Hospitalists in Teaching Hospitals: Opportunities but Not Without Danger

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73210/1/j.1525-1497.2004.42002.x.pd

Generation of Functional CLL-Specific Cord Blood CTL Using CD40-Ligated CLL APC

PMCID: PMC3526610This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

A Prospective Study of Reasons for Prolonged Hospitalizations on a General Medicine Teaching Service

BACKGROUND: Delays in the care of hospitalized patients may lead to increased length of stay, iatrogenic complications, and costs. No study has characterized delays among general medicine inpatients in the current prospective payment era of care. OBJECTIVE: To quantify and characterize delays in care which prolong hospitalizations for general medicine inpatients. DESIGN: Prospective survey of senior residents. SETTING: Urban tertiary care university-affiliated teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen senior residents were surveyed regarding 2,831 patient-days. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were collected on 97.6% (2,762) of patient-days eligible for evaluation. Three hundred seventy-three patient-days (13.5% of all hospital days) were judged unnecessary for acute inpatient care, and occurred because of delays in needed services. Sixty-three percent of these unnecessary days were due to nonmedical service delays and 37% were due to medical service delays. The vast majority of nonmedical service delays (84%) were due to difficulty finding a bed in a skilled nursing facility. Medical service delays were most often due to postponement of procedures (54%) and diagnostic test performance (21%) or interpretation (10%), and were significantly more common on weekend days (relative risk [RR], 1.49; P=.02). Indeed, nearly one fourth of unnecessary patient-days (24% overall, 88 patient-days) involved an inability to access medical services on a weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, a substantial number of hospital days were judged unnecessary for acute inpatient care and were attributable to delays in medical and nonmedical services. Future work is needed to develop and investigate measures to decrease delays

The Positive Impact of Initiation of Hospitalist Clinician Educators: Resource Utilization and Medical Resident Education

OBJECTIVE: Although hospitalists have been shown to improve both financial and educational outcomes, their ability to manage dual roles as clinicians and educators has been infrequently demonstrated, particularly in the community setting where large numbers of residents train. We evaluated the impact of hospitalists on financial and educational outcomes at a mid-sized community teaching hospital 1 year after implementation. DESIGN: Two hospitalist clinician educators (HCEs) were hired to provide inpatient medical care while participating in resident education. Length of stay and cost per case data were calculated for all patients admitted to the hospitalist service during their first year and compared with patients admitted to private physicians. The hospitalists’ top 11 discharge diagnoses were individually assessed. For the same time period, categorical medicine residents (N = 36) were given an anonymous written survey to assess the HCEs’ impact on resident education and service. RESULTS: Resource consumption: length of stay was reduced by 20.8% and total cost per case was reduced by 18.4% comparing the HCEs with community-based physicians. Reductions in both length of stay and cost per case were noted for 8 of the 11 most common discharge diagnoses. Resident survey: over 75% of residents responded, with all noting improvement in the quality of attending rounds, bedside teaching, and the overall inpatient experience. Residents’ roles as teachers and team leaders were largely unchanged. CONCLUSION: Hospitalist clinician educators as inpatient teaching attendings effectively reduce length of stay and resource utilization while improving resident education at community-based teaching hospitals

Comparison of Hospitalists and Nonhospitalists in Inpatient Length of Stay Adjusting for Patient and Physician Characteristics

OBJECTIVE: To determine the independent effect of hospitalist status upon inpatient length of stay after controlling for case mix, as well as patient-level and provider-level variables such as age, years since physician medical school graduation, and volume status of provider. DESIGN: Observational retrospective cohort study employing a hierarchical random intercept logistic regression model. SETTING: Tertiary-care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All admissions during 2001 to the department of medicine not sent initially to the medical intensive care unit or coronary care unit. MEASUREMENTS: Observed length of stay (LOS) compared to principle diagnosis related group (DRG)-specific mean LOS for hospitalist and nonhospitalist patients adjusting for patient age, gender, years since physician graduation from medical school, and physician volume status. MAIN RESULTS: The 9 hospitalists discharged 2,027 patients while the nonhospitalists discharged 9,361 patients. On average, hospitalist patients were younger, 63.3 versus 73.3 years (P < .0001). Hospitalists were more recently graduated from medical school, 13.8 versus 22.5 years (P = .02). Each year of patient age was found to increase the likelihood of an above average LOS (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.02; P < .001). In unadjusted analysis, hospitalists were less likely to have an above average LOS (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.93; P = .03). Adjustment for effects of patient age and gender, physician gender, years since medical school graduation, and quintile of physician admission volume did not appreciably change the point estimate that hospitalist patients remained less likely to have above average LOS (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.11; P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: For a given principle DRG, hospitalist patients were less likely to exceed the average LOS than were nonhospitalist patients. This effect was rather large, in that hospitalist status reduced the likelihood of above average LOS by about 49%. Adjustment for patient age, years since physician graduation, and admission volume did not significantly alter this finding. Further research should focus on identifying specific practices that account for hospitalism's effects