Patient Care

Hospice care” and “palliative care” are not synonymous terms. Hospice care is defined as a comprehensive set of services (see “Hospice Coverage,” below) identified and coordinated by an interdisciplinary group to provide for the physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and emotional needs of a terminally ill patient and/or family members, as delineated in a specific patient plan of care.¹ Palliative care is defined as patient- and family-centered care that optimizes quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering. Palliative care throughout the continuum of illness involves addressing physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs, and facilitates patient autonomy, access to information, and choice.¹

As an approach, hospice care of terminally ill individuals involves palliative care (relief of pain and uncomfortable symptoms), and emphasizes maintaining the patient at home with family and friends as long as possible. Hospice services can be provided in a home, center, skilled-nursing facility, or hospital setting. In contrast, palliative-care services can be provided during hospice care, or coincide with care that is focused on a cure.

Many hospitalists provide both hospice care and palliative-care services to their patients. Different factors affect how to report these services. These programs can be quite costly, as they involve several team members and a substantial amount of time delivering these services. Capturing services appropriately and obtaining reimbursement to help continue program initiatives are significant issues.

Hospice Care

When a patient enrolls in hospice, all rights to Medicare Part B payments are waived during the benefit period involving professional services related to the treatment and management of the terminal illness. Payment is made through the Part A benefit for the associated costs of daily care and the services provided by the hospice-employed physician. An exception occurs for professional services of an independent attending physician who is not an employee of the designated hospice and does not receive compensation from the hospice for those services. The “attending physician” for hospice services must be an individual who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or a nurse practitioner identified by the individual, at the time they elect hospice coverage, as having the most significant role in the determination and delivery of their medical care.²

Patients often receive hospice in the hospital setting, where the hospitalist manages the patient’s daily care. If the hospitalist is designated as the “attending physician” for hospice services, the visits should be reported to Medicare Part B with modifier GV (e.g. 99232-GV).3 This will allow for separate payment to the hospitalist (the independent attending physician), while the hospice agency maintains its daily-care rate. Reporting services absent this modifier will result in denial.

In some cases, the hospitalist is not identified as the “attending physician” for hospice services but occasionally provides care related to the terminal illness. This situation proves most difficult. Although the hospitalist might be the most accessible physician to the staff and is putting the patient’s needs first, reimbursement is unlikely. Regulations stipulate that patients must not see independent physicians other than their “attending physician” for care related to their terminal illness unless the hospice arranges it. When the service is related to the hospice patient’s terminal illness but was furnished by someone other than the designated “attending physician,” this “other physician” must look to the hospice for payment.³

Nonhospice Palliative Care

Members of the palliative-care team often are called to provide management options to assist in reducing pain and suffering. When the palliative-care specialist is asked to provide opinions or advice, the initial service may qualify as a consultation for those payors that still recognize these codes. However, all of the requirements⁴ must be met in order to report the service as an inpatient consultation (99251-99255):³

• There must be a written request from a qualified healthcare provider who is involved in the patient’s care (e.g. physician, resident, nurse practitioner); this may be documented as a physician order or in the assessment/plan of the requesting provider’s progress note. Standing orders for consultation are not permitted.
• The requesting provider should clearly and accurately identify the reason for consult request to support the medical necessity of the service.
• The palliative-care physician renders and documents the service.
• The palliative-care physician reports his or her findings to the requesting physician via written communication; because the requesting physician and the consultant share a common inpatient medical record, the consultant’s inpatient progress note satisfies the “written report” requirement.

Consider the nature of the request when reporting a consultation. If the request demonstrates the need for opinions or advice from the palliative-care specialist, the service can be reported as a consultation. If the indication cites “medical management” or “palliative management,” payors are less likely to consider the service as a consultation because the physician is not seeking opinions or advice from the consultant to incorporate into his or her own plan of care for the patient and would rather the consultant just take over that portion of patient care. When consultations do not meet the requirements, subsequent hospital care services should be reported (99231-99233).³

The requesting physician can be in the same or a different provider group as the consultant. The consultant must possess expertise in an area that is beyond that of the requesting provider. Because most hospitalists carry a specialty designation of internal medicine (physician specialty code 11), hospitalists providing palliative-care services can distinguish themselves by their own code (physician specialty code 17, hospice and palliative care).⁵ Payor concerns arise when physicians of the same designated specialty submit a claim for the same patient on the same date. The payor is likely to pay the first claim received and deny the second claim received pending review of documentation. If this occurs, submit a copy of both progress notes for the date in question to distinguish the services provided. The payor may still require that both encounters be reported as one cumulative service under one physician.

Consultations are not an option for Medicare beneficiaries. Hospitalists providing palliative care can report initial hospital care codes (99221-99223) for their first encounter with the patient.³ This is only acceptable when no other hospitalist from the group has reported initial hospital care during the patient stay, unless the palliative-care hospitalist carries the corresponding designation (i.e. enrolled with Medicare as physician specialty code 17). Without this separate designation, the palliative-care hospitalist can only report subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233) as the patient was seen previously by a hospitalist in the same group.³

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia. She is also on the faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. U.S. Government Printing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 42: Public Health, Part 418: Hospice Care, §418.3. June 2012. U.S. Government Printing Office website. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=818258235647b14d2961ad30fa3e68e6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=42:3.0.1.1.5&idno=42#42:3.0.1.1.5.1.3.3. Accessed June 23, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 11: processing hospice claims. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.
4. American Medical Association. Consultation services and transfer of care. American Medical Association website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cpt/cpt-consultation-services.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 26: completing and processing form CMS-1500 data set. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/clm104c26.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012. Department of Health and Human Services.
6. Hospice Payment System: payment system fact sheet series. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/hospice_pay_sys_fs.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.

Hospice care” and “palliative care” are not synonymous terms. Hospice care is defined as a comprehensive set of services (see “Hospice Coverage,” below) identified and coordinated by an interdisciplinary group to provide for the physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and emotional needs of a terminally ill patient and/or family members, as delineated in a specific patient plan of care.¹ Palliative care is defined as patient- and family-centered care that optimizes quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering. Palliative care throughout the continuum of illness involves addressing physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs, and facilitates patient autonomy, access to information, and choice.¹

As an approach, hospice care of terminally ill individuals involves palliative care (relief of pain and uncomfortable symptoms), and emphasizes maintaining the patient at home with family and friends as long as possible. Hospice services can be provided in a home, center, skilled-nursing facility, or hospital setting. In contrast, palliative-care services can be provided during hospice care, or coincide with care that is focused on a cure.

Many hospitalists provide both hospice care and palliative-care services to their patients. Different factors affect how to report these services. These programs can be quite costly, as they involve several team members and a substantial amount of time delivering these services. Capturing services appropriately and obtaining reimbursement to help continue program initiatives are significant issues.

Hospice Care

When a patient enrolls in hospice, all rights to Medicare Part B payments are waived during the benefit period involving professional services related to the treatment and management of the terminal illness. Payment is made through the Part A benefit for the associated costs of daily care and the services provided by the hospice-employed physician. An exception occurs for professional services of an independent attending physician who is not an employee of the designated hospice and does not receive compensation from the hospice for those services. The “attending physician” for hospice services must be an individual who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or a nurse practitioner identified by the individual, at the time they elect hospice coverage, as having the most significant role in the determination and delivery of their medical care.²

Patients often receive hospice in the hospital setting, where the hospitalist manages the patient’s daily care. If the hospitalist is designated as the “attending physician” for hospice services, the visits should be reported to Medicare Part B with modifier GV (e.g. 99232-GV).3 This will allow for separate payment to the hospitalist (the independent attending physician), while the hospice agency maintains its daily-care rate. Reporting services absent this modifier will result in denial.

