SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
HMOs and the medical groups that they contract with are increasingly developing hospitalist delivery models to assist them with their inpatient care. This article offers a case study of how not to create a hospitalist program as well as tips for success.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Increased use of hospitalists is redefining the role of primary care physicians. Whether primary care physicians welcome this transition is unknown. We examined primary care physicians' perceptions of how hospitalists affect their practices, their patient relationships, and overall patient care. METHODS: A mailed survey of randomly selected general internists, general pediatricians, and family practitioners with experience with hospitalists practicing in California. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' self-reports of hospitalists' effects on quality of patient care and on their own practices. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight physicians were eligible for this study, and there was a 74% response rate. Of the 524 physicians who responded, 34% were internists, 38% were family practitioners, and 29% were pediatricians. Of the 524 respondents, 335 (64%) had hospitalists available to them and 120 (23%) were required to use hospitalists for all admissions. Physicians perceived hospitalists as increasing (41%) or not changing (44%) the overall quality of care and perceived their practice style differences as neutral or beneficial. Twenty-eight percent of primary care physicians believed that the quality of the physician-patient relationship decreased; 69% reported that hospitalists did not affect their income; 53% believed that hospitalists decreased their workload; and 50% believed that hospitalists increased practice satisfaction. In a multivariate model predicting physician perceptions, internists, physicians who attributed loss of income to hospitalists, and physicians in mandatory hospitalist systems viewed hospitalists less favorably. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing primary care physicians have generally favorable perceptions of hospitalists' effect on patients and on their own practice satisfaction, especially in voluntary hospitalist systems that decrease the workload of primary care physicians and do not threaten their income. Primary care physicians, particularly internists, are less accepting of mandatory hospitalist systems. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2902-2908
PURPOSE: We sought to determine the availability and utilization of, as well as physician attitudes toward, the hospitalist model in the United States. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Using a telephone survey, we asked physicians who were board certified in internal medicine about their inpatient practice arrangements, the availability of hospitalist services, and their attitudes toward the hospitalist model. All physicians were generalists in active clinical practice. Using multivariable methods, we determined factors associated with attitudes toward the hospitalist model. RESULTS: We were able to contact 787 of 2,829 physicians who were randomly selected from a national list of board-certified internists, of whom 400 agreed to participate. Most respondents were familiar with the term "hospitalist" and had hospitalist services available in their community, and 28% used hospitalists for their inpatients. Few (2%) reported the presence of the "mandatory" hospitalist model. Physicians reported that the model was more commonly available in Western states (84% vs. 55% to 63% in other regions, P<0.0001). Seventy-three percent thought hospitalist systems would reduce continuity of care. Only 28% thought that patients would prefer care from an inpatient specialist, but 51% thought patients might get better care, and 47% thought patients might get more cost-effective care in a hospitalist system. In multivariable models, physicians who were in solo practice, those in specialties with more inpatient practice, and those who had more patients hospitalized each month responded more negatively about the model, whereas those with hospitalists in their community were more positive. CONCLUSIONS: Although agreeing that quality of care and efficiency might be improved, physicians were concerned about patient-doctor relationships and patient satisfaction in a hospitalist model. Future studies should determine the effect of the hospitalist model on these outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To document the prevalence and practice patterns of pediatric hospitalists in academic centers in Canada and the United States; to characterize academic pediatric department chairs' definition of the term hospitalist; and to characterize pediatric department chairs' views of the training requirements for pediatric hospitalists. METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire was sent to all 145 pediatric department chairs from Canada and the United States during the fall of 1998. We defined hospitalists as physicians spending at least 25% of their time in inpatient care. RESULTS: Of the 145 eligible pediatric chairs, 128 (89%) responded (United States, 111/126; Canada, 14/16; Puerto Rico, 3/3). Ninety-nine (77%) of 128 pediatric chairs either have (64/128) or are planning to have (35/128) hospitalists in their institutions. Within academic programs with hospitalists, 82% of hospitalists currently work on general pediatric wards. Two thirds of hospitalists teach, 50% provide outpatient care, 50% have administrative duties, and 44% conduct research. One hundred eight (84%) of 128 believe that hospitalists should spend at least 50% of their time in inpatient care. Less than one third (30%) of pediatric chairs believe that hospitalists require training not currently provided in residency. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of academic pediatric centers either employed or planned to employ hospitalists in 1998. Pediatric academic department chairs do not see a need for training beyond residency for hospitalists. Further studies should address how pediatric hospitalists affect quality of care, cost, and patient satisfaction.
