Patient Satisfaction

Rounds: Are We Spinning our Wheels?

As a Johns Hopkins undergraduate, I used to run the Welch lecture series in medical history. Through this role, I learned about an interesting tidbit – the origin of the word “rounds.” Johns Hopkins Hospital had a circular ward where the infamous and quotable Dr. Osler made his “rounds” to see patients. While medicine has come a long way since Osler’s days, have rounds? This is the crux of a paper in the Journal of Hospital Medicine by led one of our former Pritzker students Olliver Hulland along with mentors and hospitalists Dr. Jeanne Farnan and Dr. Barrett Fromme. In a 3-site study with UCSF and Georgetown, they conducted focus groups with attendings and medical students to ask the quintessential question, “What is the purpose of rounds?” Interestingly, the answers were markedly similar and revealed the multi-faceted nature of rounds: Communication, which included coordination of patient care team, patient/family communication,…

The Return of #JHMChat and Choosing Wisely

by Charlie M. Wray DO, MS
By: Charlie M. Wray DO, MS I’ll be honest – I can’t remember who won the 2012 Super Bowl, World Series or any other pop culture phenomenon*, but I do recall stumbling across something called Choosing Wisely® one afternoon while sitting in my clinic. With a burgeoning awareness that much of the care I was providing seemed superfluous and wasteful, the discovery that there was a group of physicians who shared this same sentiment was exciting! Five years in, the Choosing Wisely® campaign has published more than 500 specialty recommendations – with the Society of Hospital Medicine working on the upcoming version 2.0 (all are welcome to contribute!). Just as Choosing Wisely is gearing up for round 2, the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s (JHM) online journal club, #JHMChat, is rebooting as well! After a brief summer hiatus, we’re happy to announce that #JHMChat will be returning to discuss “Against Medical…
Charlie M. Wray DO, MS is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of California, Francisco and the San Francisco VA Medical Center. He completed medical school at Western University – College of Osteopathic Medicine, residency at Loma Linda University Medical Center, and a Hospital Medicine Research Fellowship at The University of Chicago. Dr. Wray’s research interests are focused on inpatient care transitions, care fragmentation in the hospital setting, and overutilization of hospital resources. Additionally, he has strong interests in medical education, with specific focus in evidence-based medicine, the implementation of value-based care, and how learners negotiate medical uncertainty. Dr. Wray can often be found tweeting under @WrayCharles.

Should We Really Focus on “Patient-Centered” Care?

“Patient-centered care implies that the patient is always right and that their opinion should win out over the physician’s opinion.” I read that quote from Dr. Katie Neuendorf in a recent article in The Hospitalist, and it resonated with me right away. In the article, Dr. Neuendorf explains that patient-centered care should really be “relationship-centered care,” which means that the relationship should be prioritized, even when there is disagreement in the plan of care. In this scenario, she pointed out that she can support the patient and still not prescribe a treatment that she feels is inappropriate. This is brilliant and beautiful. We know, as numerous articles have shown us, that giving patients what they want is not necessarily good for them. Patients with the highest satisfaction scores also have the highest mortality ratings. This is thought to be because patients may be asking for interventions, tests or prescription drugs…

You Have Lowered Length of Stay. Congratulations. You’re Fired.

For several decades, providers working within hospitals have had incentives to reduce stay durations and keep patient flow tip-top. DRG-based and capitated payments expedited that shift. Accompanying the change, physicians became more aware of the potential repercussions of sicker and quicker discharges. They began to monitor their care and as best as possible, use what measures they could ascertain as a proxy for quality (readmissions and hospital acquired conditions). Providers balanced the harms of a continued stay over the benefits of added days, not to mention the need for cost savings. However, the narrow focus on the hospital stay, the first three to seven days of illness, distracted us from the out weeks after discharge. With the acceleration of inpatient episodes, we cast patients to post-acute settings unprepared for the hardship they would face. By the latter, I mean, frailty risk, more reliance on others for help, and a greater need…

Wrongful Life

There have been recent discussions in the lay media about a growing trend of litigation cases focused not on the “right to live”, but rather on the “right to die”. These cases have involved patients who received aggressive treatment, despite having documentation of their wishes not to receive such aggressive treatment. Although unsettling, it is not surprising that this issue has arisen, given the national conversations about the exorbitant cost of care at the end of life in the U.S., and the frequency with which patients do not receive end of life care that is concordant with their wishes. These conversations have spurned providers and patients to discuss and document their wishes, via advanced care directives and/or POLST orders (Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment). There is now even a national day devoted to advanced care decision making (National Healthcare Decisions Day). While these documents are increasingly available for hospitalists…
12345...