In some cases, the hospitalist is not identified as the “attending physician” for hospice services but occasionally provides care related to the terminal illness. This situation proves most difficult. Although the hospitalist might be the most accessible physician to the staff and is putting the patient’s needs first, reimbursement is unlikely. Regulations stipulate that patients must not see independent physicians other than their “attending physician” for care related to their terminal illness unless the hospice arranges it. When the service is related to the hospice patient’s terminal illness but was furnished by someone other than the designated “attending physician,” this “other physician” must look to the hospice for payment.³

Nonhospice Palliative Care

Members of the palliative-care team often are called to provide management options to assist in reducing pain and suffering. When the palliative-care specialist is asked to provide opinions or advice, the initial service may qualify as a consultation for those payors that still recognize these codes. However, all of the requirements⁴ must be met in order to report the service as an inpatient consultation (99251-99255):³

• There must be a written request from a qualified healthcare provider who is involved in the patient’s care (e.g. physician, resident, nurse practitioner); this may be documented as a physician order or in the assessment/plan of the requesting provider’s progress note. Standing orders for consultation are not permitted.
• The requesting provider should clearly and accurately identify the reason for consult request to support the medical necessity of the service.
• The palliative-care physician renders and documents the service.
• The palliative-care physician reports his or her findings to the requesting physician via written communication; because the requesting physician and the consultant share a common inpatient medical record, the consultant’s inpatient progress note satisfies the “written report” requirement.

Consider the nature of the request when reporting a consultation. If the request demonstrates the need for opinions or advice from the palliative-care specialist, the service can be reported as a consultation. If the indication cites “medical management” or “palliative management,” payors are less likely to consider the service as a consultation because the physician is not seeking opinions or advice from the consultant to incorporate into his or her own plan of care for the patient and would rather the consultant just take over that portion of patient care. When consultations do not meet the requirements, subsequent hospital care services should be reported (99231-99233).³

The requesting physician can be in the same or a different provider group as the consultant. The consultant must possess expertise in an area that is beyond that of the requesting provider. Because most hospitalists carry a specialty designation of internal medicine (physician specialty code 11), hospitalists providing palliative-care services can distinguish themselves by their own code (physician specialty code 17, hospice and palliative care).⁵ Payor concerns arise when physicians of the same designated specialty submit a claim for the same patient on the same date. The payor is likely to pay the first claim received and deny the second claim received pending review of documentation. If this occurs, submit a copy of both progress notes for the date in question to distinguish the services provided. The payor may still require that both encounters be reported as one cumulative service under one physician.

Consultations are not an option for Medicare beneficiaries. Hospitalists providing palliative care can report initial hospital care codes (99221-99223) for their first encounter with the patient.³ This is only acceptable when no other hospitalist from the group has reported initial hospital care during the patient stay, unless the palliative-care hospitalist carries the corresponding designation (i.e. enrolled with Medicare as physician specialty code 17). Without this separate designation, the palliative-care hospitalist can only report subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233) as the patient was seen previously by a hospitalist in the same group.³

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia. She is also on the faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. U.S. Government Printing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 42: Public Health, Part 418: Hospice Care, §418.3. June 2012. U.S. Government Printing Office website. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=818258235647b14d2961ad30fa3e68e6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=42:3.0.1.1.5&idno=42#42:3.0.1.1.5.1.3.3. Accessed June 23, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 11: processing hospice claims. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.
4. American Medical Association. Consultation services and transfer of care. American Medical Association website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cpt/cpt-consultation-services.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 26: completing and processing form CMS-1500 data set. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/clm104c26.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012. Department of Health and Human Services.
6. Hospice Payment System: payment system fact sheet series. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/hospice_pay_sys_fs.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.

Hospice care” and “palliative care” are not synonymous terms. Hospice care is defined as a comprehensive set of services (see “Hospice Coverage,” below) identified and coordinated by an interdisciplinary group to provide for the physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and emotional needs of a terminally ill patient and/or family members, as delineated in a specific patient plan of care.¹ Palliative care is defined as patient- and family-centered care that optimizes quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering. Palliative care throughout the continuum of illness involves addressing physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs, and facilitates patient autonomy, access to information, and choice.¹

As an approach, hospice care of terminally ill individuals involves palliative care (relief of pain and uncomfortable symptoms), and emphasizes maintaining the patient at home with family and friends as long as possible. Hospice services can be provided in a home, center, skilled-nursing facility, or hospital setting. In contrast, palliative-care services can be provided during hospice care, or coincide with care that is focused on a cure.

Many hospitalists provide both hospice care and palliative-care services to their patients. Different factors affect how to report these services. These programs can be quite costly, as they involve several team members and a substantial amount of time delivering these services. Capturing services appropriately and obtaining reimbursement to help continue program initiatives are significant issues.

Hospice Care

When a patient enrolls in hospice, all rights to Medicare Part B payments are waived during the benefit period involving professional services related to the treatment and management of the terminal illness. Payment is made through the Part A benefit for the associated costs of daily care and the services provided by the hospice-employed physician. An exception occurs for professional services of an independent attending physician who is not an employee of the designated hospice and does not receive compensation from the hospice for those services. The “attending physician” for hospice services must be an individual who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or a nurse practitioner identified by the individual, at the time they elect hospice coverage, as having the most significant role in the determination and delivery of their medical care.²

Patients often receive hospice in the hospital setting, where the hospitalist manages the patient’s daily care. If the hospitalist is designated as the “attending physician” for hospice services, the visits should be reported to Medicare Part B with modifier GV (e.g. 99232-GV).3 This will allow for separate payment to the hospitalist (the independent attending physician), while the hospice agency maintains its daily-care rate. Reporting services absent this modifier will result in denial.

In some cases, the hospitalist is not identified as the “attending physician” for hospice services but occasionally provides care related to the terminal illness. This situation proves most difficult. Although the hospitalist might be the most accessible physician to the staff and is putting the patient’s needs first, reimbursement is unlikely. Regulations stipulate that patients must not see independent physicians other than their “attending physician” for care related to their terminal illness unless the hospice arranges it. When the service is related to the hospice patient’s terminal illness but was furnished by someone other than the designated “attending physician,” this “other physician” must look to the hospice for payment.³

Nonhospice Palliative Care

Members of the palliative-care team often are called to provide management options to assist in reducing pain and suffering. When the palliative-care specialist is asked to provide opinions or advice, the initial service may qualify as a consultation for those payors that still recognize these codes. However, all of the requirements⁴ must be met in order to report the service as an inpatient consultation (99251-99255):³

• There must be a written request from a qualified healthcare provider who is involved in the patient’s care (e.g. physician, resident, nurse practitioner); this may be documented as a physician order or in the assessment/plan of the requesting provider’s progress note. Standing orders for consultation are not permitted.
• The requesting provider should clearly and accurately identify the reason for consult request to support the medical necessity of the service.
• The palliative-care physician renders and documents the service.
• The palliative-care physician reports his or her findings to the requesting physician via written communication; because the requesting physician and the consultant share a common inpatient medical record, the consultant’s inpatient progress note satisfies the “written report” requirement.

Consider the nature of the request when reporting a consultation. If the request demonstrates the need for opinions or advice from the palliative-care specialist, the service can be reported as a consultation. If the indication cites “medical management” or “palliative management,” payors are less likely to consider the service as a consultation because the physician is not seeking opinions or advice from the consultant to incorporate into his or her own plan of care for the patient and would rather the consultant just take over that portion of patient care. When consultations do not meet the requirements, subsequent hospital care services should be reported (99231-99233).³

The requesting physician can be in the same or a different provider group as the consultant. The consultant must possess expertise in an area that is beyond that of the requesting provider. Because most hospitalists carry a specialty designation of internal medicine (physician specialty code 11), hospitalists providing palliative-care services can distinguish themselves by their own code (physician specialty code 17, hospice and palliative care).⁵ Payor concerns arise when physicians of the same designated specialty submit a claim for the same patient on the same date. The payor is likely to pay the first claim received and deny the second claim received pending review of documentation. If this occurs, submit a copy of both progress notes for the date in question to distinguish the services provided. The payor may still require that both encounters be reported as one cumulative service under one physician.

Consultations are not an option for Medicare beneficiaries. Hospitalists providing palliative care can report initial hospital care codes (99221-99223) for their first encounter with the patient.³ This is only acceptable when no other hospitalist from the group has reported initial hospital care during the patient stay, unless the palliative-care hospitalist carries the corresponding designation (i.e. enrolled with Medicare as physician specialty code 17). Without this separate designation, the palliative-care hospitalist can only report subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233) as the patient was seen previously by a hospitalist in the same group.³

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia. She is also on the faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. U.S. Government Printing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 42: Public Health, Part 418: Hospice Care, §418.3. June 2012. U.S. Government Printing Office website. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=818258235647b14d2961ad30fa3e68e6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=42:3.0.1.1.5&idno=42#42:3.0.1.1.5.1.3.3. Accessed June 23, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 11: processing hospice claims. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.
4. American Medical Association. Consultation services and transfer of care. American Medical Association website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cpt/cpt-consultation-services.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 26: completing and processing form CMS-1500 data set. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/clm104c26.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012. Department of Health and Human Services.
6. Hospice Payment System: payment system fact sheet series. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/hospice_pay_sys_fs.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.

