SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Efforts to improve the efficiency and quality of hospital inpatient care have led to the movement to replace the primary care physician with the hospitalist as the inpatient physician of record. A hospitalist serves as the physician of record after accepting referrals of hospitalized patients from primary care physicians. The hospitalist then keeps the primary care physician informed of major healthcare decisions during the patient's entire hospital stay. One of the forces promoting the hospitalist movement is the assumption that inpatient care provided by a small number of physicians is less costly, of higher quality, and less variable than the care provided by primary care physicians who see patients only briefly once a day. Hospitalists are accessible throughout their shifts and can better respond to changing patient needs. With this model of care, hospitalists have taken a more proactive role in redesigning support-care systems based on the needs of the patient. Many perform quality improvement and utilization review, and engage in the development of clinical practice guidelines. Concern over the hospitalist model has focused on the break in continuity of care. Patients and their families may feel that they are losing a physician whom they know and for whom they have some level of comfort and confidence. As the hospitalist movement picks up momentum, so too does its expectation to improve and provide for quality end of life care.
BACKGROUND: Hospitalists are increasingly being used for inpatient care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the use of hospitalists is beneficial. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Inpatient medical service of a 500-bed community teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 1620 patients in the study group, seen during the hospitalist year; 1679 patients from the same outpatient practice as the study group, seen during the previous year (prehospitalist year); an unselected comparison group of 3413 patients seen during the prehospitalist year and 3223 patients seen during the hospitalist year; and a subset of the unselected comparison group, cared for by outpatient practices, who had a prehospitalist length of stay similar to that of the study group (743 patients in the prehospitalist year and 786 in the hospitalist year). INTERVENTIONS: Full-time faculty hospitalists cared for the study group, were in the hospital during normal working hours, and made decisions throughout the day. In the prehospitalist year and in the comparison groups, primary care physicians managed their own hospitalized patients. MEASUREMENTS: Length of stay; cost of care; costs of hematology and chemistry evaluation, pharmacy, and radiology; and readmissions were determined for the prehospitalist and hospitalist years. RESULTS: In the study group, median length of stay decreased from 6.01 to 5.01 days (P < 0.001). Median cost of care decreased from $4139 to $3552 (P < 0.001), and the 14-day readmission rate decreased from 9.9 to 4.64 readmissions per 100 admissions (P < 0.001). In the comparison groups, length of stay decreased but both cost of care and readmission rates increased. CONCLUSION: Hospitalists may improve the efficiency of inpatient care. Further study in various settings is needed to verify these findings.
The use of hospitalists has implications for patients, for internists, and for the specialty of internal medicine. For patients, the greatest concern is interrupting the continuity of a supportive relationship with their regular physican. For many internists, the hospitalist model is attractive, but they are concerned that health plans will compel physicians to transfer their patients to a hospitalist at the time of admission to the hospital (mandatory hand-off). Thus, the hospitalist could become the means to exclude internists from hospital care and deprive them of an important source of professional satisfaction. The specialty of internal medicine is very concerned about the mandatory hand-off because it threatens the internist's identity as the physician who can care for the sickest patients in any venue, making it harder for patients and health plans to distinguish the internist from family physicians and nurse practitioners. The hospitalist movement has much to offer internal medicine. To enjoy the benefits and avoid the harms associated with the hospitalist model, internal medicine must resist the imposition of the mandatory hand-off and use the hospitalist's focus on excellent inpatient care to improve the practice of medicine by all internists.
Hospitalists: Do they improve care? Hospitalists are physicians dedicated to the care of hospitalized patients. The use of hospitalists is growing rapidly nationwide, primarily in markets marked by competitive managed care environments. When hospitalists are used, length of stay and costs are cut about 20%. The "handoff" of the patient from primary physician to hospitalist upon admission is seen by many as a weak, and possibly fatal, characteristic of the hospitalist model. The key to making the hospitalist model work in today's health care system is to make the "handoff at the hospital" voluntary, thereby garnering vital primary physician support.
