Primary care physician attitudes regarding communication with hospitalists.

Hospitalist systems create discontinuity of care. Enhanced communication between the hospitalist and primary care physician (PCP) could mitigate the harms of discontinuity. We conducted a mailed survey of 4,155 physician members of the California Academy of Family Physicians to determine their preferences for and satisfaction with communication with hospitalists. We received 1,030 completed surveys (26%). PCPs overwhelmingly stated that they "very much prefer" to communicate with hospitalists by telephone (77%), at admission (73%), and discharge (78%). Only discharge medications (94%) and discharge diagnosis (90%) were deemed "very important" by >90% of PCPs. Of the 556 respondents (54%) who had ever used a hospitalist, 56% were very or somewhat satisfied with communication with hospitalists, and 68% agreed that hospitalists are a good idea. Regarding communication at discharge, only 33% of PCPs reported that discharge summaries always or usually arrive before the patient is seen for follow-up. Only 56% of PCPs in our survey were satisfied with communication with hospitalists. Hospitalists should communicate with PCPs in a timely manner by telephone, at least at admission and discharge, and provide the specific pieces of information deemed important by the vast majority of PCPs. Hospitalists should also ensure that discharge information arrives in time to assist the PCP in reassuming care of their patients. It may be possible to tailor communication to individual PCPs. Further research could assess the impact of such communication on patient satisfaction and outcomes.

How do patients view the role of the primary care physician in inpatient care?

As hospitalized patients are increasingly cared for by physicians who are not their primary care physicians, discontinuity of care occurs when patients are sickest. We sought to determine hospitalized patients' knowledge, preferences, and satisfaction regarding the involvement of their primary care physician in their inpatient care. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire of 73 patients cared for by inpatient physicians and 12 relatives of such patients on an inpatient general medical service in a teaching hospital. Eligible patients were those admitted to the care of an inpatient physician other than their primary care provider (PCP), who stayed in the hospital for >1 day. If these patients were too sick to be interviewed or did not speak English, a relative knowledgeable about their medical care was interviewed. In all, 87% of patients had a primary care physician. Of these, 33% had some contact with their PCP while in the hospital. A total of 66% of respondents were satisfied with the contact they or their relative had with the PCP. Some 61% of respondents knew that communication had occurred between the inpatient and PCP. Respondents generally had positive opinions of their hospital care. However, most agreed that patients receive better care from and have more trust in physicians they have known for a long time, compared with those they have just met. About 50% of respondents believed that a PCP (rather than a separate hospital physician) should inform a patient of a serious diagnosis or discuss choices between medical and surgical management. Patients under the care of an inpatient physician want contact with their PCP and want good communication between the PCP and hospital doctors. Systems should be established to facilitate communication between inpatient and primary care physicians, and between PCPs and patients.

The impact of follow-up telephone calls to patients after hospitalization.

We studied whether pharmacists involved in discharge planning can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes by providing telephone follow-up after hospital discharge. We conducted a randomized trial at the General Medical Service of an academic teaching hospital. We enrolled General Medical Service patients who received pharmacy-facilitated discharge from the hospital to home. The intervention consisted of a follow-up phone call by a pharmacist 2 days after discharge. During the phone call, pharmacists asked patients about their medications, including whether they obtained and understood how to take them. Two weeks after discharge, we mailed all patients a questionnaire to assess satisfaction with hospitalization and reviewed hospital records. Of the 1,958 patients discharged from the General Medical Service from August 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999, 221 patients consented to participate. We randomized 110 to the intervention group (phone call) and 111 to the control group (no phone call). Patients returned 145 (66%) surveys. More patients in the phone call than the no phone call group were satisfied with discharge medication instructions (86% vs. 61%, P = 0.007). The phone call allowed pharmacists to identify and resolve medication-related problems for 15 patients (19%). Twelve patients (15%) contacted by telephone reported new medical problems requiring referral to their inpatient team. Fewer patients from the phone call group returned to the emergency department within 30 days (10% phone call vs. 24% no phone call, P = 0.005). A follow-up phone call by a pharmacist involved in the hospital care of patients was associated with increased patient satisfaction, resolution of medication-related problems, and fewer return visits to the emergency department.

Passing the clinical baton: 6 principles to guide the hospitalist.

Hospitalist systems make it increasingly common for responsibility for a patient to be passed from one physician to another. During such transfers, patients' outcomes and satisfaction can benefit from better communication between hospitalists and the primary care physicians whose patients they care for. We propose 6 principles to guide such communication, to ensure that critical information about patients is not lost and to optimize the quality of care. We also discuss special considerations for patients discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home with home care.

The "continuity visit" and the hospitalist model of care.

Previous analyses have focused on the importance of hospitalist-primary care physician communication to mitigate the harms of discontinuity when hospitalists care for inpatients. We believe that both patients and physicians may benefit if primary physicians visit patients (or at least speak directly to them) during hospitalizations when a hospitalist is the physician-of-record. We propose calling such encounters the "continuity visit" to emphasize that the visit is not purely "social." Moreover, we encourage research on the value of continuity visits and recommend compensation if research establishes that these visits improve the efficiency and quality of inpatient care or patient satisfaction and comfort.

