Article

Key clinical point: In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) was associated with a lower risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and acute renal failure (ARF) and a slower decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Major finding: Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the use of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i was associated with a significantly lower risk for ESRD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001) and ARF (HR 0.59; P < .001) and a significantly slower decline in eGFR (−0.060 vs. −0.625 mL/min/1.73m²  per year; P_interaction < .001).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study propensity score matched 6333 patients with T2D receiving an SGLT2i with 25,332 of those receiving a DPP4i.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Au PCM et al. Association between SGLT20iInhibitors vs DPP4 inhibitors and renal outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 18). Doi:  10.1210/clinem/dgac164

Key clinical point: In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) was associated with a lower risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and acute renal failure (ARF) and a slower decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Major finding: Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the use of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i was associated with a significantly lower risk for ESRD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001) and ARF (HR 0.59; P < .001) and a significantly slower decline in eGFR (−0.060 vs. −0.625 mL/min/1.73m²  per year; P_interaction < .001).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study propensity score matched 6333 patients with T2D receiving an SGLT2i with 25,332 of those receiving a DPP4i.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Au PCM et al. Association between SGLT20iInhibitors vs DPP4 inhibitors and renal outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 18). Doi:  10.1210/clinem/dgac164

Key clinical point: In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) was associated with a lower risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and acute renal failure (ARF) and a slower decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Major finding: Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the use of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i was associated with a significantly lower risk for ESRD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001) and ARF (HR 0.59; P < .001) and a significantly slower decline in eGFR (−0.060 vs. −0.625 mL/min/1.73m²  per year; P_interaction < .001).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study propensity score matched 6333 patients with T2D receiving an SGLT2i with 25,332 of those receiving a DPP4i.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Au PCM et al. Association between SGLT20iInhibitors vs DPP4 inhibitors and renal outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 18). Doi:  10.1210/clinem/dgac164

Key clinical point: Resistance training (RT) effectively reduces glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), with RT interventions triggering a larger vs. medium or smaller improvement in muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c.

Major finding: RT intervention vs. control treatment significantly decreased HbA1c (weighted mean difference −0.39; P < .001), with a larger vs. medium or small effect on muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c (β −0.99; P = .0470).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 20 trials including 1172 patients with T2DM.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Jansson AK et al. Effect of resistance training on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the moderating effect of changes in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022;10:e002595 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002595

Key clinical point: Resistance training (RT) effectively reduces glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), with RT interventions triggering a larger vs. medium or smaller improvement in muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c.

Major finding: RT intervention vs. control treatment significantly decreased HbA1c (weighted mean difference −0.39; P < .001), with a larger vs. medium or small effect on muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c (β −0.99; P = .0470).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 20 trials including 1172 patients with T2DM.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Jansson AK et al. Effect of resistance training on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the moderating effect of changes in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022;10:e002595 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002595

Key clinical point: Resistance training (RT) effectively reduces glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), with RT interventions triggering a larger vs. medium or smaller improvement in muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c.

Major finding: RT intervention vs. control treatment significantly decreased HbA1c (weighted mean difference −0.39; P < .001), with a larger vs. medium or small effect on muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c (β −0.99; P = .0470).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 20 trials including 1172 patients with T2DM.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Jansson AK et al. Effect of resistance training on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the moderating effect of changes in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022;10:e002595 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002595

Key clinical point: Fenofibrate reduced the composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with simvastatin, predominantly in those who received the standard background glucose-lowering therapy.

Major finding: The composite outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death was significantly lower with fenofibrate vs. placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P = .048), with reduction primarily observed with the standard glucose-lowering strategy (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.85), but not with the intensive glucose-lowering strategy (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79-1.33; P_interaction = .017).

Study details: Findings are from the ACCORD Lipid trial including 5518 patients with T2D who were randomly assigned to receive simvastatin plus fenofibrate (n = 2765) or simvastatin plus placebo (n = 2753).

Disclosures: The study was funded by national funds through FCT-Portuguese Foundation for

Science and Technology, under the scope of the Cardiovascular R&D Center-UnIC. Some authors declared being consultants and receiving research support or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Ferreira JP et al. Fenofibrate and heart failure outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis from ACCORD. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-1977

Key clinical point: Fenofibrate reduced the composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with simvastatin, predominantly in those who received the standard background glucose-lowering therapy.

Major finding: The composite outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death was significantly lower with fenofibrate vs. placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P = .048), with reduction primarily observed with the standard glucose-lowering strategy (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.85), but not with the intensive glucose-lowering strategy (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79-1.33; P_interaction = .017).

