Background:
Although there are some data on the effect of hospitalist‐run teaching services at academic institutions, there is very little data about the effect of nonteaching hospitalist services compared with traditional house staff‐associated teaching services at academic medical centers. Many academic centers across the country have employed or are starting to employ nonteaching hospitalist services in response to increasing patient volume and limited coverage by house staff service. We wanted to compare the care provided on nonteaching hospitalist general medicine services with that provided by the traditional house staff‐covered general medicine model.
Method:
For academic years 2003‐2006 data on all patient encounters on the hospitalist and general medicine teaching services were collected and compared on observed versus University Health Consortium (UHC)‐expected cost per case, length of stay, in‐hospital mortality, readmission rates, and case mix index. The results were compared using the Student t test.
Results:
For the 3‐year period the hospitalist division had 4173 patient encounters the general medicine house‐staff services 5032 encounters.
Conclusions:
Over this 3‐year period the hospitalist‐run general medicine service showed shorter length of stay, improved cost containment, and decreased mortality compared with those of both the house staff‐run service and the UHC expected. The hospitalist‐run services had a shorter than expected length of stay and lower hospital costs without increased mortality or readmission rates. The experience at our institution would support the idea that nonteaching hospitalists in academic centers are a justifiable and quality‐added resource in terms of both cost and patient care.
Author Disclosure:
N. J. O'Dorisio, None