The traditional patient-primary care physician (PCP) relationship provides many ethical protections for patients, including confidentiality, shared medical decision making, and respect for patient autonomy. Hospitalist models, which introduce a purposeful discontinuity of care, threaten these protections and raise certain ethical concerns. We analyze 2 cases that explore ethical issues arising in hospitalist systems and suggest ways to ensure ethical protection for patients. The first case examines how hospitalization can disrupt the patient-PCP relationship and raise ethical issues regarding confidentiality. In the second case, we discuss decision making when the patient's goals and preferences for care change as a result of hospitalization. Effective hospitalist systems provide a model for a trusting patient-physician relationship. Although the hospitalist must take responsibility for inpatient management, the PCP has a key role in addressing important issues in the hospital and providing care after discharge. As hospitalists assume control of inpatient care, they must also provide ethical protections to patients to supplement those currently vested in the patient-PCP relationship. An approach that keeps the patient's best interests foremost, defines a clear role for the PCP, and takes advantage of the expertise and availability of hospitalists will best serve patients and physicians.
The hospital-based generalist physician is a recent organizational innovation in health care in the United States. Does the hospitalist model provide improved health care? The answer to this question lies in a rigorous evaluation of the hospitalist system in the clinical setting. This paper describes key outcomes that need to be assessed and methodologic issues that need to be addressed when conducting and interpreting the results of evaluations of the hospitalist model. To provide evidence about the value of the hospitalist model, quality of care should be evaluated through the measurement of both processes and outcomes. The clinical processes assessed may include diagnostic tests and treatments that are causally linked with outcomes. A variety of outcomes can be measured, such as death, clinical or physiologic status, physical function, and psychological well-being. The analysis of resource use data can aid in an assessment of the relative costs and effectiveness of clinical services. An evaluation of the hospitalist model requires an adequate research design, which should include a precise definition of the model being studied, the selection of an appropriate comparison group, the collection of clinical and demographic information on patients, the specification of both process and outcome measures, and the use of statistical techniques that are appropriate to the questions being asked and the data being collected. The design must distinguish between outcomes attributable to the introduction of hospitalists and those attributable to other changes in medical treatments and the organization of care.
The use of hospitalists, who are physicians specializing in providing hospital inpatient care, has become increasingly popular. Preliminary data suggest that hospitalists can shorten inpatient lengths of stay and lower costs without compromising clinical outcomes or patient satisfaction. The role of hospitalists, their position in the organizational framework, and their contractual and financial relationships are influenced by the structure of the healthcare organization in which they work. Although hospitalist programs can benefit hospitals and medical groups financially, they rarely become self-supporting through professional fees alone. The long-term viability of hospitalist programs frequently will depend on the support the programs receive from whichever entity benefits from hospitalist-generated efficiencies.
Motivated by a search for improved quality and efficiency, increasing numbers of hospitals and physicians are moving from systems in which all primary care providers manage their own hospitalized patients or rotate this responsibility among themselves at infrequent intervals to voluntary or mandatory systems in which patients are "handed off" to the care of an inpatient physician, the "hospitalist." All hospitalists manage medical patients in the hospital. Other potential roles for these physicians include triage in the emergency department, transfer of "out-of-network" patients, management of patients in the intensive care unit, preoperative and postoperative management of surgical patients, and leadership in hospital quality improvement and regulatory work. Hospitalists may add value by being more available to inpatients, having more hospital experience and expertise, and having an increased commitment to hospital quality improvement compared with primary care providers. Potential disadvantages of the hospitalist model include loss of information as a result of discontinuity of care, patient dissatisfaction, loss of acute care skills by primary care physicians, and burnout among hospitalists. A variety of models of care are needed to meet the clinical, organizational, financial, and political demands of diverse health care systems. The favored model should be that which produces the best clinical outcomes and the highest patient satisfaction at the lowest cost.