Peristalsis in an unusual place-The diagnostic utility of point-of-care ultrasound: A case report.

Complications related to inguinal hernias are commonly encountered in medicine. Clinical presentation can vary, and although diagnosis can often be made during physical examination, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can be useful in cases where the diagnosis is unclear. Our case underscores to clinicians the utility of POCUS in diagnosing inguinal hernias.

Perspectives on the quality and utility of letters conforming to the AAIM guidelines.

Background Standardized letters of recommendation (SLOR) have become common features of the medical school to residency transition. Research has shown many advantages over the narrative letter of recommendation including improved letter-writing efficiency, ease of interpretation, and improved reliability as performance predictors. Currently, at least four specialties require fellowship SLORs. Internal medicine adopted its SLOR in 2017. Previous research showed fellowship program directors' satisfaction with the 2017 guidelines. Little is known about residency program directors' acceptance and adherence to the guidelines. Objectives The study sought to assess the adoption rate of each component, barriers to adoption, time commitment, and alignment with intended goals of the guidelines. Methods Anonymous survey links were posted to an internal medicine discussion forum prior to the guidelines in spring 2017 and twice following the guidelines in fall 2018 and winter 2019. Two-sample tests of proportions were used to compare respondent characteristics with known survey population data. Pre- and post-survey comparisons were assessed for statistical significance with Pearson chi-squared statistic. Results The response rate varied from 30% to 35% for each survey period. Medical knowledge, patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and scholarly activity were reported frequently (>96%) at baseline. Inclusion of residency program characteristics, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, and skills sought to master increased over the study period. Conclusions The new guidelines improved uniform reporting of all core competency data. Overall, the gains were modest, as many pre-survey respondents reported high rates of including components within the guidelines.

A shocking diagnosis.

The approach to clinical conundrums by an expert clinician is revealed through the presentation of an actual patient's case in an approach typical of a morning report. Similarly to patient care, sequential pieces of information are provided to the clinician, who is unfamiliar with the case. The focus is on the thought processes of both the clinical team caring for the patient and the discussant.

Features of successful academic hospitalist programs: Insights from the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in academics and research) project.

BACKGROUND: As clinical demands increase, understanding the features that allow academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) to thrive has become increasingly important. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a quantifiable definition of academic success for AHPs. METHODS: A working group of academic hospitalists was formed. The group identified grant funding, academic promotion, and scholarship as key domains reflective of success, and specific metrics and approaches to assess these domains were developed. Self-reported data on funding and promotion were available from a preexisting survey of AHP leaders, including total funding/group, funding/full-time equivalent (FTE), and number of faculty at each academic rank. Scholarship was defined in terms of research abstracts presented over a 2-year period. Lists of top performers in each of the 3 domains were constructed. Programs appearing on at least 1 list (the SCHOLAR cohort [SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research]) were examined. We compared grant funding and proportion of promoted faculty within the SCHOLAR cohort to a sample of other AHPs identified in the preexisting survey. RESULTS: Seventeen SCHOLAR programs were identified, with a mean age of 13.2 years (range, 6-18 years) and mean size of 36 faculty (range, 18-95). The mean total grant funding/program was $4 million (range, $0-$15 million), with mean funding/FTE of $364,000 (range, $0-$1.4 million); both were significantly higher than the comparison sample. The majority of SCHOLAR faculty (82%) were junior, a lower percentage than the comparison sample. The mean number of research abstracts presented over 2 years was 10.8 (range, 9-23). DISCUSSION: Our approach effectively identified a subset of successful AHPs. Despite the relative maturity and large size of the programs in the SCHOLAR cohort, they were comprised of relatively few senior faculty members and varied widely in the quantity of funded research and scholarship. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:708-713. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Preventable Admissions on a General Medicine Service: Prevalence, Causes and Comparison with AHRQ Prevention Quality Indicators-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rates of preventable admissions will soon be publicly reported and used in calculating performance-based payments. The current method of assessing preventable admissions, the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Preventable Quality Indicators (PQI) rate, is drawn from claims data and was originally designed to assess population-level access to care. OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence and causes of preventable admissions by attending physician review and to compare its performance with the PQI tool in identifying preventable admissions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: General medicine service at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive inpatient admissions from December 1-15, 2013. MAIN MEASURES: Survey of inpatient attending physicians regarding the preventability of the admissions, primary contributing factors and feasibility of prevention. For the same patients, the PQI tool was applied to determine the claims-derived preventable admission rate. KEY RESULTS: Physicians rated all 322 admissions and classified 122 (38 %) as preventable, of which 31 (25 %) were readmissions. Readmissions were more likely to be rated preventable than other admissions (49 % vs. 35 %, p = 0.04). Application of the AHRQ PQI methodology identified 75 (23 %) preventable admissions. Thirty-one admissions (10 %) were classified as preventable by both methods, and the majority of admissions considered preventable by the AHRQ PQI method (44/78) were not considered preventable by physician assessment (K = 0.04). Of the preventable admissions, physicians assigned patient factors in 54 (44 %), clinician factors in 36 (30 %) and system factors in 32 (26 %). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of admissions to a general medicine service appeared preventable, but AHRQ's PQI tool was unable to identify these admissions. Before initiation of the PQI rate for use in pay-for-performance programs, further study is warranted.