A national outbreak of fungal meningitis tied to contaminated steroids in epidural injections should make hospitalists vigilant with patients who present potential symptoms, says an infectious-disease (ID) specialist.

Earlier this month, health officials linked the outbreak to tainted batches of steroids used in spinal injections, and they say it could be weeks, or even months, before they know whether the incubation period for the disease is over, according to The New York Times.

"The key in my mind is that hospitalists ought to have a high index of suspicion for this right now," says hospitalist and ID expert James Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, of the Cleveland Clinic. "If you encounter a patient you think may have meningitis, may have a brain stem stroke, may have an epidural abscess or vertebral osteomyelitis...at least think and ask the patient, or their family member, 'Did you receive an epidural steroid injection recently?'"

The answer to that question will help determine the best care delivery for hospitalists, and physicians should not rely on patients to relay the information without being asked for it, Dr. Pile says.

The outbreak has been traced to three contaminated batches of methylprednisolone produced by the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass. The company, which is under criminal investigation, has been linked to at least 25 deaths and more than 317 infected patients. Although 14,000 people might have been injected with the contaminated compound, CDC officials say the likelihood of infection remains relatively low.

Dr. Pile says that while hospitalists might see only a handful of fungal meningitis cases in their careers, they still need to keep the possibility in mind when examining patients. It's a safe approach to take, particularly as the CDC continues to investigate the extent of the outbreak. The CDC has advised against antifungal prophylaxis or presumptive treatment of exposed asymptomatic patients without a diagnosed case of meningitis.

"This is just unfolding so quickly, it's a moving target," Dr. Pile adds. "How big it ends up being and what kinds of new or unusual manifestations present remain to be seen."

Visit our website for more information about infectious disease and hospital medicine.

A national outbreak of fungal meningitis tied to contaminated steroids in epidural injections should make hospitalists vigilant with patients who present potential symptoms, says an infectious-disease (ID) specialist.

Earlier this month, health officials linked the outbreak to tainted batches of steroids used in spinal injections, and they say it could be weeks, or even months, before they know whether the incubation period for the disease is over, according to The New York Times.

"The key in my mind is that hospitalists ought to have a high index of suspicion for this right now," says hospitalist and ID expert James Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, of the Cleveland Clinic. "If you encounter a patient you think may have meningitis, may have a brain stem stroke, may have an epidural abscess or vertebral osteomyelitis...at least think and ask the patient, or their family member, 'Did you receive an epidural steroid injection recently?'"

The answer to that question will help determine the best care delivery for hospitalists, and physicians should not rely on patients to relay the information without being asked for it, Dr. Pile says.

The outbreak has been traced to three contaminated batches of methylprednisolone produced by the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass. The company, which is under criminal investigation, has been linked to at least 25 deaths and more than 317 infected patients. Although 14,000 people might have been injected with the contaminated compound, CDC officials say the likelihood of infection remains relatively low.

Dr. Pile says that while hospitalists might see only a handful of fungal meningitis cases in their careers, they still need to keep the possibility in mind when examining patients. It's a safe approach to take, particularly as the CDC continues to investigate the extent of the outbreak. The CDC has advised against antifungal prophylaxis or presumptive treatment of exposed asymptomatic patients without a diagnosed case of meningitis.

"This is just unfolding so quickly, it's a moving target," Dr. Pile adds. "How big it ends up being and what kinds of new or unusual manifestations present remain to be seen."

Visit our website for more information about infectious disease and hospital medicine.

A national outbreak of fungal meningitis tied to contaminated steroids in epidural injections should make hospitalists vigilant with patients who present potential symptoms, says an infectious-disease (ID) specialist.

Earlier this month, health officials linked the outbreak to tainted batches of steroids used in spinal injections, and they say it could be weeks, or even months, before they know whether the incubation period for the disease is over, according to The New York Times.

"The key in my mind is that hospitalists ought to have a high index of suspicion for this right now," says hospitalist and ID expert James Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, of the Cleveland Clinic. "If you encounter a patient you think may have meningitis, may have a brain stem stroke, may have an epidural abscess or vertebral osteomyelitis...at least think and ask the patient, or their family member, 'Did you receive an epidural steroid injection recently?'"

The answer to that question will help determine the best care delivery for hospitalists, and physicians should not rely on patients to relay the information without being asked for it, Dr. Pile says.

The outbreak has been traced to three contaminated batches of methylprednisolone produced by the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass. The company, which is under criminal investigation, has been linked to at least 25 deaths and more than 317 infected patients. Although 14,000 people might have been injected with the contaminated compound, CDC officials say the likelihood of infection remains relatively low.

Dr. Pile says that while hospitalists might see only a handful of fungal meningitis cases in their careers, they still need to keep the possibility in mind when examining patients. It's a safe approach to take, particularly as the CDC continues to investigate the extent of the outbreak. The CDC has advised against antifungal prophylaxis or presumptive treatment of exposed asymptomatic patients without a diagnosed case of meningitis.

"This is just unfolding so quickly, it's a moving target," Dr. Pile adds. "How big it ends up being and what kinds of new or unusual manifestations present remain to be seen."

Visit our website for more information about infectious disease and hospital medicine.

The largest effort to date to tackle central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) has reduced infection rates in ICUs nationwide by 40%, according to preliminary findings from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

AHRQ attributes the decrease to a CLABSI safety checklist from the Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program (CUSP) that encourages hospital staff to wash their hands prior to inserting central lines, avoid the femoral site, remove lines when they are no longer needed, and use the antimicrobial agent chlorhexidine to clean the patient's insertion site.

The checklist was developed by Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, FCCM, and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and originally implemented in ICUs statewide in Michigan as the Keystone Project. Since 2009, CUSP has recruited more than 1,000 participating hospitals in 44 states. CUSP collectively reported a decrease to 1.25 from 1.87 CLABSIs per 1,000 central-line days 10-12 months after implementing the program, according to AHRQ [PDF].

The real game-changer for CLABSIs has been the widespread adoption of chlorhexidine as an insertion site disinfectant, says Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, director of the Veterans Administration at the University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program in Ann Arbor and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan. Dr. Saint is on the national leadership team of On the CUSP: Stop CAUTI (Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections), an initiative that aims to reduce mean rates of CAUTI infections by 25% in hospitals nationwide.

Although hospitalists don't routinely place central lines, their role in this procedure is growing, both in nonacademic hospitals that lack intensivists and on hospitals' general medicine floors.

"My take-home message for hospitalists: if you are putting in central lines, if you only make one change in practice, is to use chlorhexidine as the site disinfectant," Dr. Saint says.

Visit our website for more information about central-line-associated bloodstream infections.

The largest effort to date to tackle central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) has reduced infection rates in ICUs nationwide by 40%, according to preliminary findings from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

AHRQ attributes the decrease to a CLABSI safety checklist from the Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program (CUSP) that encourages hospital staff to wash their hands prior to inserting central lines, avoid the femoral site, remove lines when they are no longer needed, and use the antimicrobial agent chlorhexidine to clean the patient's insertion site.

The checklist was developed by Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, FCCM, and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and originally implemented in ICUs statewide in Michigan as the Keystone Project. Since 2009, CUSP has recruited more than 1,000 participating hospitals in 44 states. CUSP collectively reported a decrease to 1.25 from 1.87 CLABSIs per 1,000 central-line days 10-12 months after implementing the program, according to AHRQ [PDF].

The real game-changer for CLABSIs has been the widespread adoption of chlorhexidine as an insertion site disinfectant, says Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, director of the Veterans Administration at the University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program in Ann Arbor and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan. Dr. Saint is on the national leadership team of On the CUSP: Stop CAUTI (Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections), an initiative that aims to reduce mean rates of CAUTI infections by 25% in hospitals nationwide.

Although hospitalists don't routinely place central lines, their role in this procedure is growing, both in nonacademic hospitals that lack intensivists and on hospitals' general medicine floors.

"My take-home message for hospitalists: if you are putting in central lines, if you only make one change in practice, is to use chlorhexidine as the site disinfectant," Dr. Saint says.