CONTEXT: The use of hospitalists--physicians who spend a substantial portion of their time providing in-hospital care to the patients of primary care physicians--has been proposed as a way to decrease costs and increase the quality of inpatient care. COUNT: Number of full-time hospitalists. CALCULATIONS: Average daily census = annual admissions x length of stay divided by 365. Number of hospitalists = (average daily census divided by patients per hospitalist) + 1 extra hospitalist for night coverage. DATA SOURCES: The average number of patients per hospitalist was obtained from a National Association of Inpatient Physicians membership survey. A low estimate of 10 patients per hospitalist was used to account for the extra manpower needed for coverage during vacations and other time off. RESULTS: A hospital with 3000 admissions per year and an average length of stay of 5 days would have an average daily census of 41 patients and would need 5 full-time hospitalists. Hospitals with a lower patient volume would need fewer hospitalists and would probably need to find persons other than hospitalists to cover some nights and weekends. CONCLUSIONS: Simple calculations based on hospital admissions and length of stay can estimate the number of hospitalists required for adequate staffing. Requirements will vary with the hospitalists' workload; the patient case complexity; and the duties other than inpatient care that are required of hospitalists, such as consultations, skilled nursing facility coverage, quality improvement work, teaching, and research.
PURPOSE: In the United States, there are currently 1,000 to 2,000 physicians who specialize in inpatient hospital care. The number of such hospitatists appears to be growing rapidly, but the ultimate size of the hospitalist workforce is not known. METHODS: We obtained workload data from 365 practicing hospitalists who completed a survey by the National Association of Inpatient Physicians. We then estimated the number of potential hospitalists, based on published national hospital census data. We assumed that hospitalists would care for all medical inpatients, but only at hospitals large enough to require > or = 3 hospitalists. We also made estimates based on the primary care physician referral base and international benchmarks. We estimated hospitalists' primary care referral base from telephone interviews with key informants. Official sources in England and Germany provided international workforce data. RESULTS: Hospitalists reported an average workload of 13 inpatients. To cover all adult medical inpatients in the United States, we estimate a potential workforce of 19,000 hospitalists. Sensitivity analysis yielded 10,000 to 30,000 hospitalists. Our alternative models yielded estimates within this same range. CONCLUSIONS: The future hospitalist workforce is potentially quite large. This finding highlights the need to evaluate the economic and clinical outcomes of hospitalist systems.
CONTEXT: We originally described the hospitalist model of inpatient care in 1996; since then, the model has experienced tremendous growth. This growth has important clinical, financial, educational, and policy implications. OBJECTIVES: To review data regarding the effect of hospitalists on resource use, quality of care, satisfaction, and teaching; and to analyze the impact of hospitalists on the health care system and frame key issues facing the movement. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1996 to September 2001 for studies comparing hospitalist care with an appropriate control group in terms of resource use, quality, or satisfaction outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted information regarding study design, nature of hospitalist and control groups, analytical strategies, and key outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most studies found that implementation of hospitalist programs was associated with significant reductions in resource use, usually measured as hospital costs (average decrease, 13.4%) or average length of stay (average decrease, 16.6%). The few studies that failed to demonstrate reductions usually used atypical control groups. Although several studies found improved outcomes, such as inpatient mortality and readmission rates, these results were inconsistent. Patient satisfaction was generally preserved, while limited data supported positive effects on teaching. Although concerns about inpatient-outpatient information transfer remain, recent physician surveys indicate general acceptance of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical research supports the premise that hospitalists improve inpatient efficiency without harmful effects on quality or patient satisfaction. Education may be improved. In part catalyzed by these data, the clinical use of hospitalists is growing rapidly, and hospitalists are also assuming prominent roles as teachers, researchers, and quality leaders. The hospitalist field has now achieved many of the attributes of traditional medical specialties and seems destined to continue to grow.
