The field of hospital medicine is growing rapidly in academic medical centers. However, few organizations have explicitly considered the opportunities and barriers posed to hospital medicine’s development as an academic field in internal medicine. To develop consensus around key areas limiting or facilitating hospital medicine’s development as an academic discipline. Consensus format conference of key stakeholders in academic hospital medicine. The Consensus Group identified several issues impeding the development of academic hospital medicine as a recognized entity in academic settings, including extraordinarily rapid growth, increasingly preponderate non-teaching roles, and demands to perform non-clinical duties (such as quality improvement) not generally viewed as academic pursuits. The Consensus Group developed recommendations for addressing these concerns, specifically 1) characterizing the ‘optimal’ job description for an academic hospitalist, 2) developing better local and at-a-distance opportunities for training academic hospitalists in key aspects of early career success, 3) advocacy for development of fellows and junior faculty researchers in hospital medicine. Fostering academic hospital medicine will help address these issues more effectively and will help the field while also attracting the next generation of generalists needed to care for an increasingly complex inpatient population.

INTRODUCTION: Since sipuleucel-T approval in 2010, the treatment landscape for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) now includes the androgen-receptor signaling pathway inhibitors (ASPIs) abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. In 2013 and 2014, these oral agents were approved for use in men with metastatic prostate cancer who had minimal to no symptoms. We compared overall survival (OS) in men who received their first mCRPC treatment using the Medicare Fee-for-Service 100% administrative claims research dataset with patient-level linkage to the National Death Index. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis (January 2013 to December 2017) included men who were chemo-naïve at treatment start in 2014 and who had continuous Medicare Parts A, B, and D eligibility during the 3-year observation period. We compared: first-line sipuleucel-T vs. first-line ASPIs and any-line sipuleucel-T vs. any-line ASPIs (without sipuleucel-T). We used a multivariable regression model to help control for potentially confounding factors while assessing survival outcomes. RESULTS: The model included 6044 eligible men (average age 75-78 years) with similar disease severity; > 80% were white. Median OS, presented as sipuleucel-T vs. ASPI, was 35.2 vs. 20.7 months (n, 906 vs. 5092; any-line cohort) and 34.9 vs. 21.0 months (n, 647 vs. 4810; first-line cohort). Model outcomes indicated sipuleucel-T was associated with significantly prolonged OS compared with ASPIs: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59 (95% CI 0.527-0.651) and 0.56 (0.494-0.627) for the any-line and first-line cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests use of sipuleucel-T at any time was associated with improved OS compared with ASPI use alone. Of note, these analyses are intended as descriptive rather than definitive as this dataset contains limited data on key clinical factors. While selection bias is a risk in secondary claims data, this research provides important insight into real-world treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The transition out of the hospital is a vulnerable time for patients, relying heavily on communication and coordination of resources across care settings. Understanding the perspectives of inpatient and outpatient physicians regarding factors contributing to readmission and potential preventive strategies is crucial in designing appropriately targeted readmission prevention efforts. OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare inpatient and outpatient physician opinions regarding reasons for readmission and interventions that might have prevented readmission. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: We identified patients readmitted to general medicine services within 30 days of discharge at 12 US academic medical centers, and surveyed the primary care physician (PCP), discharging physician from the index admission, and admitting physician from the readmission regarding their endorsement of pre-specified factors contributing to the readmission and potential preventive strategies. MAIN MEASURES: We calculated kappa statistics to gauge agreement between physician dyads (PCP-discharging physician, PCP-admitting physician, and admitting-discharging physician). KEY RESULTS: We evaluated 993 readmission events, which generated responses from 356 PCPs (36 % of readmissions), 675 discharging physicians (68 % of readmissions), and 737 admitting physicians (74 % of readmissions). The most commonly endorsed contributing factors by both PCPs and inpatient physicians related to patient understanding and ability to self-manage. The most commonly endorsed preventive strategies involved providing patients with enhanced post-discharge instructions and/or support. Although PCPs and inpatient physicians endorsed contributing factors and potential preventive strategies with similar frequencies, agreement among the three physicians on the specific factors and/or strategies that applied to individual readmission events was poor (maximum kappa 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Differing opinions among physicians on factors contributing to individual readmissions highlights the importance of communication between inpatient and outpatient providers at discharge to share their different perspectives, and suggests that multi-faceted, broadly applied interventions may be more successful than those that rely on individual providers choosing specific services based on perceived risk factors.

Background

In this study among men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), African American men (AAM) were 28% more likely to develop recurrent disease compared with Caucasian men (CM). However, among those who had nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), race did not predict metastases or overall survival. Whether race predicts metastases among men who receive androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) after a biochemical recurrence (BCR) (ie, before CRPC but after BCR) is untested.

Methods

The authors identified 595 AAM and CM who received ADT for a BCR that developed after RP between 1988 and 2015 in the Shared Equal-Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Univariable and multivariable Cox models were used to test the association between race and the time from ADT to metastases. Secondary outcomes included the time to CRPC, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer-specific mortality.