Visit our website for more information about central-line-associated bloodstream infections.

The largest effort to date to tackle central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) has reduced infection rates in ICUs nationwide by 40%, according to preliminary findings from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

AHRQ attributes the decrease to a CLABSI safety checklist from the Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program (CUSP) that encourages hospital staff to wash their hands prior to inserting central lines, avoid the femoral site, remove lines when they are no longer needed, and use the antimicrobial agent chlorhexidine to clean the patient's insertion site.

The checklist was developed by Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, FCCM, and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and originally implemented in ICUs statewide in Michigan as the Keystone Project. Since 2009, CUSP has recruited more than 1,000 participating hospitals in 44 states. CUSP collectively reported a decrease to 1.25 from 1.87 CLABSIs per 1,000 central-line days 10-12 months after implementing the program, according to AHRQ [PDF].

The real game-changer for CLABSIs has been the widespread adoption of chlorhexidine as an insertion site disinfectant, says Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, director of the Veterans Administration at the University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program in Ann Arbor and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan. Dr. Saint is on the national leadership team of On the CUSP: Stop CAUTI (Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections), an initiative that aims to reduce mean rates of CAUTI infections by 25% in hospitals nationwide.

Although hospitalists don't routinely place central lines, their role in this procedure is growing, both in nonacademic hospitals that lack intensivists and on hospitals' general medicine floors.

"My take-home message for hospitalists: if you are putting in central lines, if you only make one change in practice, is to use chlorhexidine as the site disinfectant," Dr. Saint says.

Visit our website for more information about central-line-associated bloodstream infections.

Click here to listen to Dr. Angus

Click here to listen to Dr. Angus

Click here to listen to Dr. Angus

Click here to listen to Dr. Dressler

Click here to listen to Dr. Dressler

Click here to listen to Dr. Dressler

Critical-care experts point to three types of competency that are crucial for any hospitalist working within an ICU environment. First, hospitalists need a solid knowledge base of the pharmacology, physiology, and pathophysiology of critical illnesses and conditions such as renal failure, respiratory failure, cardiac failure, sepsis, and seizures.

Second, providers need to acquire an array of psychomotor and interpersonal skills. Core skills like endotracheal intubation, chest-tube placement, and arterial and central venous catheterization are essential. But so are broader abilities like bringing people together to work as a team, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta.

“Does that sound familiar? It’s what hospitalists do,” he says. “So the conceptual structure of a high-functioning intensivist team is nearly identical to the conceptual structure of a high-functioning hospitalist team; it’s just located in a smaller area, with a higher acuity patient population.”

Dr. Siegal emphasizes the importance of inpatient procedural skills, which he says are no longer emphasized in internal-medicine training. “The good news is, those skills are definable, are fairly easily taught, and are simply a matter of repetition,” he says.

Finally, hospitalists need to adopt the right attitude about what care is or isn’t possible for critically-ill patients, and how families can be integrated into complex, culturally-sensitive decision-making about difficult topics such as organ donation.

“That’s very different when the patient is unable to speak for him or herself,” Dr. Buchman says. “There’s a list of what I would call attitudinal competencies, which is longer than I think most people understand it to be to be an effective clinician. … Although all of them, to some degree, overlap with experience during residency training, they are often at a complexity level that can only be mastered through additional training.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

Critical-care experts point to three types of competency that are crucial for any hospitalist working within an ICU environment. First, hospitalists need a solid knowledge base of the pharmacology, physiology, and pathophysiology of critical illnesses and conditions such as renal failure, respiratory failure, cardiac failure, sepsis, and seizures.

Second, providers need to acquire an array of psychomotor and interpersonal skills. Core skills like endotracheal intubation, chest-tube placement, and arterial and central venous catheterization are essential. But so are broader abilities like bringing people together to work as a team, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta.

“Does that sound familiar? It’s what hospitalists do,” he says. “So the conceptual structure of a high-functioning intensivist team is nearly identical to the conceptual structure of a high-functioning hospitalist team; it’s just located in a smaller area, with a higher acuity patient population.”

Dr. Siegal emphasizes the importance of inpatient procedural skills, which he says are no longer emphasized in internal-medicine training. “The good news is, those skills are definable, are fairly easily taught, and are simply a matter of repetition,” he says.

Finally, hospitalists need to adopt the right attitude about what care is or isn’t possible for critically-ill patients, and how families can be integrated into complex, culturally-sensitive decision-making about difficult topics such as organ donation.

“That’s very different when the patient is unable to speak for him or herself,” Dr. Buchman says. “There’s a list of what I would call attitudinal competencies, which is longer than I think most people understand it to be to be an effective clinician. … Although all of them, to some degree, overlap with experience during residency training, they are often at a complexity level that can only be mastered through additional training.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

Critical-care experts point to three types of competency that are crucial for any hospitalist working within an ICU environment. First, hospitalists need a solid knowledge base of the pharmacology, physiology, and pathophysiology of critical illnesses and conditions such as renal failure, respiratory failure, cardiac failure, sepsis, and seizures.

Second, providers need to acquire an array of psychomotor and interpersonal skills. Core skills like endotracheal intubation, chest-tube placement, and arterial and central venous catheterization are essential. But so are broader abilities like bringing people together to work as a team, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta.

“Does that sound familiar? It’s what hospitalists do,” he says. “So the conceptual structure of a high-functioning intensivist team is nearly identical to the conceptual structure of a high-functioning hospitalist team; it’s just located in a smaller area, with a higher acuity patient population.”

Dr. Siegal emphasizes the importance of inpatient procedural skills, which he says are no longer emphasized in internal-medicine training. “The good news is, those skills are definable, are fairly easily taught, and are simply a matter of repetition,” he says.

Finally, hospitalists need to adopt the right attitude about what care is or isn’t possible for critically-ill patients, and how families can be integrated into complex, culturally-sensitive decision-making about difficult topics such as organ donation.

“That’s very different when the patient is unable to speak for him or herself,” Dr. Buchman says. “There’s a list of what I would call attitudinal competencies, which is longer than I think most people understand it to be to be an effective clinician. … Although all of them, to some degree, overlap with experience during residency training, they are often at a complexity level that can only be mastered through additional training.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

Bringing a neurohospitalist service into an academic medical center can reduce neurological patients' length of stay (LOS) at the facility, according to a study in Neurology.

The retrospective cohort study, "Effect of a Neurohospitalist Service on Outcomes at an Academic Medical Center," found that the mean LOS dropped to 4.6 days while the neurohospitalist service was in place, compared with 6.3 days during the pre-neurohospitalist period. However, adding the service didn't significantly reduce the median cost of care delivery ($6,758 vs. $7,241; P=0.25) or in-hospital mortality rate (1.6% vs. 1.2%; P=0.61), the study noted.

Lead author Vanja Douglas, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of neurology at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, says the study's impact is limited by its single-center universe of data. The study was conducted at a UCSF Medical Center in October 2006, but Dr. Douglas hopes similar studies at other academic or community centers will replicate the findings.

"If the current model people have in place is not necessarily focused on outcomes like LOS and cost, then making a change to a neurohospitalist model is likely to positively affect those outcomes," says Dr. Douglas, editor in chief of The Neurohospitalist.

Investigators tracked administrative data starting 21 months before UCSF added a neurohospitalist service and 27 months after. The service was comprised of one neurohospitalist focused solely on inpatients, which allowed other staff neurologists to focus on consultative cases throughout the hospital. Dr. Douglas says as HM groups look to improve their scope of practice and bottom line, studies such as his can lay the groundwork to make the investment.

"A lot of the groups that contract with hospitals are interested in partnering with subspecialty hospitalists," Dr. Douglas adds. "A neurohospitalist model has the potential to work, and the potential to improve outcomes."

Bringing a neurohospitalist service into an academic medical center can reduce neurological patients' length of stay (LOS) at the facility, according to a study in Neurology.

The retrospective cohort study, "Effect of a Neurohospitalist Service on Outcomes at an Academic Medical Center," found that the mean LOS dropped to 4.6 days while the neurohospitalist service was in place, compared with 6.3 days during the pre-neurohospitalist period. However, adding the service didn't significantly reduce the median cost of care delivery ($6,758 vs. $7,241; P=0.25) or in-hospital mortality rate (1.6% vs. 1.2%; P=0.61), the study noted.

