The Impact of Changes in Medicare's Physician Payment System on Critical Care.

In 2015 President Obama signed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) which repealed the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) mechanism for Medicare physician reimbursement and mandated that CMS develop alternative payment methodologies to "reward health care providers for giving better care not more just more care." MACRA makes 3 major changes to Medicare reimbursements: (1) it ends the SGR formula; (2) it establishes a new framework to reward physicians based on performance and health outcomes rather than volume; and (3) it aims to combine existing quality reporting programs into one streamlined system. Beginning in 2019, physicians must enter one of two new tracks for payment: the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) or Alternative Payment Models (APMs). SCCM has a unique opportunity as the largest multidisciplinary critical care organization to comment upon and, ideally, to help develop the new physician payment models specifically for critical care services. The time is now for SCCM and its individual members to become involved in the process.

Team science as interprofessional collaborative research practice: a systematic review of the science of team science literature.

The National Institute of Health's concept of team science is a means of addressing complex clinical problems by applying conceptual and methodological approaches from multiple disciplines and health professions. The ultimate goal is the improved quality of care of patients with an emphasis on better population health outcomes. Collaborative research practice occurs when researchers from >1 health-related profession engage in scientific inquiry to jointly create and disseminate new knowledge to clinical and research health professionals in order to provide the highest quality of patient care to improve population health outcomes. Training of clinicians and researchers is necessary to produce clinically relevant evidence upon which to base patient care for disease management and empirically guided team-based patient care. In this study, we hypothesized that team science is an example of effective and impactful interprofessional collaborative research practice. To assess this hypothesis, we examined the contemporary literature on the science of team science (SciTS) produced in the past 10 years (2005-2015) and related the SciTS to the overall field of interprofessional collaborative practice, of which collaborative research practice is a subset. A modified preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) approach was employed to analyze the SciTS literature in light of the general question: Is team science an example of interprofessional collaborative research practice? After completing a systematic review of the SciTS literature, the posed hypothesis was accepted, concluding that team science is a dimension of interprofessional collaborative practice.

The National United States Center Data Repository: Core essential interprofessional practice & education data enabling triple aim analytics.

Understanding the impact that interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP) might have on triple aim patient outcomes is of high interest to health care providers, educators, administrators, and policy makers. Before the work undertaken by the National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education at the University of Minnesota, no standard mechanism to acquire and report outcome data related to interprofessional education and collaborative practice and its effect on triple aim outcomes existed. This article describes the development and adoption of the National Center Data Repository (NCDR) designed to capture data related to IPECP processes and outcomes to support analyses of the relationship of IPECP on the Triple Aim. The data collection methods, web-based survey design and implementation process are discussed. The implications of this informatics work to the field of IPECP and health care quality and safety include creating standardized capacity to describe interprofessional practice and measure outcomes connecting interprofessional education and collaborative practice to the triple aim within and across sites/settings, leveraging an accessible data collection process using user friendly web-based survey design to support large data scholarship and instrument testing, and establishing standardized data elements and variables that can potentially lead to enhancements to national/international information system and academic accreditation standards to further team-based, interprofessional, collaborative research in the field.

The United States National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education: Integrating an informatics approach to interprofessional work.

The National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education, a United States public-private partnership, was formed to provide national leadership, scholarship, evidence, and coordination to advance interprofessional education (IPE) and practice. Many external drivers led to the creation of the partnership that culminated in the National Center: patient safety initiatives, the need for care coordination and transitions efforts, quality improvement imperatives, calls for teamwork and workforce optimization, newly defined national core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice, practice redesign, escalating health care costs, and state and federal policies. The National Center principals who have served in a variety of senior leadership roles--a clinician, educationalist, and informaticist--recognized the opportunity to leverage the potential that informatics could bring not only to the center but also to the field of IPECP. An informatics approach focuses on collaborative processes and works to address information processing, communications, and data collection. To do so, the National Center created multiple platforms: informatics education, a resource exchange, communication strategy, incubator network, national data repository, and learning system.

Commentary: educating the present and future health care workforce to provide care to populations.

The crisis of the rising cost of health care in the United States is stimulating major changes in the way care is being delivered. New models such as patient-centered medical homes and accountable care organizations are being developed with the expectation that health care professionals will address and improve the health of populations. Electronic health records and interprofessional teams will be critical to achieving the goal of better health. It is now time to bring together educators and clinicians at academic health centers, public health educators and practitioners, along with researchers, representatives from the health care delivery and financing systems, and community partners to reengineer health professions education to prepare health professions students for the health care system of the future.

Acute correction of hyponatremia secondary to psychogenic polydipsia.

BACKGROUND: Psychogenic polydipsia is prevalent amongst psychiatric patients, but less common in the general population. Generally, hyponatremia ensues with complications of cerebral edema resulting in confusion, seizures, coma, and death. Rapid correction of serum sodium levels can lead to further complications of osmotic demyelination of neurons, e.g. central pontine myelinolysis. CASE REPORT: We present a case of a 32-year-old male who presented with seizures while being treated at a drug rehabilitation facility. He was discovered to be hyponatremic secondary to suspected psychogenic polydipsia. The patient impressively responded to treatment of fluid restriction and desmopressin and symptoms improved. CONCLUSIONS: Among the causes of hyponatremia, psychogenic polydipsia may be more difficult to diagnose especially if an apparent psychiatric condition is not present. Current literature supports cautious correction of hyponatremia to prevent complications. However, rapid corrections may be driven by the physiology of the patient and may not be avoidable. Fortunately, our case illustrates rapid, positive outcomes for the patient.

Investing in research: the impact of one academic health center's research grant program.

External research funding provides the core support for a medical center's research enterprise, and is a major or sole criterion for comparing and ranking institutions. Most grant programs are sufficiently competitive that awards are not granted without the availability of preliminary data. Therefore, institutions may find it necessary to supplement external research funds, particularly as matching funds or as seed funds. The authors report their experience at the University of Minnesota Academic Health Center with two internal grant programs, a seed grant program and an interdisciplinary/intercollegiate Faculty Research Development (FRD) grant program. Seed grants are one-year, one-time $25,000 awards to investigators to initiate a new direction in research or to develop innovative projects allowing faculty to expand into new research areas. FRD grants are one-time $200,000 awards for a one- to three-year project that support innovative interdisciplinary and interscholastic research with a high potential for future grants. The authors based their analysis of program outcomes on investigators' self-reports of subsequent external grants and peer-reviewed publications stemming from the initial grants. Six annual cycles of the seed grant program (1998-2003) yielded a financial return on investment (ROI) of 560%. Five annual cycles of the FRD grant program (1998-2002) yielded an ROI of 237%. The authors conclude that the AHC grant program has been successful in generating external research funds (primarily National Institutes of Health) and publications; stimulating risk-taking; and developing interdisciplinary and intercollegiate collaboration. They plan to continue the AHC grant program and recommend similar programs to other institutions.