Results

During a median follow-up of 66 months after ADT, 62 of 354 CM (18%) and 38 of 241 AAM (16%) developed metastases. AAM were younger at the time they received ADT (63 vs 67 years; P < .001), had received ADT in a more recent year (2008 vs 2006; P < .001), had higher prostate-specific antigen levels at RP (11.1 vs 9.2 ng/mL; P < .001), lower pathologic Gleason scores (P = .004), and less extracapsular extension (38% vs 48%; P = .022). On multivariable analysis, there was no association between race and metastases (hazard radio, 1.20; P = .45) or any of the other secondary outcomes (all P > .5).

Conclusions

Among veterans who received ADT post-BCR after RP, race was not a predictor of metastases or other adverse outcomes. The current findings suggest that research efforts to understand racial differences in prostate cancer biology should focus on early stages of the disease (ie, closer to the time of diagnosis).

AIM:To validate the total illness burden index for prostate cancer (TIBI-CaP) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. PATIENTS & METHODS:Baseline comorbidity scores collected using the TIBI-CaP were compared with the baseline patient-reported health-related quality of life using the SF-12v2 and FACT-P questionnaires in 302 patients enrolled in the Treatment Registry for Outcomes in CRPC Patients (TRUMPET). RESULTS:Baseline TIBI-CaP scores were negatively correlated with all baseline SF-12v2 domain/composite (p < 0.001) and FACT-P subscale/total (p < 0.020) scores. There was a significant decreasing linear trend in SF12v2 and FACT-P scores over the categories based on TIBI-CaP quartiles of comorbidity burden (from 'least' to 'severe'). CONCLUSION:The TIBI-CaP is a valid measure of comorbidity burden in patients with CRPC in the real world.

IMPORTANCE: Readmission penalties have catalyzed efforts to improve care transitions, but few programs have incorporated viewpoints of patients and health care professionals to determine readmission preventability or to prioritize opportunities for care improvement. OBJECTIVES: To determine preventability of readmissions and to use these estimates to prioritize areas for improvement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational study was conducted of 1000 general medicine patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge to 12 US academic medical centers between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. We surveyed patients and physicians, reviewed documentation, and performed 2-physician case review to determine preventability of and factors contributing to readmission. We used bivariable statistics to compare preventable and nonpreventable readmissions, multivariable models to identify factors associated with potential preventability, and baseline risk factor prevalence and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) to determine the proportion of readmissions affected by individual risk factors. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Likelihood that a readmission could have been prevented. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 1000 patients (median age was 55 years). Of these, 269 (26.9%) were considered potentially preventable. In multivariable models, factors most strongly associated with potential preventability included emergency department decision making regarding the readmission (aOR, 9.13; 95% CI, 5.23-15.95), failure to relay important information to outpatient health care professionals (aOR, 4.19; 95% CI, 2.17-8.09), discharge of patients too soon (aOR, 3.88; 95% CI, 2.44-6.17), and lack of discussions about care goals among patients with serious illnesses (aOR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.39-10.64). The most common factors associated with potentially preventable readmissions included emergency department decision making (affecting 9.0%; 95% CI, 7.1%-10.3%), inability to keep appointments after discharge (affecting 8.3%; 95% CI, 4.1%-12.0%), premature discharge from the hospital (affecting 8.7%; 95% CI, 5.8%-11.3%), and patient lack of awareness of whom to contact after discharge (affecting 6.2%; 95% CI, 3.5%-8.7%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Approximately one-quarter of readmissions are potentially preventable when assessed using multiple perspectives. High-priority areas for improvement efforts include improved communication among health care teams and between health care professionals and patients, greater attention to patients readiness for discharge, enhanced disease monitoring, and better support for patient self-management.

Background:Many experts believe that hospitals with more frequent readmissions provide lower-quality care, but little is known about how the preventability of readmissions might change over the postdischarge time frame. Objective:To determine whether readmissions within 7 days of discharge differ from those between 8 and 30 days after discharge with respect to preventability. Design:Prospective cohort study. Setting:10 academic medical centers in the United States. Patients:822 adults readmitted to a general medicine service. Measurements:For each readmission, 2 site-specific physician adjudicators used a structured survey instrument to determine whether it was preventable and measured other characteristics. Results:Overall, 36.2% of early readmissions versus 23.0% of late readmissions were preventable (median risk difference, 13.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 5.5 to 26.4 percentage points]). Hospitals were identified as better locations for preventing early readmissions (47.2% vs. 25.5%; median risk difference, 22.8 percentage points [interquartile range, 17.9 to 31.8 percentage points]), whereas outpatient clinics (15.2% vs. 6.6%; median risk difference, 10.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 4.6 to 12.2 percentage points]) and home (19.4% vs. 14.0%; median risk difference, 5.6 percentage points [interquartile range, -6.1 to 17.1 percentage points]) were better for preventing late readmissions. Limitation:Physician adjudicators were not blinded to readmission timing, community hospitals were not included in the study, and readmissions to nonstudy hospitals were not included in the results. Conclusion:Early readmissions were more likely to be preventable and amenable to hospital-based interventions. Late readmissions were less likely to be preventable and were more amenable to ambulatory and home-based interventions. Primary Funding Source:Association of American Medical Colleges.