Lead author Vanja Douglas, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of neurology at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, says the study's impact is limited by its single-center universe of data. The study was conducted at a UCSF Medical Center in October 2006, but Dr. Douglas hopes similar studies at other academic or community centers will replicate the findings.

"If the current model people have in place is not necessarily focused on outcomes like LOS and cost, then making a change to a neurohospitalist model is likely to positively affect those outcomes," says Dr. Douglas, editor in chief of The Neurohospitalist.

Investigators tracked administrative data starting 21 months before UCSF added a neurohospitalist service and 27 months after. The service was comprised of one neurohospitalist focused solely on inpatients, which allowed other staff neurologists to focus on consultative cases throughout the hospital. Dr. Douglas says as HM groups look to improve their scope of practice and bottom line, studies such as his can lay the groundwork to make the investment.

"A lot of the groups that contract with hospitals are interested in partnering with subspecialty hospitalists," Dr. Douglas adds. "A neurohospitalist model has the potential to work, and the potential to improve outcomes."

Bringing a neurohospitalist service into an academic medical center can reduce neurological patients' length of stay (LOS) at the facility, according to a study in Neurology.

The retrospective cohort study, "Effect of a Neurohospitalist Service on Outcomes at an Academic Medical Center," found that the mean LOS dropped to 4.6 days while the neurohospitalist service was in place, compared with 6.3 days during the pre-neurohospitalist period. However, adding the service didn't significantly reduce the median cost of care delivery ($6,758 vs. $7,241; P=0.25) or in-hospital mortality rate (1.6% vs. 1.2%; P=0.61), the study noted.

Lead author Vanja Douglas, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of neurology at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, says the study's impact is limited by its single-center universe of data. The study was conducted at a UCSF Medical Center in October 2006, but Dr. Douglas hopes similar studies at other academic or community centers will replicate the findings.

"If the current model people have in place is not necessarily focused on outcomes like LOS and cost, then making a change to a neurohospitalist model is likely to positively affect those outcomes," says Dr. Douglas, editor in chief of The Neurohospitalist.

Investigators tracked administrative data starting 21 months before UCSF added a neurohospitalist service and 27 months after. The service was comprised of one neurohospitalist focused solely on inpatients, which allowed other staff neurologists to focus on consultative cases throughout the hospital. Dr. Douglas says as HM groups look to improve their scope of practice and bottom line, studies such as his can lay the groundwork to make the investment.

"A lot of the groups that contract with hospitals are interested in partnering with subspecialty hospitalists," Dr. Douglas adds. "A neurohospitalist model has the potential to work, and the potential to improve outcomes."

The long-simmering debate over whether and how hospitalists might help solve the worsening shortage of critical-care physicians is beginning to boil over.

In June, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, one-year, critical-care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of clinical job experience, in lieu of the two-year fellowship now required for board certification.¹

“Bringing qualified hospitalists into the critical-care workforce through rigorous sanctioned and accredited one-year training programs,” the paper asserted, “will open a new intensivist training pipeline and potentially offer more critically ill patients the benefits of providers who are unequivocally qualified to care for them.”

The backlash was swift and sharp. In a strongly worded editorial response published in July, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) declared that one year of fellowship training is inadequate for HM physicians to achieve competence in critical-care medicine.² “No, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good in our efforts to craft solutions,” the editorial stated. “But the current imperfect SCCM/SHM proposal is an enemy of the existing good training processes already in place.”

HM leaders counter that the current strategies for bolstering the ranks of board-certified intensivists simply aren’t working, and that creative, outside-the-box thinking is required to solve the dilemma.

Dr. Siegal

“Hospitalists are rapidly becoming a dominant, if not the dominant, block of physicians who are providing critical care in the United States. You can decide, if you want, whether that’s good or bad, but that’s the reality,” says Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, lead author of the SHM/SCCM position paper, director of critical-care medicine at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, and an SHM board member. Given the escalating shortage of intensivists, he says, he believes that concerned stakeholders can either try to help develop the skills and knowledge of those hospitalists already in the ICU or “hope that a whole bunch of hospitalists suddenly decide to abandon their practices and complete two-year medical

critical-care fellowships.”

Intensivist leaders say that less training will do nothing to improve patient outcomes. “The reality is that hospitalists are doing it. The question should be, ‘Are they doing it well or at the detriment of the patient?’” asks Michael Baumann, MD, MS, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical-care, and sleep medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson. “The patient is the one who loses if we have somebody pinch-hitting, which is really what we’re talking about here,” adds Dr. Baumann, lead author of the ACCP/AACN editorial.

Staffing Shortfall

Despite the heated rhetoric, interviews with leaders on both sides suggest an eagerness to move forward in trying to collectively solve a problem that has vexed the entire medical community.

In 2000, the Leapfrog Group, a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of major healthcare purchasers focused on improving the safety, quality, and value of care, recommended that all ICUs should be staffed with physicians certified in critical-care medicine.³ As part of its rationale, the group cited research suggesting that greater intensivist use can yield better patient outcomes.

But a seminal study published the same year hinted at just how difficult meeting Leapfrog’s ambitious goal might be. Based on the trajectory of supply and demand, the authors forecast a 22% shortfall in intensivist hours by 2020, and a 35% shortfall by 2030, mainly due to a surge in demand from an aging U.S. population.⁴ A follow-up report in 2006 estimated that 53% of the nation’s ICU units had no intensivist coverage at all, and that only 4% of adult ICUs were meeting the full Leapfrog standards of high-intensity ICU staffing, dedicated attending physician coverage during the day, and dedicated coverage by any physician at night.⁵

No one in their right mind will say one year [of fellowship training] is as good as two years. That would be folly. On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, “Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?”

—Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director, Emory University Center for Critical Care, Atlanta

Given the recent push for more outpatient treatment of less-critically-ill patients, many observers say the increased acuity of hospitalized patients—with more comorbidities—only exacerbates the mismatch between supply and demand. Making matters worse, providers are not evenly distributed throughout the country, with many smaller and rural hospitals already facing an acute shortage of intensivist services.

As a result, many hospitalists have been forced to step into the breach. According to SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine survey, 83.5% of responding nonacademic adult medicine groups said they routinely provide care for patients in an ICU setting, along with 27.9% of academic HM groups.

“So we have hospitalists who, either by choice or by default, care for patients who they may or may not be fully qualified to manage,” Dr. Siegal says. Practically speaking, he and his coauthors assert, the question of whether hospitalists should be in the ICU is now moot. The real question is how to ensure that those providers can deliver safe and effective care.

Experience vs. Training

Currently, internists who have completed fellowships in such specialties as pulmonary medicine, nephrology, and infectious disease can complete a one-year critical-care fellowship to obtain board certification. Experienced hospitalists have questioned the requirement that they instead complete a two-year fellowship, with no consideration given to the relevant clinical experience and maturity gained after years of hospitalist practice. In addition, they argue, it is logistically and financially unrealistic to expect a large cadre of experienced hospitalists to abandon their practices for two years to pursue critical-care training.

But Dr. Baumann says subpar internal-medicine residency requirements deserve much of the blame for offering inadequate training. “Critical care is a blend of critical thinking skills and procedural skills. Both of those are diminished tremendously in the current programs for internal medicine,” he says. “It’s really an indictment of our current training of internal-medicine residents now.”

SCCM, for its part, is sticking to its guns, albeit more quietly. When asked for comment, a spokesman issued a carefully worded statement that reads, “The paper reflects the society’s concerns regarding workforce shortages and the realities of today’s environment.”

The SHM/SCCM proposal makes sense provided that hospitalists are realistic about the types of patients they’ll see, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta. “No one in their right mind will say one year is as good as two years. That would be folly,” he says. “On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, ‘Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?’”

Derek Angus, MD, chair of critical-care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author of the 2000 study chronicling the intensivist shortfall, is more ambivalent. “Hospitalists and intensivists have to work hand in hand. In many ways, they are the two groups that run inpatient hospital medicine,” he says. In that respect, sorting out and streamlining training pathways might be a good idea.

“On the other hand, all of intensive-care training in the United States is a little thin in comparison to what goes on in many other countries,” Dr. Angus adds. “If anything, I would like to be seeing more vigorous training. So creating one more pathway that helps reinforce pretty light training feels like accreditation, in general, may be moving slightly in the wrong direction.”

Dr. Buchman and other observers view the debate as a difference in opinion among well-meaning people who are passionate about patient care. And they concede that no one knows yet who may be right.