Study details: Findings are from the ACCORD Lipid trial including 5518 patients with T2D who were randomly assigned to receive simvastatin plus fenofibrate (n = 2765) or simvastatin plus placebo (n = 2753).

Disclosures: The study was funded by national funds through FCT-Portuguese Foundation for

Science and Technology, under the scope of the Cardiovascular R&D Center-UnIC. Some authors declared being consultants and receiving research support or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Ferreira JP et al. Fenofibrate and heart failure outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis from ACCORD. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-1977

Key clinical point: Fenofibrate reduced the composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with simvastatin, predominantly in those who received the standard background glucose-lowering therapy.

Major finding: The composite outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death was significantly lower with fenofibrate vs. placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P = .048), with reduction primarily observed with the standard glucose-lowering strategy (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.85), but not with the intensive glucose-lowering strategy (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79-1.33; P_interaction = .017).

Study details: Findings are from the ACCORD Lipid trial including 5518 patients with T2D who were randomly assigned to receive simvastatin plus fenofibrate (n = 2765) or simvastatin plus placebo (n = 2753).

Disclosures: The study was funded by national funds through FCT-Portuguese Foundation for

Science and Technology, under the scope of the Cardiovascular R&D Center-UnIC. Some authors declared being consultants and receiving research support or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Ferreira JP et al. Fenofibrate and heart failure outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis from ACCORD. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-1977

Key clinical point: Empagliflozin showed a beneficial effect on cognitive and physical impairment in frail older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Major finding: The mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score significantly improved from baseline to 1 month in the empagliflozin group (19.80 vs. 22.25; P < .001) but not in the metformin (P = .26) and insulin (P = .81) groups, with empagliflozin showing a significant effect on amelioration of cognitive impairment (odds ratio 3.609; P = .03). The 5-meter gait speed improved significantly in the empagliflozin and metformin groups (both P < .05), but not in the insulin group.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 162 frail older patients aged >65 years who had T2D and HFpEF and were treated with empagliflozin (n = 52), metformin (n = 56), or insulin (n = 54).

Disclosures: The study was partly supported by the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and US National Institute on Aging, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mone P et al. Empagliflozin improves cognitive impairment in frail older adults with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Mar 21). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-2434

Key clinical point: Empagliflozin showed a beneficial effect on cognitive and physical impairment in frail older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Major finding: The mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score significantly improved from baseline to 1 month in the empagliflozin group (19.80 vs. 22.25; P < .001) but not in the metformin (P = .26) and insulin (P = .81) groups, with empagliflozin showing a significant effect on amelioration of cognitive impairment (odds ratio 3.609; P = .03). The 5-meter gait speed improved significantly in the empagliflozin and metformin groups (both P < .05), but not in the insulin group.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 162 frail older patients aged >65 years who had T2D and HFpEF and were treated with empagliflozin (n = 52), metformin (n = 56), or insulin (n = 54).

Disclosures: The study was partly supported by the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and US National Institute on Aging, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mone P et al. Empagliflozin improves cognitive impairment in frail older adults with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Mar 21). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-2434

Key clinical point: Empagliflozin showed a beneficial effect on cognitive and physical impairment in frail older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Major finding: The mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score significantly improved from baseline to 1 month in the empagliflozin group (19.80 vs. 22.25; P < .001) but not in the metformin (P = .26) and insulin (P = .81) groups, with empagliflozin showing a significant effect on amelioration of cognitive impairment (odds ratio 3.609; P = .03). The 5-meter gait speed improved significantly in the empagliflozin and metformin groups (both P < .05), but not in the insulin group.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 162 frail older patients aged >65 years who had T2D and HFpEF and were treated with empagliflozin (n = 52), metformin (n = 56), or insulin (n = 54).

Disclosures: The study was partly supported by the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and US National Institute on Aging, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mone P et al. Empagliflozin improves cognitive impairment in frail older adults with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Mar 21). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-2434

Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin in addition to standard-of-care treatment demonstrated a clinically relevant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and an acceptable safety profile in young people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: At 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was not significantly different between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference [Δ] −0.75%; P = .10), but was significantly different in the sensitivity analysis in the per-protocol population (Δ −1.13%; P = .012). No new safety signals or episodes of death or diabetic ketoacidosis were recorded.

