Variability in Implementation of Interventions Aimed at Reducing Readmissions Among Patients With Heart Failure: A Survey of Teaching Hospitals.

PURPOSE: To highlight teaching hospitals' efforts to reduce readmissions by describing interventions implemented to improve care transitions for heart failure (HF) patients and the variability in implemented HF-specific and care transition interventions. METHOD: In 2012, the authors surveyed a network of 17 teaching hospitals to capture information about the number, type, stage of implementation, and structure of 4 HF-specific and 21 care transition (predischarge, bridging, and postdischarge) interventions implemented to reduce readmissions among patients with HF. The authors summarized data using descriptive statistics, including the mean number of interventions implemented and the frequency and stage of specific interventions, and descriptive plots of the structure of two common interventions (multidisciplinary rounds and follow-up telephone calls). RESULTS: Sixteen hospitals (94%) responded. The number and stage of implementation of the HF-specific and care transition interventions implemented varied across institutions. The mean number of interventions at an advanced stage of implementation (i.e., implemented for ≥ 75% of HF patients on the cardiology service or on all services) was 10.9 (standard deviation = 4.3). Overall, predischarge interventions were more common than bridging or postdischarge interventions. There was variability in the personnel involved in multidisciplinary rounds and in the processes/content of follow-up telephone calls. CONCLUSIONS: Teaching hospitals have implemented a wide range of interventions aimed at reducing hospital readmissions, but there is substantial variability in the types, stages, and structure of their interventions. This heterogeneity highlights the need for collaborative efforts to improve understanding of intervention effectiveness.

Commentary: Putting evidence to work: an expanded research agenda for academic medicine in the era of health care reform.

The historic Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) signed into law by President Obama has brought into sharp focus the need and opportunity for an expanded continuum of biomedical research. An updated research agenda must build on basic science and classical clinical investigation to place a more deliberate emphasis on patient- and population-outcome-oriented science and to apply science to help transform our current inefficient and expensive health care system into a more evidence-based system of effective, coordinated, safe, and patient-centered health care. If academic medicine is to play a leading role in this 21st-century transformation of health care through research, as it did in the 20th century, those in the community must think strategically about what needs to be done to be part of the solution for transforming the nation's health care delivery systems and prevention strategies, and the changes in institutional, organizational, and individual behaviors and values required to get there. Not all institutions will engage in the science called for in health care reform, but for those institutions with the interest, capacity, and resources to move forward, what is needed?

Roles and responsibilities of chief medical officers in member organizations of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

PURPOSE: To explore the roles of physician leaders who hold titles such as chief medical officer (CMO), vice president for medical affairs, and vice dean for clinical affairs in Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member organizations, and to identify critical success factors for these positions. METHOD: An Internet-based survey was submitted to 340 physician leaders in 281 AAMC member institutions. The survey posed questions regarding demographics, titles, reporting relationships, time commitments, scope of responsibility, accomplishments, and challenges related to recipients' positions, among other questions. RESULTS: Responses were received from 154 physicians representing 139 institutions (response rates 45% and 49%, respectively). Forty-nine percent of these positions had existed for 10 years or less. The most common administrative title was CMO (48%). Eighty-five percent of these individuals reported directly to the dean or CEO of their organization. The majority of administrative effort involved quality and safety (31%), coordination of clinical care (21%), and graduate medical education (9%). The remainder (39%) encompassed a broad portfolio of responsibilities ranging from information technology (6%) to nursing services (2%). Keys to job success included personal stature and relationships, clear definition of responsibilities, and the commitments of the senior administration to the position. CONCLUSIONS: Teaching hospitals and medical schools are creating or strengthening positions for physician leaders, most commonly called CMOs. CMOs' work involves numerous activities beyond the traditional areas of quality and safety. The effectiveness of these positions requires clear definition of the role throughout the organization and strong, evident support from senior executives in the organization.

Resident duty hours reform: are we there yet?