“We do know that advanced training is required. We do know that it should be competency-focused,” Dr. Buchman says. “But what we don’t know is how long it’s really going to take to get to the competency levels that we believe are necessary to care for the patients.”

That point may provide one important opening for further discussions. Dr. Baumann agrees that the real issues are how to define critical-care competencies, how to measure them, and how to ensure that trainees prove their mettle as competent providers. “It really shouldn’t be time-based; it should be outcome-based,” he says.

The SHM/SCCM proposal, Dr. Siegal says, should be viewed as a conversation-starter. The true test will be whether everyone can reach an agreement on how to evaluate whether an ICU caregiver has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes—and how relevant professional experience should factor into discussions over the length of training required for intensivist certification.

A Tiered Solution

The concept of tiered ICU care—already used in neonatal ICUs—might offer another opening for productive debate. “Can patients who are not that critically ill be managed by someone who hasn’t done that much critical-care training?” Dr. Angus asks. He believes it’s possible, provided patients are properly sorted and that hospitalists aren’t put in the uncomfortable position of managing medical conditions that they see only rarely. He has no problem, though, envisioning a tiered system in which fully trained intensivists spend most of their time managing the sickest patients, while other providers—including hospitalists—care for patients at intermediate risk.

Hospitalists have greeted the idea cautiously, noting that a two-tiered model might be difficult to define and standardize, and that it could present logistical challenges around transferring patients. However, Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, associate professor of internal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and coauthor of the SHM/SCCM position paper, led a recent study that offers at least some support for a risk-based system.⁶

Overall, the study found no statistically significant difference in the length of stay or inpatient mortality rates for ICU patients cared for by hospitalist-led or intensivist-led teams. Among mechanically ventilated patients with intermediate illness severity, though, the study suggested that intensivist-led care resulted in a lower length of stay in both the hospital and ICU, as well as in a trend toward reduced inpatient mortality. “There may be some value in designing or developing a stratification system,” Dr. Dressler says, “but it definitely needs more study.”

In the meantime, Dr. Dressler says, more rapid solutions are needed. And although he says he understands and respects many of the doubts expressed about the SHM/SCCM proposal, he also believes some of the fear might be based on anecdotes about individual hospitalists who were deemed unlikely to thrive in an ICU environment. “For each person like that, we also know 10 or 20 people who might do really well” with just a year of additional training, says Dr. Dressler, a former SHM board member.

Now that both sides clearly have the attention of the other, leaders say they hope the opening salvos give way to more temperate discussions about how to move more skilled providers to the front lines.

“Health professionals are a smart and clever lot,” says Mary Stahl, RN, MSN, ACNS-BC, CCNS-CMC, CCRN, immediate past president of AACN and a clinical nurse specialist at the Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, Mo. “I’m confident we’ll develop an effective solution—maybe several—by focusing on the fundamental belief that patients’ needs must drive caregivers’ knowledge and skills.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
2. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
3. Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, et al. Improving the safety of health care: the Leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313-316.
4. Angus DC, Kelley MA, Schmitz RJ, et al. Caring for the critically ill patient. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease: can we meet the requirements of an aging population? JAMA. 2000;284:2762-2770.
5. Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, et al. Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1016-1024.
6. Wise KR, Akopov VA, Williams BR Jr., Ido MS, Leeper KV, Dressler DD. Hospitalists and intensivists in the medical ICU: a prospective observational study comparing mortality and length of stay between two staffing models. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:183-189.

The long-simmering debate over whether and how hospitalists might help solve the worsening shortage of critical-care physicians is beginning to boil over.

In June, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, one-year, critical-care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of clinical job experience, in lieu of the two-year fellowship now required for board certification.¹

“Bringing qualified hospitalists into the critical-care workforce through rigorous sanctioned and accredited one-year training programs,” the paper asserted, “will open a new intensivist training pipeline and potentially offer more critically ill patients the benefits of providers who are unequivocally qualified to care for them.”

The backlash was swift and sharp. In a strongly worded editorial response published in July, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) declared that one year of fellowship training is inadequate for HM physicians to achieve competence in critical-care medicine.² “No, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good in our efforts to craft solutions,” the editorial stated. “But the current imperfect SCCM/SHM proposal is an enemy of the existing good training processes already in place.”

HM leaders counter that the current strategies for bolstering the ranks of board-certified intensivists simply aren’t working, and that creative, outside-the-box thinking is required to solve the dilemma.

Dr. Siegal

“Hospitalists are rapidly becoming a dominant, if not the dominant, block of physicians who are providing critical care in the United States. You can decide, if you want, whether that’s good or bad, but that’s the reality,” says Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, lead author of the SHM/SCCM position paper, director of critical-care medicine at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, and an SHM board member. Given the escalating shortage of intensivists, he says, he believes that concerned stakeholders can either try to help develop the skills and knowledge of those hospitalists already in the ICU or “hope that a whole bunch of hospitalists suddenly decide to abandon their practices and complete two-year medical

critical-care fellowships.”

Intensivist leaders say that less training will do nothing to improve patient outcomes. “The reality is that hospitalists are doing it. The question should be, ‘Are they doing it well or at the detriment of the patient?’” asks Michael Baumann, MD, MS, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical-care, and sleep medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson. “The patient is the one who loses if we have somebody pinch-hitting, which is really what we’re talking about here,” adds Dr. Baumann, lead author of the ACCP/AACN editorial.

Staffing Shortfall

Despite the heated rhetoric, interviews with leaders on both sides suggest an eagerness to move forward in trying to collectively solve a problem that has vexed the entire medical community.

In 2000, the Leapfrog Group, a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of major healthcare purchasers focused on improving the safety, quality, and value of care, recommended that all ICUs should be staffed with physicians certified in critical-care medicine.³ As part of its rationale, the group cited research suggesting that greater intensivist use can yield better patient outcomes.

But a seminal study published the same year hinted at just how difficult meeting Leapfrog’s ambitious goal might be. Based on the trajectory of supply and demand, the authors forecast a 22% shortfall in intensivist hours by 2020, and a 35% shortfall by 2030, mainly due to a surge in demand from an aging U.S. population.⁴ A follow-up report in 2006 estimated that 53% of the nation’s ICU units had no intensivist coverage at all, and that only 4% of adult ICUs were meeting the full Leapfrog standards of high-intensity ICU staffing, dedicated attending physician coverage during the day, and dedicated coverage by any physician at night.⁵

No one in their right mind will say one year [of fellowship training] is as good as two years. That would be folly. On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, “Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?”

—Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director, Emory University Center for Critical Care, Atlanta

Given the recent push for more outpatient treatment of less-critically-ill patients, many observers say the increased acuity of hospitalized patients—with more comorbidities—only exacerbates the mismatch between supply and demand. Making matters worse, providers are not evenly distributed throughout the country, with many smaller and rural hospitals already facing an acute shortage of intensivist services.

As a result, many hospitalists have been forced to step into the breach. According to SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine survey, 83.5% of responding nonacademic adult medicine groups said they routinely provide care for patients in an ICU setting, along with 27.9% of academic HM groups.

“So we have hospitalists who, either by choice or by default, care for patients who they may or may not be fully qualified to manage,” Dr. Siegal says. Practically speaking, he and his coauthors assert, the question of whether hospitalists should be in the ICU is now moot. The real question is how to ensure that those providers can deliver safe and effective care.

Experience vs. Training

Currently, internists who have completed fellowships in such specialties as pulmonary medicine, nephrology, and infectious disease can complete a one-year critical-care fellowship to obtain board certification. Experienced hospitalists have questioned the requirement that they instead complete a two-year fellowship, with no consideration given to the relevant clinical experience and maturity gained after years of hospitalist practice. In addition, they argue, it is logistically and financially unrealistic to expect a large cadre of experienced hospitalists to abandon their practices for two years to pursue critical-care training.

But Dr. Baumann says subpar internal-medicine residency requirements deserve much of the blame for offering inadequate training. “Critical care is a blend of critical thinking skills and procedural skills. Both of those are diminished tremendously in the current programs for internal medicine,” he says. “It’s really an indictment of our current training of internal-medicine residents now.”

SCCM, for its part, is sticking to its guns, albeit more quietly. When asked for comment, a spokesman issued a carefully worded statement that reads, “The paper reflects the society’s concerns regarding workforce shortages and the realities of today’s environment.”

