, case mix index (CMI), cost reporting, and appropriate hospital reimbursement.

HM Takeaways:

• Be clear and specific.
• Document principle diagnosis and secondary diagnoses, and their associated interactions, are critically important.
• Ensure all diagnoses are a part of the discharge summary.
• Avoid saying “History of.”
• It’s OK to document “possible,” “probably,” “likely,” or “suspected.”
• Document “why” the patient has the diagnosis.
• List all differentials, and identify if ruled in or ruled out.
• Indicate acuity, even if obvious.

This presenter also reviewed common CDI opportunities in hospital medicine.

Note: This discussion was specific to the needs of the hospital patient diagnosis and billing, and not related to physician billing and CPT codes.

Presenter: Aziz Ansari, DO, FHM

Summary: With the implementation of ICD-10, correct and specific documentation to ensure proper patient diagnosis categorization has become increasingly important. Hospitalists are urged to understand the impact CDI has on quality and reimbursement.

Quality Impact: Documentation has a direct impact on quality reporting for mortality and complication rates, risk of mortality, as well as severity of illness. Documenting present on admission (POA) also directly impacts the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) classifications.

Reimbursement Impact: Documentation has a direct impact on expected length of stay, case mix index (CMI), cost reporting, and appropriate hospital reimbursement.

HM Takeaways:

• Be clear and specific.
• Document principle diagnosis and secondary diagnoses, and their associated interactions, are critically important.
• Ensure all diagnoses are a part of the discharge summary.
• Avoid saying “History of.”
• It’s OK to document “possible,” “probably,” “likely,” or “suspected.”
• Document “why” the patient has the diagnosis.
• List all differentials, and identify if ruled in or ruled out.
• Indicate acuity, even if obvious.

This presenter also reviewed common CDI opportunities in hospital medicine.

Note: This discussion was specific to the needs of the hospital patient diagnosis and billing, and not related to physician billing and CPT codes.

[WpProQuiz 5]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 5]

[WpProQuiz 5]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 5]

[WpProQuiz 5]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 5]

At #HospMed16 Plenary, the U.S. Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, spoke to a standing-room-only crowd about how hospitalists can lead in “Bringing Health to America.”

Dr. Murthy, who previously worked as a hospitalist in Boston, spoke about how the urgency to build a foundation for health in America, where chronic illness and healthcare costs have skyrocketed, could not be any greater. Health is the key to opportunity, he said. He explored the following strategies to make America healthier:

1. Make the pursuit of healthy appealing;
2. Improve the safety of our communities;
3. Focus on the mind and spirit; and,
4. Cultivate our ability to give and receive kindness.

Specifically, hospitalists should contemplate the following questions:

• How can hospitalists leverage their leadership in the hospital to improve systems and create a culture that supports healing and health?
• How can hospitalists be a powerful of force of change both inside and outside the hospital?
• How can hospitalists inspire the next generation of physicians to safeguard the health of their community by treating and preventing illness?

Dr. Murthy challenged hospitalists to commit to strengthening the foundation of health in our country and shift our culture towards the well-being of our communities through prevention.

He left the group by saying, “In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better.” TH

At #HospMed16 Plenary, the U.S. Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, spoke to a standing-room-only crowd about how hospitalists can lead in “Bringing Health to America.”

Dr. Murthy, who previously worked as a hospitalist in Boston, spoke about how the urgency to build a foundation for health in America, where chronic illness and healthcare costs have skyrocketed, could not be any greater. Health is the key to opportunity, he said. He explored the following strategies to make America healthier:

1. Make the pursuit of healthy appealing;
2. Improve the safety of our communities;
3. Focus on the mind and spirit; and,
4. Cultivate our ability to give and receive kindness.

Specifically, hospitalists should contemplate the following questions:

• How can hospitalists leverage their leadership in the hospital to improve systems and create a culture that supports healing and health?
• How can hospitalists be a powerful of force of change both inside and outside the hospital?
• How can hospitalists inspire the next generation of physicians to safeguard the health of their community by treating and preventing illness?

Dr. Murthy challenged hospitalists to commit to strengthening the foundation of health in our country and shift our culture towards the well-being of our communities through prevention.

He left the group by saying, “In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better.” TH

At #HospMed16 Plenary, the U.S. Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, spoke to a standing-room-only crowd about how hospitalists can lead in “Bringing Health to America.”

Dr. Murthy, who previously worked as a hospitalist in Boston, spoke about how the urgency to build a foundation for health in America, where chronic illness and healthcare costs have skyrocketed, could not be any greater. Health is the key to opportunity, he said. He explored the following strategies to make America healthier:

1. Make the pursuit of healthy appealing;
2. Improve the safety of our communities;
3. Focus on the mind and spirit; and,
4. Cultivate our ability to give and receive kindness.

Specifically, hospitalists should contemplate the following questions:

• How can hospitalists leverage their leadership in the hospital to improve systems and create a culture that supports healing and health?
• How can hospitalists be a powerful of force of change both inside and outside the hospital?
• How can hospitalists inspire the next generation of physicians to safeguard the health of their community by treating and preventing illness?

Dr. Murthy challenged hospitalists to commit to strengthening the foundation of health in our country and shift our culture towards the well-being of our communities through prevention.

He left the group by saying, “In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better.” TH