Use and outcomes of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after spinal fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND: The number of spinal fusion operations in the USA is rapidly rising, but little is known about optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after spinal surgery. OBJECTIVES: To examine the use of and outcomes associated with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after spinal fusion surgery in a cohort of 244 US hospitals. PATIENTS/METHODS: We identified all patients with a principal procedure code for spinal fusion surgery in hospitals participating in the Premier Perspective database from 2003 to 2005, and searched for receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis (subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin, or fondaparinux) and/or mechanical prophylaxis (compression devices and elastic stockings) within the first 7 days after surgery. We also searched for discharge diagnosis codes for venous thromboembolism and postoperative hemorrhage during the index hospitalization and within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Among 80,183 spinal fusions performed during the time period, cervical fusions were the most common (49.0%), followed by lumbar fusions (47.8%). Thromboembolism prophylaxis was administered to 60.6% of patients within the first week postoperatively, with the most frequent form being mechanical prophylaxis alone (47.6%). Of the 244 hospitals, 26.2% provided prophylaxis to ≥ 90% of their patients undergoing spinal fusion; however, 33.2% provided prophylaxis to fewer than 50% of their patients. The rate of diagnosed venous thromboembolism within 30 days after surgery was 0.45%, and the rate of postoperative hemorrhage was 1.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists in the use of thromboembolism prophylaxis after spinal fusion surgery in the USA. Nevertheless, overall rates of diagnosed thromboembolism after spinal fusion appear to be low.

Use of antihypertensive agents in the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: To protect the ischemic penumbra, guidelines have recommended against treating all but the severest elevations in blood pressure during acute ischemic stroke. OBJECTIVE: To determine how often antihypertensive agents were used in routine clinical practice and whether this use was consistent with guideline recommendations. METHODS: The records of patients discharged with ischemic stroke in 2000 at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, MA, were reviewed. Adherence was evaluated by examining the use of antihypertensive agents in the context of daily blood pressure recordings during the first 4 days of hospitalization. Therapy was considered appropriate in the setting of severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure of >220 mm Hg or mean arterial blood pressure of >130 mm Hg) and potentially harmful in the setting of relative (systolic blood pressure of <120 mm Hg or mean arterial blood pressure of <85 mm Hg) or absolute (systolic blood pressure of <90 mm Hg or mean arterial blood pressure of <60 mm Hg) hypotension. RESULTS: One hundred (65%) of the 154 ischemic stroke patients were treated with antihypertensive agents. Forty-two percent of those who had received therapy prior to admission had their regimen intensified, and 36% of previously untreated patients had therapy initiated. Sixteen (11%) patients had hypertension severe enough to warrant treatment upon arrival, and 34 (22%) had at least one episode of severe hypertension during the first 4 hospital days. Sixty-five (65%) patients developed relative hypotension on a day when antihypertensive agents were administered, and five (5%) developed absolute hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with acute ischemic stroke are treated with antihypertensive agents despite the absence of severe hypertension. Although low blood pressure is common among treated patients, frank hypotension is unusual.

Primary care physician attitudes regarding communication with hospitalists.

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.

Physician attitudes toward and prevalence of the hospitalist model of care: results of a national survey.

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.

The potential size of the hospitalist workforce in the United States.

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.

Hospitalists and the practice of inpatient medicine: results of a survey of the National Association of Inpatient Physicians.

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.