The SHM/SCCM proposal makes sense provided that hospitalists are realistic about the types of patients they’ll see, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta. “No one in their right mind will say one year is as good as two years. That would be folly,” he says. “On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, ‘Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?’”

Derek Angus, MD, chair of critical-care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author of the 2000 study chronicling the intensivist shortfall, is more ambivalent. “Hospitalists and intensivists have to work hand in hand. In many ways, they are the two groups that run inpatient hospital medicine,” he says. In that respect, sorting out and streamlining training pathways might be a good idea.

“On the other hand, all of intensive-care training in the United States is a little thin in comparison to what goes on in many other countries,” Dr. Angus adds. “If anything, I would like to be seeing more vigorous training. So creating one more pathway that helps reinforce pretty light training feels like accreditation, in general, may be moving slightly in the wrong direction.”

Dr. Buchman and other observers view the debate as a difference in opinion among well-meaning people who are passionate about patient care. And they concede that no one knows yet who may be right.

“We do know that advanced training is required. We do know that it should be competency-focused,” Dr. Buchman says. “But what we don’t know is how long it’s really going to take to get to the competency levels that we believe are necessary to care for the patients.”

That point may provide one important opening for further discussions. Dr. Baumann agrees that the real issues are how to define critical-care competencies, how to measure them, and how to ensure that trainees prove their mettle as competent providers. “It really shouldn’t be time-based; it should be outcome-based,” he says.

The SHM/SCCM proposal, Dr. Siegal says, should be viewed as a conversation-starter. The true test will be whether everyone can reach an agreement on how to evaluate whether an ICU caregiver has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes—and how relevant professional experience should factor into discussions over the length of training required for intensivist certification.

A Tiered Solution

The concept of tiered ICU care—already used in neonatal ICUs—might offer another opening for productive debate. “Can patients who are not that critically ill be managed by someone who hasn’t done that much critical-care training?” Dr. Angus asks. He believes it’s possible, provided patients are properly sorted and that hospitalists aren’t put in the uncomfortable position of managing medical conditions that they see only rarely. He has no problem, though, envisioning a tiered system in which fully trained intensivists spend most of their time managing the sickest patients, while other providers—including hospitalists—care for patients at intermediate risk.

Hospitalists have greeted the idea cautiously, noting that a two-tiered model might be difficult to define and standardize, and that it could present logistical challenges around transferring patients. However, Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, associate professor of internal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and coauthor of the SHM/SCCM position paper, led a recent study that offers at least some support for a risk-based system.⁶

Overall, the study found no statistically significant difference in the length of stay or inpatient mortality rates for ICU patients cared for by hospitalist-led or intensivist-led teams. Among mechanically ventilated patients with intermediate illness severity, though, the study suggested that intensivist-led care resulted in a lower length of stay in both the hospital and ICU, as well as in a trend toward reduced inpatient mortality. “There may be some value in designing or developing a stratification system,” Dr. Dressler says, “but it definitely needs more study.”

In the meantime, Dr. Dressler says, more rapid solutions are needed. And although he says he understands and respects many of the doubts expressed about the SHM/SCCM proposal, he also believes some of the fear might be based on anecdotes about individual hospitalists who were deemed unlikely to thrive in an ICU environment. “For each person like that, we also know 10 or 20 people who might do really well” with just a year of additional training, says Dr. Dressler, a former SHM board member.

Now that both sides clearly have the attention of the other, leaders say they hope the opening salvos give way to more temperate discussions about how to move more skilled providers to the front lines.

“Health professionals are a smart and clever lot,” says Mary Stahl, RN, MSN, ACNS-BC, CCNS-CMC, CCRN, immediate past president of AACN and a clinical nurse specialist at the Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, Mo. “I’m confident we’ll develop an effective solution—maybe several—by focusing on the fundamental belief that patients’ needs must drive caregivers’ knowledge and skills.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
2. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
3. Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, et al. Improving the safety of health care: the Leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313-316.
4. Angus DC, Kelley MA, Schmitz RJ, et al. Caring for the critically ill patient. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease: can we meet the requirements of an aging population? JAMA. 2000;284:2762-2770.
5. Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, et al. Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1016-1024.
6. Wise KR, Akopov VA, Williams BR Jr., Ido MS, Leeper KV, Dressler DD. Hospitalists and intensivists in the medical ICU: a prospective observational study comparing mortality and length of stay between two staffing models. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:183-189.

The long-simmering debate over whether and how hospitalists might help solve the worsening shortage of critical-care physicians is beginning to boil over.

In June, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, one-year, critical-care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of clinical job experience, in lieu of the two-year fellowship now required for board certification.¹

“Bringing qualified hospitalists into the critical-care workforce through rigorous sanctioned and accredited one-year training programs,” the paper asserted, “will open a new intensivist training pipeline and potentially offer more critically ill patients the benefits of providers who are unequivocally qualified to care for them.”

The backlash was swift and sharp. In a strongly worded editorial response published in July, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) declared that one year of fellowship training is inadequate for HM physicians to achieve competence in critical-care medicine.² “No, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good in our efforts to craft solutions,” the editorial stated. “But the current imperfect SCCM/SHM proposal is an enemy of the existing good training processes already in place.”

HM leaders counter that the current strategies for bolstering the ranks of board-certified intensivists simply aren’t working, and that creative, outside-the-box thinking is required to solve the dilemma.

Dr. Siegal

“Hospitalists are rapidly becoming a dominant, if not the dominant, block of physicians who are providing critical care in the United States. You can decide, if you want, whether that’s good or bad, but that’s the reality,” says Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, lead author of the SHM/SCCM position paper, director of critical-care medicine at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, and an SHM board member. Given the escalating shortage of intensivists, he says, he believes that concerned stakeholders can either try to help develop the skills and knowledge of those hospitalists already in the ICU or “hope that a whole bunch of hospitalists suddenly decide to abandon their practices and complete two-year medical

critical-care fellowships.”

Intensivist leaders say that less training will do nothing to improve patient outcomes. “The reality is that hospitalists are doing it. The question should be, ‘Are they doing it well or at the detriment of the patient?’” asks Michael Baumann, MD, MS, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical-care, and sleep medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson. “The patient is the one who loses if we have somebody pinch-hitting, which is really what we’re talking about here,” adds Dr. Baumann, lead author of the ACCP/AACN editorial.

Staffing Shortfall

Despite the heated rhetoric, interviews with leaders on both sides suggest an eagerness to move forward in trying to collectively solve a problem that has vexed the entire medical community.

In 2000, the Leapfrog Group, a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of major healthcare purchasers focused on improving the safety, quality, and value of care, recommended that all ICUs should be staffed with physicians certified in critical-care medicine.³ As part of its rationale, the group cited research suggesting that greater intensivist use can yield better patient outcomes.

But a seminal study published the same year hinted at just how difficult meeting Leapfrog’s ambitious goal might be. Based on the trajectory of supply and demand, the authors forecast a 22% shortfall in intensivist hours by 2020, and a 35% shortfall by 2030, mainly due to a surge in demand from an aging U.S. population.⁴ A follow-up report in 2006 estimated that 53% of the nation’s ICU units had no intensivist coverage at all, and that only 4% of adult ICUs were meeting the full Leapfrog standards of high-intensity ICU staffing, dedicated attending physician coverage during the day, and dedicated coverage by any physician at night.⁵

No one in their right mind will say one year [of fellowship training] is as good as two years. That would be folly. On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, “Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?”

—Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director, Emory University Center for Critical Care, Atlanta

Given the recent push for more outpatient treatment of less-critically-ill patients, many observers say the increased acuity of hospitalized patients—with more comorbidities—only exacerbates the mismatch between supply and demand. Making matters worse, providers are not evenly distributed throughout the country, with many smaller and rural hospitals already facing an acute shortage of intensivist services.

As a result, many hospitalists have been forced to step into the breach. According to SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine survey, 83.5% of responding nonacademic adult medicine groups said they routinely provide care for patients in an ICU setting, along with 27.9% of academic HM groups.

“So we have hospitalists who, either by choice or by default, care for patients who they may or may not be fully qualified to manage,” Dr. Siegal says. Practically speaking, he and his coauthors assert, the question of whether hospitalists should be in the ICU is now moot. The real question is how to ensure that those providers can deliver safe and effective care.