Hospitalist systems create discontinuity of care. Enhanced communication between the hospitalist and primary care physician (PCP) could mitigate the harms of discontinuity. We conducted a mailed survey of 4,155 physician members of the California Academy of Family Physicians to determine their preferences for and satisfaction with communication with hospitalists. We received 1,030 completed surveys (26%). PCPs overwhelmingly stated that they "very much prefer" to communicate with hospitalists by telephone (77%), at admission (73%), and discharge (78%). Only discharge medications (94%) and discharge diagnosis (90%) were deemed "very important" by >90% of PCPs. Of the 556 respondents (54%) who had ever used a hospitalist, 56% were very or somewhat satisfied with communication with hospitalists, and 68% agreed that hospitalists are a good idea. Regarding communication at discharge, only 33% of PCPs reported that discharge summaries always or usually arrive before the patient is seen for follow-up. Only 56% of PCPs in our survey were satisfied with communication with hospitalists. Hospitalists should communicate with PCPs in a timely manner by telephone, at least at admission and discharge, and provide the specific pieces of information deemed important by the vast majority of PCPs. Hospitalists should also ensure that discharge information arrives in time to assist the PCP in reassuming care of their patients. It may be possible to tailor communication to individual PCPs. Further research could assess the impact of such communication on patient satisfaction and outcomes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of implementing a hospitalist service with a nurse discharge planner in an academic teaching hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Inpatient medicine service was provided by hospitalists, general internists, and specialists. Service personnel were identical except that the hospitalist service also had a nurse discharge planner. Hospitalists attended 4 months per year (compared with the 1 month by most other attending physicians) and had no outpatient responsibilities during the ward months. Patients were admitted alternately based on resident call schedule. Major outcomes included average costs of hospitalization, length of stay, and resource utilization. Quality measures included inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission rates, and satisfaction of patients, residents and students. RESULTS: Hospitalist-attended services had lower mean (+/- SD) inpatient costs per patient ($4289 +/- $6512) compared with specialist-staffed services ($6066 +/- $7550, P < 0.0001), with a trend toward lower costs when compared with generalist-attended services ($4850 +/- $7027, P = 0.11). Hospitalist services had shorter mean lengths of stay (4.4 +/- 4.0 days), compared with generalists (5.2 +/- 5.2 days) and specialists (6.0 +/- 5.5 days, P < 0.0001 for hospitalists vs. both groups). Readmission rates were similar in all groups. Mortality rates were higher in the specialist group [5.0% (44 of 874)] compared with hospitalists [2.2% (18 of 829)] and generalists [2.6% (20 of 761), P = 0.002 for specialists vs. both groups, P = 0.09 for generalists vs hospitalists]. Satisfaction results were uniformly high in all groups, with no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Hospitalist services with a nurse discharge planner were associated with lower average cost and shorter average length of hospital stay, without any apparent compromise in clinical outcomes or patient satisfaction.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the personal characteristics, work-related attitudes, or professional experiences of hospitalists. In considering the future of hospital medicine as a viable career choice for physicians (primarily, internists), these issues should be examined in a systematic fashion. Learning more about hospitalists and their work can enhance dialogue about the advantages and shortcomings of such a career from the perspective of the individual physician. METHODS: A self-administered mail survey was sent to 820 hospitalists who are dues-paying members of the National Association of Inpatient Physicians and who spend 50% or more of their time doing clinical work, teaching, or research related to hospital medicine. Attitudes about topics such as job-related burnout and job satisfaction were tapped, as well as information about different professional and social experiences. The analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and analysis of variance techniques. RESULTS: Analysis was based on 393 responses (48% response rate). Results show hospitalists to be a group of younger, mostly male, early-career individuals with high levels of job satisfaction and autonomy, low levels of burnout, and a long-term commitment to remaining in the role. Hospital medicine is a source of positive social and professional work experiences related to interactions with physician peers, patients and their families, and nonphysician hospital coworkers. Key components of hospitalists' jobs, practices, and workload are coalescing. However, certain developments, such as changing patterns of compensation and the enlisting of more general internists and women as hospitalists, merit further examination. CONCLUSIONS: The results offer insight into the physicians who are becoming hospitalists, the jobs and settings in which they work, and how hospitalists experience their everyday work lives. Valuable baseline data are provided for assessment of attitudes, such as burnout, that should be examined regularly in this fledgling group. This study complements research looking at the performance-related outcomes of hospitalists, and it can be used by various stakeholders to better understand and assess the long-term potential of what is being proposed as a new career path.
At many academic health centers, medical students in internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics are working with a new form of attending physician, the hospitalist. Although a growing literature demonstrates the benefits of hospitalists for patients and housestaff, the influence of hospitalists on students has been underemphasized. Advantages of the hospitalist model for students can include hospitalists' expertise in general inpatient medicine, their availability to teach throughout the day, and their role-modeling of the provision of high-quality and efficient care. However, the change in the ward attending workforce from non-hospitalist generalists, subspecialists, and biomedical researchers to generalist-hospitalists potentially limits students' exposure to the broad range of career opportunities the former group represents. The authors propose a research agenda to investigate the educational impact of the hospitalist model, suggest strategies to mitigate the limitations in students' exposures to subspecialty faculty, and recommend professional development in teaching for hospitalists to ensure that student education thrives in this new environment of inpatient medicine.
