Implementation and evaluation of a "works-in-progress" session to promote scholarship in an academic hospitalist group.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists frequently work on diverse projects, but often do not have the training and experience necessary to translate projects into peer-reviewed publications and grants. OBJECTIVE: Describe implementation and effect of a works-in-progress (WIP) series on progress and training in scholarly work. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Urban academic medical center. INTERVENTION: A weekly WIP session, named Incubator, serving as a forum where researchers, clinicians, and educators meet to review and provide feedback on projects underway across the Division of Hospital Medicine. MEASUREMENTS: We surveyed presenters at Incubator to evaluate the impact of Incubator on scholarly activities. Responses were based on Kirkpatrick's 4-level training hierarchy: (1) Reaction: participants' satisfaction; (2) Learning: knowledge acquisition; (3) Behavior: application of skills; and (4) Results of projects. We compared responses between researchers and nonresearchers using χ2 tests. RESULTS: Of 51 surveys completed (response rate 70%), 35 (69%) projects were nonresearcher led. Reaction, behavior change, and results were all positive, with >90% respondents reporting a positive outcome in each category, a high rate of publication/funding, and 35% reporting learning as a result of Incubator. Comparison of researchers and nonresearchers revealed no significant differences, except nonresearchers reported significantly more favorable results in behavior and mentoring (P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: A regularly scheduled, researcher-led WIP session within a largely clinically oriented hospital medicine division can provide a venue for feedback that may promote progress and practical training in scholarly projects. In addition to robust career mentorship programs and protected time, a WIP can be an adjunct to improve scholarly output among academic hospitalists. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:719-723. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Little evidence of correlation between growth in health care spending and reduced mortality.

As rapid U.S. health care spending growth continues, the question of whether additional dollars purchase better health or unnecessary care remains in sharp focus for policy makers, large employers, and other stakeholders. To investigate this question, we measured changes in mortality and cost for seven common diagnoses at 122 U.S. hospitals from 2000 to 2004. After adjusting for inflation, we found little correlation between reduced mortality for certain conditions and increased spending on patients with those conditions. The message to be underscored once again for policy makers is that health care dollars provide inconsistent value, and future spending increases should be targeted to care that improves outcomes.