In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented resident duty hours restrictions to address growing concerns about medical errors and resident well-being. Many anticipated that resident duty hours restrictions would improve the quality and safety of care by minimizing the detrimental effects of fatigue on resident performance. Others were concerned that the fundamental clinical and educational principle of continuity of care would be lost or at least eroded, and that more frequent "hand-offs" might result in more clinical errors. Some lamented the loss of the total-emersion residency experience that serves as a forging process to temper the mind and body to create a finely honed clinician. The author draws from the literature to examine the effects of the ACGME resident duty hours restrictions three years after their implementation. From the perspectives of resident perceptions, attending perceptions, organizational approaches, and unintended consequences, the author concludes that far more than simple control of duty hours will be required to achieve the goals of clinical excellence, educational excellence, resident well-being, and professionalism.

Future directions for academic practice plans: thoughts on organization and management from Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania.

Academic practice plans have been challenged in recent years by increasing pressures for productivity and financial performance. Most practice plans began as relatively loose affiliations among the clinical departments associated with their respective medical schools, and such approaches were adequate in an earlier era. However, this model is not well suited to deal with the current and future challenges that face the practice plans, hospitals, and medical schools that comprise our academic medical centers. The current clinical, financial, and regulatory environment requires highly effective business management, a shared commitment to common goals, and meticulous attention to regulatory compliance. In turn, the organizational structures, daily management, and overall governance of academic practice plans must be revised to address these new expectations. The business, clinical, and academic performance of the individual practices must be aligned to meet the diverse, and sometimes conflicting, needs of the academic health center. Both Johns Hopkins Medicine and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Medicine) have been addressing these issues independently, but their approaches share many common principles. Among others, these principles include (a) organizational alignment, (b) strong practice plan business management, (c) shared resources and strategies, (d) accountability for performance in each practice based on credible data generated by the practice plan, (e) uniform audit and compliance standards, and (f) application of market strategy principles to assure the right mix of primary and specialist physicians, and appropriate incentive-based compensation for physicians. The application of these approaches at two academic health centers, and the rationale for these approaches, are discussed in detail.

Anesthesiologist board certification and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Board certification is often used as a surrogate indicator of provider competence, although few outcome studies have demonstrated its validity. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent surgical procedures under the care of an anesthesiologist with or without board certification. METHODS: Medicare claims records for 144,883 patients in Pennsylvania who underwent general surgical or orthopedic procedures between 1991 and 1994 were used to determine provider-specific outcome rates adjusted to account for patient severity and case mix, and hospital characteristics. Outcomes of 8,894 cases involving midcareer anesthesiologists, 11-25 yr from medical school graduation, who lacked board certification were compared with all other cases. Midcareer anesthesiologist cases were studied because this group had sufficient time to become certified during an era when obtaining certification was already considered important, and consequently had the highest rate of board certification. Mortality within 30 days of admission and the failure-to-rescue rate (defined as the rate of death after an in-hospital complication) were the two primary outcome measures. RESULTS: Adjusted odds ratios for death and failure to rescue were greater when care was delivered by noncertified midcareer anesthesiologists (death = 1.13 [95% confidence interval, 1.00, 1.26], P < 0.04; failure to rescue = 1.13 [95% confidence interval, 1.01, 1.27], P < 0.04). Adjusting for international medical school graduates did not change these results. CONCLUSIONS: When anesthesiology board certification is very common, as in midcareer practitioners, the lack of board certification is associated with worse outcomes. However, the poor outcomes associated with noncertified providers may be a result of the hospitals at which they practice and not necessarily their manner of practice.

Education in anesthesiology for the twenty-first century.

The growth and development of anesthesiology in the twenty-first century will likely depend on two major factors: our vision for the specialty in the future and our ability to implement an anesthesia education plan that will foster the achievement of that vision. The foundation of effective anesthesia education must be built on an understanding of the past and an analysis of the present but, most importantly, it must be shaped by our vision for the future. Focus on the future is essential, for it is remarkably easy to teach others as we were taught, or as we practice today. Unfortunately, the easy path will not foster the advancement of the specialty or develop the leaders for the future. The comments that follow are not a prescription for success. Rather, they are intended to stimulate discussion and planning regarding the future of anesthesiology, leading to a course of action that will enhance the development of the specialty. Long-term success for the specialty will depend on our efforts in undergraduate and graduate medical education, whereas short-term success will depend on our efforts in the continuing medical education of current practitioners.