Hospitalist perspective on the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections.

The prevalence of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) has been increasing in the United States. These infections are associated with an increase in hospital admissions. Hospitalists play an increasingly important role in the management of these infections and need to use hospital resources efficiently and effectively. When available, observation units are useful for treating low-risk patients who do not require hospital admission. Imaging tools may help to exclude abscesses and necrotizing soft tissue infections; however, surgical exploration remains the principal means of diagnosing necrotizing soft tissue infections. The most common pathogens that cause SSTIs are streptococci and Staphylococcus aureus. Methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) is a prevalent pathogen, and concerns are increasing regarding the unclear distinctions between community-acquired and hospital-acquired MRSA. Other less frequent pathogens that cause SSTIs include Enterococcus species, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species, Enterobacter species, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Cephalexin and clindamycin are suitable options for infections caused by streptococcal species and methicillin-susceptible S aureus. The increasing resistance of S aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes to erythromycin limits its use in these infections, and better alternatives are available. Parenteral cefazolin, nafcillin, or oxacillin can be used in hospitalized patients with nonpurulent cellulitis caused by streptococci and methicillin-susceptible S aureus. When oral MRSA therapy is indicated, clindamycin, doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or linezolid is appropriate. Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, tigecycline, telavancin, and ceftaroline fosamil are intravenous options that should be used in MRSA infections that require patient hospitalization. In the treatment of patients with SSTIs, hospitalists are at the forefront of providing proper patient care that reduces hospital costs, duration of therapy, and therapeutic failures. This review updates guidelines on the management of SSTIs with a focus on infections caused by S aureus, particularly MRSA, and outlines the role of the hospitalist in the effective management of SSTIs.

The hospitalist perspective on treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is an important health care concern in the United States and worldwide, and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure. Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most frequent causative pathogen of CABP. Other common pathogens include Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Enterobacteriaceae, Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Chlamydophila pneumoniae. However, in clinical practice, the causative pathogen of CABP is most often not identified. Therefore, a common treatment approach for patients hospitalized with CABP is empiric antibiotic therapy with a ß-lactam in combination with a macrolide, respiratory fluoroquinolones, or tetracyclines. An increase in the incidence of S. pneumoniae that is resistant to frequently used antibiotics, including ß-lactams, macrolides, and tetracyclines, provides a challenge for the physician when selecting empiric antimicrobial therapy. When patients with CABP do not respond to initial therapy, they must be adequately reevaluated with further diagnostic testing, change in antimicrobial regimen, and/or transfer of the patient to a higher level of care. The role of hospital medicine physicians is crucial in treating patients who are hospitalized with CABP. An important focus of hospitalists is to provide care improvement in a way that addresses both patient and hospital needs. It is essential that the hospitalist provides best possible patient care, including adherence to quality measures, optimizing the patient's hospital length of stay, and arranging adequate post-discharge care in an effort to prevent readmission and provide appropriate ongoing outpatient care.

Inpatient management of diabetic foot disorders: a clinical guide.

The implementation of an inpatient diabetic foot service should be the goal of all institutions that care for patients with diabetes. The objectives of this team are to prevent problems in patients while hospitalized, provide curative measures for patients admitted with diabetic foot disorders, and optimize the transition from inpatient to outpatient care. Essential skills that are required for an inpatient team include the ability to stage a foot wound, assess for peripheral vascular disease, neuropathy, wound infection, and the need for debridement; appropriately culture a wound and select antibiotic therapy; provide, directly or indirectly, for optimal metabolic control; and implement effective discharge planning to prevent a recurrence. Diabetic foot ulcers may be present in patients who are admitted for nonfoot problems, and these ulcers should be evaluated by the diabetic foot team during the hospitalization. Pathways should be in place for urgent or emergent treatment of diabetic foot infections and neuropathic fractures/dislocations. Surgeons involved with these patients should have knowledge and interest in limb preservation techniques. Prevention of iatrogenic foot complications, such as pressure sores of the heel, should be a priority in patients with diabetes who are admitted for any reason: all hospitalized diabetic patients require a clinical foot exam on admission to identify risk factors such as loss of sensation or ischemia. Appropriate posthospitalization monitoring to reduce the risk of reulceration and infection should be available, which should include optimal glycemic control and correction of any fluid and electrolyte disturbances.

2012 infectious diseases society of america clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.

Executive summary: 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.

2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.