Study details: The data come from a phase 3 trial including 72 participants aged 10-24 years with T2D and HbA1c concentration of 6.5%-11% who were randomly assigned to receive oral dapagliflozin (10 mg) or placebo in addition to standard-of-care treatment for 24 weeks followed by dapagliflozin for 28 weeks

Disclosures: The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees or research grants or serving on advisory boards for various sources, including AstraZeneca. Three authors declared being stockholders or employees of AstraZeneca.

Source: Tamborlane WV, Laffel LM et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in children and young adults with type 2 diabetes: a prospective, multicentre, randomised, parallel group, phase 3 study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022 (Apr 1). Doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00052-3

Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin in addition to standard-of-care treatment demonstrated a clinically relevant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and an acceptable safety profile in young people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: At 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was not significantly different between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference [Δ] −0.75%; P = .10), but was significantly different in the sensitivity analysis in the per-protocol population (Δ −1.13%; P = .012). No new safety signals or episodes of death or diabetic ketoacidosis were recorded.

Study details: The data come from a phase 3 trial including 72 participants aged 10-24 years with T2D and HbA1c concentration of 6.5%-11% who were randomly assigned to receive oral dapagliflozin (10 mg) or placebo in addition to standard-of-care treatment for 24 weeks followed by dapagliflozin for 28 weeks

Disclosures: The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees or research grants or serving on advisory boards for various sources, including AstraZeneca. Three authors declared being stockholders or employees of AstraZeneca.

Source: Tamborlane WV, Laffel LM et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in children and young adults with type 2 diabetes: a prospective, multicentre, randomised, parallel group, phase 3 study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022 (Apr 1). Doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00052-3

Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin in addition to standard-of-care treatment demonstrated a clinically relevant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and an acceptable safety profile in young people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: At 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was not significantly different between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference [Δ] −0.75%; P = .10), but was significantly different in the sensitivity analysis in the per-protocol population (Δ −1.13%; P = .012). No new safety signals or episodes of death or diabetic ketoacidosis were recorded.

Study details: The data come from a phase 3 trial including 72 participants aged 10-24 years with T2D and HbA1c concentration of 6.5%-11% who were randomly assigned to receive oral dapagliflozin (10 mg) or placebo in addition to standard-of-care treatment for 24 weeks followed by dapagliflozin for 28 weeks

Disclosures: The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees or research grants or serving on advisory boards for various sources, including AstraZeneca. Three authors declared being stockholders or employees of AstraZeneca.

Source: Tamborlane WV, Laffel LM et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in children and young adults with type 2 diabetes: a prospective, multicentre, randomised, parallel group, phase 3 study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022 (Apr 1). Doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00052-3

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous B-cell Lymphoma

Shave biopsies of 3 lesions revealed a dense, diffuse, atypical lymphoid infiltrate occupying the entirety of the dermis and obscuring the dermoepidermal junction. The infiltrate consisted predominantly of largesized lymphoid cells with fine chromatin and conspicuous nucleoli (Figure). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD45 and CD20, indicating B-cell lineage. Bcl-2, multiple myeloma oncogene 1, and forkhead box protein P1 also were expressed in the vast majority of lesional cells, distinguishing the lesion from other forms of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.¹ These findings were consistent with large B-cell lymphoma with a high proliferation index, consistent with primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, which often presents on the lower leg.² The patient had a negative systemic workup including bone marrow biopsy. He was started on the R-CEOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy regimen.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, is an intermediately aggressive and rare form of B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis that primarily affects elderly female patients. Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, accounts for only 1% to 3% of cutaneous lymphomas and approximately 10% to 20% of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.² It typically presents as multiple red-brown or bluish nodules on the lower extremities or trunk. Presentation as a solitary nodule also is possible.^1,2 Histologic analysis of primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, reveals large cells with round nuclei (immunoblasts and centroblasts), and the immunohistochemical profile shows strong Bcl-2 expression often accompanied by the multiple myeloma oncogene 1 protein.³ The 5-year survival rate is approximately 50%, which is lower than other types of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas, and the progression of disease is characterized by frequent relapses and involvement of extracutaneous regions such as the lymph nodes, bone marrow, and central nervous system.^1,2,4 Patients with multiple tumors on the leg have a particularly poor prognosis; in particular, having 1 or more lesions on the leg results in a 43% 3-year survival rate while having multiple lesions has a 36% 3-year survival rate compared with a 77% 3-year survival rate for patients with the non–leg subtype or a single lesion.3 Treatment with rituximab has been shown to be effective in at least short-term control of the disease, and the R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen is the standard of treatment.^3,4