PURPOSE: Previous studies have examined the effects of hospitalists in urban academic hospitals. We compared the outcomes of patients treated by hospitalists with those of patients treated by internists at a 647-bed rural community hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The 443 patients in the hospitalists' 10 most common diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) were compared with 1,681 patients in the same DRGs who were cared for by internists in fiscal year 1998. Length of stay, cost of care, patient illness severity, patient satisfaction, 30-day readmission rate, inpatient mortality, discharge status, and resource utilization were compared. RESULTS: The hospitalists' patients had a shorter mean (+/- SD) length of stay (4.1 +/- 3.0 days versus 5.5 +/- 4.9 days, P <0.001) and their cost of care was less than that of the internists' patients ($4,098 +/- $2,455 versus $4,658 +/- $4,084, P <0.001). Analyses that adjusted for patient age, race, sex, insurance status, severity of illness, and specific medical comorbidities confirmed these differences. The differences between hospitalists and internists were most apparent among very ill patients. Mortality rates were similar (4.5% for hospitalists versus 4.9% for internists, P = 0.80), as were the readmission rates (4.5% for hospitalists versus 5.6% for internists, P = 0.41). Patient satisfaction was similar for both groups. The internists used more resources in 8 of 11 categories. CONCLUSIONS: The hospitalists provided cost-effective care, particularly for the sickest patients, with good outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Hospitalist systems raise ethical and policy concerns regarding informing patients about the hospitalist system itself, communication between primary care physicians and hospitalists, continuity of care, and conflicts of interest. Patients may worry that hospitalist systems are intended to achieve cost savings and that the role of the primary care physician as coordinator of care may be undermined. These concerns may be particularly salient for certain subgroups of patients. Hospitalists and health-care organizations that set up hospitalist systems should take steps to reduce the foreseeable risks that discontinuity of care might cause. Practice standards should be set for communication between primary care physicians and hospitalists and for involvement of primary physicians in inpatient care under certain circumstances. By setting such standards and monitoring performance, hospitalist systems can improve the quality of care and reassure patients.
BACKGROUND: We studied patients of a hospitalist teaching service and patients receiving routine private care (control subjects). We sought to evaluate whether inpatients cared for by an academic hospitalist service had lower lengths of stay and resource utilization rates. METHODS: Using monthly hospital census data, 477 hospitalist cases and 1,160 control cases were selected by explicit criteria from the Medicaid population of a large, university-affiliated, community medical center between July 1, 1996, and June 30, 1997. Outcomes in hospitalist faculty patients were compared to those of control patients under the care of private providers. RESULTS: Median length of stay was 4 days for control subjects and 3 days for the hospitalist service (p < 0.0001). Median total cost per case was $4,853 for control subjects and $4,002 for hospitalist patients (p < 0.0001). Only patients > or = 65 years old showed statistically significant reductions in both length of stay (p < 0.0001) and total cost (p = 0.002). Subspecialty consultation rates were 37.6% for control subjects and 16.6% for hospitalist cases (p < 0.0001). We noted increasing consultations for patients > or = 65 years old, especially in the control group (p = 0.001). No significant differences in mortality, 30-day readmissions, or interfacility transfers were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients cared for by an academic hospitalist service that includes actively participating medical residents appear to have lower lengths of stay, total costs, and consultation rates than patients receiving routine private care. The reductions are largely observed among patients > or = 65 years old.
The number of hospital-based physicians, or hospitalists, in the United States has grown rapidly, yet no published data have characterized hospitalists or their practices. A self-administered questionnaire was used to describe 1) the features of hospitalists, 2) the hospitals in which they practice, and 3) the practice of inpatient medicine. The questionnaire contained 48 questions that covered four domains: demographic information about the respondent, the clinical and nonclinical workload and responsibilities of the respondent, organizational and financial aspects of the respondent's practice, and the respondent's satisfaction and his or her perception of the reaction of other physicians and nurses to the hospitalist system. The overall response rate was 57%. Data are reported on 372 surveys. Respondents were young and most were men, and only 48% had practiced hospital-based medicine for more than 2 years. Eighty-nine percent of respondents were internists; of these, 51% were generalists and 38% were subspecialists. Most hospitalists limited their practices to the inpatient setting, but 37% practiced outpatient general internal medicine or subspecialty medicine in a limited capacity. In addition to providing care for inpatients, 90% of hospitalists were engaged in cohsultative medicine. Quality assurance and practice guideline development were the most frequently reported nonclinical activities (53% and 46%; respectively). Small group practices (31%) and staff-model health maintenance organizations (25%) were the most common practice settings, and 78% of participants were reimbursed through salary. Financial incentives were common (43%) but modest. Accurate information about hospitalists and their practices will be important to clinicians, educators, researchers, and policymakers as the hospitalist movement continues to grow.