Physician attitudes toward and prevalence of the hospitalist model of care: results of a national survey.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the availability and utilization of, as well as physician attitudes toward, the hospitalist model in the United States. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Using a telephone survey, we asked physicians who were board certified in internal medicine about their inpatient practice arrangements, the availability of hospitalist services, and their attitudes toward the hospitalist model. All physicians were generalists in active clinical practice. Using multivariable methods, we determined factors associated with attitudes toward the hospitalist model. RESULTS: We were able to contact 787 of 2,829 physicians who were randomly selected from a national list of board-certified internists, of whom 400 agreed to participate. Most respondents were familiar with the term "hospitalist" and had hospitalist services available in their community, and 28% used hospitalists for their inpatients. Few (2%) reported the presence of the "mandatory" hospitalist model. Physicians reported that the model was more commonly available in Western states (84% vs. 55% to 63% in other regions, P<0.0001). Seventy-three percent thought hospitalist systems would reduce continuity of care. Only 28% thought that patients would prefer care from an inpatient specialist, but 51% thought patients might get better care, and 47% thought patients might get more cost-effective care in a hospitalist system. In multivariable models, physicians who were in solo practice, those in specialties with more inpatient practice, and those who had more patients hospitalized each month responded more negatively about the model, whereas those with hospitalists in their community were more positive. CONCLUSIONS: Although agreeing that quality of care and efficiency might be improved, physicians were concerned about patient-doctor relationships and patient satisfaction in a hospitalist model. Future studies should determine the effect of the hospitalist model on these outcomes.

A new doctor in the house: ethical issues in hospitalist systems.

The traditional patient-primary care physician (PCP) relationship provides many ethical protections for patients, including confidentiality, shared medical decision making, and respect for patient autonomy. Hospitalist models, which introduce a purposeful discontinuity of care, threaten these protections and raise certain ethical concerns. We analyze 2 cases that explore ethical issues arising in hospitalist systems and suggest ways to ensure ethical protection for patients. The first case examines how hospitalization can disrupt the patient-PCP relationship and raise ethical issues regarding confidentiality. In the second case, we discuss decision making when the patient's goals and preferences for care change as a result of hospitalization. Effective hospitalist systems provide a model for a trusting patient-physician relationship. Although the hospitalist must take responsibility for inpatient management, the PCP has a key role in addressing important issues in the hospital and providing care after discharge. As hospitalists assume control of inpatient care, they must also provide ethical protections to patients to supplement those currently vested in the patient-PCP relationship. An approach that keeps the patient's best interests foremost, defines a clear role for the PCP, and takes advantage of the expertise and availability of hospitalists will best serve patients and physicians.

Effect of incentives on the use of indicated services in managed care.

In managed care, financial incentives and utilization review create conflicts of interest for physicians. We sought to determine whether these incentives would lead physicians to deny indicated services. We surveyed internists practicing in areas with at least 30% penetration of managed care. Our questionnaire included four scenarios in which a test or referral is indicated according to clearly established practice guidelines. We randomly assigned physicians to receive one of five versions of the questionnaire, which differed only in the type of reimbursement incentive and utilization review that applied to the scenarios. We received responses from 710 (70%) of 1,009 internists. Although physicians underutilized services regardless of incentives in all scenarios, physicians whose questionnaires depicted full capitation said that they would order fewer services than physicians whose questionnaires depicted fee-for-service. In the scenario in which an x-ray of the lumbosacral spine is indicated for a patient with low back pain, 86% of physicians randomized to the full capitation version said that they would order the test compared to 94% in the fee-for-service version. Similarly, physicians randomized to scenarios requiring utilization review said that they would order fewer services than those randomized to scenarios requiring completion of an insurance form. Scenarios depicting managed care incentives caused consistent, modest underutilization compared to fee-for-service scenarioes, although physicians underutilized services under all financial incentives and utilization review. In response, physicians must develop better methods for detecting underutilization and devise programs to increase the provision of indicated services.

Hospitalists and the practice of inpatient medicine: results of a survey of the National Association of Inpatient Physicians.

The number of hospital-based physicians, or hospitalists, in the United States has grown rapidly, yet no published data have characterized hospitalists or their practices. A self-administered questionnaire was used to describe 1) the features of hospitalists, 2) the hospitals in which they practice, and 3) the practice of inpatient medicine. The questionnaire contained 48 questions that covered four domains: demographic information about the respondent, the clinical and nonclinical workload and responsibilities of the respondent, organizational and financial aspects of the respondent's practice, and the respondent's satisfaction and his or her perception of the reaction of other physicians and nurses to the hospitalist system. The overall response rate was 57%. Data are reported on 372 surveys. Respondents were young and most were men, and only 48% had practiced hospital-based medicine for more than 2 years. Eighty-nine percent of respondents were internists; of these, 51% were generalists and 38% were subspecialists. Most hospitalists limited their practices to the inpatient setting, but 37% practiced outpatient general internal medicine or subspecialty medicine in a limited capacity. In addition to providing care for inpatients, 90% of hospitalists were engaged in cohsultative medicine. Quality assurance and practice guideline development were the most frequently reported nonclinical activities (53% and 46%; respectively). Small group practices (31%) and staff-model health maintenance organizations (25%) were the most common practice settings, and 78% of participants were reimbursed through salary. Financial incentives were common (43%) but modest. Accurate information about hospitalists and their practices will be important to clinicians, educators, researchers, and policymakers as the hospitalist movement continues to grow.