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, can mimic multiple other cutaneous presentations of disease. Myeloid sarcoma (leukemia cutis) is a rare condition that presents as an extramedullary tumor often simultaneously with the onset or relapse of acute myeloid leukemia.⁵ Our patient had no history of leukemia, but myeloid sarcoma may predate acute myeloid leukemia in about a quarter of cases.⁵ It most commonly presents histologically as a diffuse dermal infiltrate that splays between collagen bundles and often is associated with an overlying Grenz zone. A nodular, or perivascular and periadnexal, pattern also may be seen. Upon closer inspection, the infiltrate is composed of immature myeloid cells (blasts) with background inflammation occasionally containing eosinophils. The immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the type of differentiation and degree of maturity of the cells. The histologic findings in our patient were inconsistent with myeloid sarcoma.

Erythema elevatum diutinum (EED) usually presents as dark red, brown, or violaceous papules or plaques and often is found on the extensor surfaces. It often is associated with hematologic abnormalities as well as recurrent bacterial or viral infections.⁶ Histologically, EED initially manifests as leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate typically featuring an abundance of neutrophils, making this condition unlikely in this case. As the lesion progresses, fibrosis and scarring ensue as inflammation wanes. The fibrosis often is described as having an onion skin–like pattern, which is characteristic of established EED lesions. Our patient had no history of vasculitis, and the histologic findings were inconsistent with EED.

Angiosarcoma can present as a central nodule surrounded by an erythematous plaque. Although potentially clinically similar to primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, angiosarcoma was unlikely in this case because of an absence of lymphedema and no history of radiation to the leg, both of which are key historical features of angiosarcoma.⁷ Additionally, the histology of cutaneous angiosarcoma is marked by vascular proliferation, which was not seen in the lesion biopsied in our patient. The histology of angiosarcoma is that of an atypical vascular proliferation, and a hallmark feature is infiltration between collagen, often referred to as giving the appearance of dissection between collagen bundles. The degree of atypia can vary widely, and epithelioid variants exist, producing a potential diagnostic pitfall. Lesional cells are positive for vascular markers, which can be used for confirmation of the endothelial lineage.

Sarcoidosis is notorious for its mimicry, which can be the case both clinically and histologically. Characteristic pathology of sarcoidosis is that of well-formed epithelioid granulomas with minimal associated inflammation and lack of caseating necrosis. Our patient had no known history of systemic sarcoidosis, and the pathologic features of noncaseating granulomas were not present. As a diagnosis of exclusion, correlation with special stains and culture studies is necessary to exclude an infectious process. The differential diagnosis for sarcoidal granulomatous dermatitis also includes foreign body reaction, inflammatory bowel disease, and granulomatous cheilitis, among others.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous B-cell Lymphoma

Shave biopsies of 3 lesions revealed a dense, diffuse, atypical lymphoid infiltrate occupying the entirety of the dermis and obscuring the dermoepidermal junction. The infiltrate consisted predominantly of largesized lymphoid cells with fine chromatin and conspicuous nucleoli (Figure). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD45 and CD20, indicating B-cell lineage. Bcl-2, multiple myeloma oncogene 1, and forkhead box protein P1 also were expressed in the vast majority of lesional cells, distinguishing the lesion from other forms of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.¹ These findings were consistent with large B-cell lymphoma with a high proliferation index, consistent with primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, which often presents on the lower leg.² The patient had a negative systemic workup including bone marrow biopsy. He was started on the R-CEOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy regimen.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, is an intermediately aggressive and rare form of B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis that primarily affects elderly female patients. Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, accounts for only 1% to 3% of cutaneous lymphomas and approximately 10% to 20% of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.² It typically presents as multiple red-brown or bluish nodules on the lower extremities or trunk. Presentation as a solitary nodule also is possible.^1,2 Histologic analysis of primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, reveals large cells with round nuclei (immunoblasts and centroblasts), and the immunohistochemical profile shows strong Bcl-2 expression often accompanied by the multiple myeloma oncogene 1 protein.³ The 5-year survival rate is approximately 50%, which is lower than other types of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas, and the progression of disease is characterized by frequent relapses and involvement of extracutaneous regions such as the lymph nodes, bone marrow, and central nervous system.^1,2,4 Patients with multiple tumors on the leg have a particularly poor prognosis; in particular, having 1 or more lesions on the leg results in a 43% 3-year survival rate while having multiple lesions has a 36% 3-year survival rate compared with a 77% 3-year survival rate for patients with the non–leg subtype or a single lesion.3 Treatment with rituximab has been shown to be effective in at least short-term control of the disease, and the R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen is the standard of treatment.^3,4

