Elements Influencing Recruitment and Retention of Millennial Hospitalists Born in or after 1982: a Survey-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalist turnover is exceedingly high, placing financial burdens on hospital medicine groups (HMGs). Following training, many begin their employment in medicine as early-career hospitalists, the majority being millennials. OBJECTIVE: To understand what elements influence millennial hospitalists' recruitment and retention. DESIGN: We developed a survey that asked participants to rate the level of importance of 18 elements (4-point Likert scale) in their decision to choose or remain at an HMG. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was electronically distributed to hospitalists born in or after 1982 across 7 HMGs in the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Elements were grouped into four major categories: culture of practice, work-life balance, financial considerations, and career advancement. We calculated the means for all 18 elements reported as important across the sample. We then calculated means by averaging elements within each category. We used unpaired t-tests to compare differences in means for categories for choosing vs. remaining at an HMG. KEY RESULTS: One hundred forty-four of 235 hospitalists (61%) responded to the survey. 49.6% were females. Culture of practice category was the most frequently rated as important for choosing (mean 96%, SD 12%) and remaining (mean 96%, SD 13%) at an HMG. The category least frequently rated as important for both choosing (mean 69%, SD 35%) and remaining (mean 76%, SD 32%) at an HMG was career advancement. There were no significant differences between respondent gender, race, or parental status and ratings of elements for choosing or remaining with HMGs. CONCLUSION: Culture of practice at an HMG may be highly important in influencing millennial hospitalists' decision to choose and stay at an HMG. HMGs can implement strategies to create a millennial-friendly culture which may help improve recruitment and retention.

Collaboration, Not Calculation: A Qualitative Study of How Hospital Executives Value Hospital Medicine Groups.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine groups (HMGs) typically receive financial support from hospitals. Determining a fair amount of financial support requires negotiation between HMG and hospital leaders. As the hospital medicine care model evolves, hospital leaders may regularly challenge HMGs to demonstrate the financial value of activities that do not directly generate revenue. OBJECTIVE: To describe current attitudes and beliefs of hospital executives regarding the value of contributions made by HMGs. DESIGN: Thematic content analysis of key informant interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four healthcare institutional leaders, including hospital presidents, chief medical officers, chief executive officers, and chief financial officers. Participants comprised a diverse sample from all regions in the United States, including rural, suburban, and urban locations, and academic and nonacademic institutions. RESULTS: Executives highly valued hospitalist groups that demonstrate alignment with hospital priorities, and often used this concept to summarize the HMG's success across several value domains. Most executives evaluated only a few key HMG metrics, but almost no executives reported calculating the HMG return on investment by summing pertinent quantitative contributions. Respondents described an evolving concept of hospitalist value and believed that HMGs generate substantial value that is difficult to measure financially. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital executives appear to make financial support decisions based on a small number of basic financial or care quality metrics combined with a subjective assessment of the HMG's broader alignment with hospital priorities. HMG leaders should focus on building relationships that facilitate dialog about alignment with hospital needs.

Addressing Biases in Patient Care with The 5Rs of Cultural Humility, a Clinician Coaching Tool.

Clinicians are called to care for patients with increasingly diverse backgrounds during vulnerable moments when gaining trust is imperative. Simultaneously, implicit or unconscious biases are omnipresent. Guidance for clinicians in addressing and curtailing implicit biases is a necessity to preserve provider resiliency while providing high-value, patient-centered care. However, tools to aid clinicians in this endeavor are unknown. The following article introduces The 5Rs of Cultural Humility (5Rs) as a coaching tool available to all clinicians, leaders, and administrators. It is a tool that brings awareness to the reality that everyone has implicit biases and provides a platform to address these biases through the use of cultural humility, mindfulness, and compassion. The tool encourages the clinician to become more aware of his or her decision-making and interactions with others. Each R includes an aim at reducing biases and a self-reflection question. The 5Rs are reflection, respect, regard, relevance, and resiliency. The framework of the 5Rs presents an approach for clinicians to explore more mindful interactions and enriching patient-provider interactions.

Characterizing Hospitalist Practice and Perceptions of Critical Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Intensivist shortages have led to increasing hospitalist involvement in critical care delivery. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the practice of hospitalists practicing in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. DESIGN: Survey of hospital medicine physicians. SETTING: This survey was conducted as a needs assessment for the ongoing efforts of the Critical Care Task Force of the Society of Hospital Medicine Education Committee. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalists in the United States. INTERVENTION: An iteratively developed, 25-item, webbased survey. MEASUREMENTS: Results were compiled from all respondents then analyzed in subgroups. Various items were examined for correlations. RESULTS: A total of 425 hospitalists completed the survey. Three hundred and twenty-five (77%) provided critical care services, and 280 (66%) served as primary physicians in the ICU. Hospitalists were significantly more likely to serve as primary physicians in rural ICUs (85% of rural respondents vs 62% of nonrural; P < .001 for association). Half of the rural hospitalists who were primary physicians for ICU patients felt obliged to practice beyond their scope, and 90% at least occasionally perceived that they had insufficient support from board-certified intensivists. Among respondents serving as primary physicians for ICU patients, 67% reported at least moderate difficulty transferring patients to higher levels of ICU care. Difficulty transferring patients was the only item significantly correlated with the perception of being expected to practice beyond one's scope (P < .05 for association). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals. Without major changes in intensivist staffi ng or patient distribution, this is unlikely to change.