Experience vs. Training

Currently, internists who have completed fellowships in such specialties as pulmonary medicine, nephrology, and infectious disease can complete a one-year critical-care fellowship to obtain board certification. Experienced hospitalists have questioned the requirement that they instead complete a two-year fellowship, with no consideration given to the relevant clinical experience and maturity gained after years of hospitalist practice. In addition, they argue, it is logistically and financially unrealistic to expect a large cadre of experienced hospitalists to abandon their practices for two years to pursue critical-care training.

But Dr. Baumann says subpar internal-medicine residency requirements deserve much of the blame for offering inadequate training. “Critical care is a blend of critical thinking skills and procedural skills. Both of those are diminished tremendously in the current programs for internal medicine,” he says. “It’s really an indictment of our current training of internal-medicine residents now.”

SCCM, for its part, is sticking to its guns, albeit more quietly. When asked for comment, a spokesman issued a carefully worded statement that reads, “The paper reflects the society’s concerns regarding workforce shortages and the realities of today’s environment.”

The SHM/SCCM proposal makes sense provided that hospitalists are realistic about the types of patients they’ll see, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta. “No one in their right mind will say one year is as good as two years. That would be folly,” he says. “On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, ‘Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?’”

Derek Angus, MD, chair of critical-care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author of the 2000 study chronicling the intensivist shortfall, is more ambivalent. “Hospitalists and intensivists have to work hand in hand. In many ways, they are the two groups that run inpatient hospital medicine,” he says. In that respect, sorting out and streamlining training pathways might be a good idea.

“On the other hand, all of intensive-care training in the United States is a little thin in comparison to what goes on in many other countries,” Dr. Angus adds. “If anything, I would like to be seeing more vigorous training. So creating one more pathway that helps reinforce pretty light training feels like accreditation, in general, may be moving slightly in the wrong direction.”

Dr. Buchman and other observers view the debate as a difference in opinion among well-meaning people who are passionate about patient care. And they concede that no one knows yet who may be right.

“We do know that advanced training is required. We do know that it should be competency-focused,” Dr. Buchman says. “But what we don’t know is how long it’s really going to take to get to the competency levels that we believe are necessary to care for the patients.”

That point may provide one important opening for further discussions. Dr. Baumann agrees that the real issues are how to define critical-care competencies, how to measure them, and how to ensure that trainees prove their mettle as competent providers. “It really shouldn’t be time-based; it should be outcome-based,” he says.

The SHM/SCCM proposal, Dr. Siegal says, should be viewed as a conversation-starter. The true test will be whether everyone can reach an agreement on how to evaluate whether an ICU caregiver has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes—and how relevant professional experience should factor into discussions over the length of training required for intensivist certification.

A Tiered Solution

The concept of tiered ICU care—already used in neonatal ICUs—might offer another opening for productive debate. “Can patients who are not that critically ill be managed by someone who hasn’t done that much critical-care training?” Dr. Angus asks. He believes it’s possible, provided patients are properly sorted and that hospitalists aren’t put in the uncomfortable position of managing medical conditions that they see only rarely. He has no problem, though, envisioning a tiered system in which fully trained intensivists spend most of their time managing the sickest patients, while other providers—including hospitalists—care for patients at intermediate risk.

Hospitalists have greeted the idea cautiously, noting that a two-tiered model might be difficult to define and standardize, and that it could present logistical challenges around transferring patients. However, Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, associate professor of internal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and coauthor of the SHM/SCCM position paper, led a recent study that offers at least some support for a risk-based system.⁶

Overall, the study found no statistically significant difference in the length of stay or inpatient mortality rates for ICU patients cared for by hospitalist-led or intensivist-led teams. Among mechanically ventilated patients with intermediate illness severity, though, the study suggested that intensivist-led care resulted in a lower length of stay in both the hospital and ICU, as well as in a trend toward reduced inpatient mortality. “There may be some value in designing or developing a stratification system,” Dr. Dressler says, “but it definitely needs more study.”

In the meantime, Dr. Dressler says, more rapid solutions are needed. And although he says he understands and respects many of the doubts expressed about the SHM/SCCM proposal, he also believes some of the fear might be based on anecdotes about individual hospitalists who were deemed unlikely to thrive in an ICU environment. “For each person like that, we also know 10 or 20 people who might do really well” with just a year of additional training, says Dr. Dressler, a former SHM board member.

Now that both sides clearly have the attention of the other, leaders say they hope the opening salvos give way to more temperate discussions about how to move more skilled providers to the front lines.

“Health professionals are a smart and clever lot,” says Mary Stahl, RN, MSN, ACNS-BC, CCNS-CMC, CCRN, immediate past president of AACN and a clinical nurse specialist at the Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, Mo. “I’m confident we’ll develop an effective solution—maybe several—by focusing on the fundamental belief that patients’ needs must drive caregivers’ knowledge and skills.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
2. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
3. Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, et al. Improving the safety of health care: the Leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313-316.
4. Angus DC, Kelley MA, Schmitz RJ, et al. Caring for the critically ill patient. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease: can we meet the requirements of an aging population? JAMA. 2000;284:2762-2770.
5. Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, et al. Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1016-1024.
6. Wise KR, Akopov VA, Williams BR Jr., Ido MS, Leeper KV, Dressler DD. Hospitalists and intensivists in the medical ICU: a prospective observational study comparing mortality and length of stay between two staffing models. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:183-189.

A dosage recommendation in the August 2012 article “What is the Optimal Therapy for Acute DVT” (p. 17) should have read: The 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines on antithrombotic therapy for VTE recommends initial therapy with LMWH or fondaparinux (rather than IV or SC UFH). The guidelines suggest that LMWH once-daily dosing is favored over twice-daily dosing, based mainly on patient convenience, although this is a weak recommendation (2C) based on the overall quality of the data. The recommendation applies only if the daily dosing of the LMWH, including tinzaparin, dalteparin, and nadroparin, is equivalent to the twice-daily dosing (i.e. dalteparin may be dosed at 100 units/kg BID vs. 200 units/kg daily). Of importance, enoxaparin has not been studied at a once-daily dose (2 mg/kg), which is equivalent to the twice-daily dosing regimen (1 mg/kg twice daily). Additionally, one study suggests that once-daily dosing of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg might be inferior to 1 mg/kg twice daily dosing; therefore, caution must be exercised in applying this recommendation to the LMWH enoxaparin.^3,27,28

A dosage recommendation in the August 2012 article “What is the Optimal Therapy for Acute DVT” (p. 17) should have read: The 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines on antithrombotic therapy for VTE recommends initial therapy with LMWH or fondaparinux (rather than IV or SC UFH). The guidelines suggest that LMWH once-daily dosing is favored over twice-daily dosing, based mainly on patient convenience, although this is a weak recommendation (2C) based on the overall quality of the data. The recommendation applies only if the daily dosing of the LMWH, including tinzaparin, dalteparin, and nadroparin, is equivalent to the twice-daily dosing (i.e. dalteparin may be dosed at 100 units/kg BID vs. 200 units/kg daily). Of importance, enoxaparin has not been studied at a once-daily dose (2 mg/kg), which is equivalent to the twice-daily dosing regimen (1 mg/kg twice daily). Additionally, one study suggests that once-daily dosing of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg might be inferior to 1 mg/kg twice daily dosing; therefore, caution must be exercised in applying this recommendation to the LMWH enoxaparin.^3,27,28

A dosage recommendation in the August 2012 article “What is the Optimal Therapy for Acute DVT” (p. 17) should have read: The 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines on antithrombotic therapy for VTE recommends initial therapy with LMWH or fondaparinux (rather than IV or SC UFH). The guidelines suggest that LMWH once-daily dosing is favored over twice-daily dosing, based mainly on patient convenience, although this is a weak recommendation (2C) based on the overall quality of the data. The recommendation applies only if the daily dosing of the LMWH, including tinzaparin, dalteparin, and nadroparin, is equivalent to the twice-daily dosing (i.e. dalteparin may be dosed at 100 units/kg BID vs. 200 units/kg daily). Of importance, enoxaparin has not been studied at a once-daily dose (2 mg/kg), which is equivalent to the twice-daily dosing regimen (1 mg/kg twice daily). Additionally, one study suggests that once-daily dosing of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg might be inferior to 1 mg/kg twice daily dosing; therefore, caution must be exercised in applying this recommendation to the LMWH enoxaparin.^3,27,28