No abstract

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.

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.

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.