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, can mimic multiple other cutaneous presentations of disease. Myeloid sarcoma (leukemia cutis) is a rare condition that presents as an extramedullary tumor often simultaneously with the onset or relapse of acute myeloid leukemia.⁵ Our patient had no history of leukemia, but myeloid sarcoma may predate acute myeloid leukemia in about a quarter of cases.⁵ It most commonly presents histologically as a diffuse dermal infiltrate that splays between collagen bundles and often is associated with an overlying Grenz zone. A nodular, or perivascular and periadnexal, pattern also may be seen. Upon closer inspection, the infiltrate is composed of immature myeloid cells (blasts) with background inflammation occasionally containing eosinophils. The immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the type of differentiation and degree of maturity of the cells. The histologic findings in our patient were inconsistent with myeloid sarcoma.

Erythema elevatum diutinum (EED) usually presents as dark red, brown, or violaceous papules or plaques and often is found on the extensor surfaces. It often is associated with hematologic abnormalities as well as recurrent bacterial or viral infections.⁶ Histologically, EED initially manifests as leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate typically featuring an abundance of neutrophils, making this condition unlikely in this case. As the lesion progresses, fibrosis and scarring ensue as inflammation wanes. The fibrosis often is described as having an onion skin–like pattern, which is characteristic of established EED lesions. Our patient had no history of vasculitis, and the histologic findings were inconsistent with EED.

Angiosarcoma can present as a central nodule surrounded by an erythematous plaque. Although potentially clinically similar to primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, angiosarcoma was unlikely in this case because of an absence of lymphedema and no history of radiation to the leg, both of which are key historical features of angiosarcoma.⁷ Additionally, the histology of cutaneous angiosarcoma is marked by vascular proliferation, which was not seen in the lesion biopsied in our patient. The histology of angiosarcoma is that of an atypical vascular proliferation, and a hallmark feature is infiltration between collagen, often referred to as giving the appearance of dissection between collagen bundles. The degree of atypia can vary widely, and epithelioid variants exist, producing a potential diagnostic pitfall. Lesional cells are positive for vascular markers, which can be used for confirmation of the endothelial lineage.

Sarcoidosis is notorious for its mimicry, which can be the case both clinically and histologically. Characteristic pathology of sarcoidosis is that of well-formed epithelioid granulomas with minimal associated inflammation and lack of caseating necrosis. Our patient had no known history of systemic sarcoidosis, and the pathologic features of noncaseating granulomas were not present. As a diagnosis of exclusion, correlation with special stains and culture studies is necessary to exclude an infectious process. The differential diagnosis for sarcoidal granulomatous dermatitis also includes foreign body reaction, inflammatory bowel disease, and granulomatous cheilitis, among others.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous B-cell Lymphoma

Shave biopsies of 3 lesions revealed a dense, diffuse, atypical lymphoid infiltrate occupying the entirety of the dermis and obscuring the dermoepidermal junction. The infiltrate consisted predominantly of largesized lymphoid cells with fine chromatin and conspicuous nucleoli (Figure). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD45 and CD20, indicating B-cell lineage. Bcl-2, multiple myeloma oncogene 1, and forkhead box protein P1 also were expressed in the vast majority of lesional cells, distinguishing the lesion from other forms of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.¹ These findings were consistent with large B-cell lymphoma with a high proliferation index, consistent with primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, which often presents on the lower leg.² The patient had a negative systemic workup including bone marrow biopsy. He was started on the R-CEOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy regimen.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, is an intermediately aggressive and rare form of B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis that primarily affects elderly female patients. Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, accounts for only 1% to 3% of cutaneous lymphomas and approximately 10% to 20% of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.² It typically presents as multiple red-brown or bluish nodules on the lower extremities or trunk. Presentation as a solitary nodule also is possible.^1,2 Histologic analysis of primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, reveals large cells with round nuclei (immunoblasts and centroblasts), and the immunohistochemical profile shows strong Bcl-2 expression often accompanied by the multiple myeloma oncogene 1 protein.³ The 5-year survival rate is approximately 50%, which is lower than other types of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas, and the progression of disease is characterized by frequent relapses and involvement of extracutaneous regions such as the lymph nodes, bone marrow, and central nervous system.^1,2,4 Patients with multiple tumors on the leg have a particularly poor prognosis; in particular, having 1 or more lesions on the leg results in a 43% 3-year survival rate while having multiple lesions has a 36% 3-year survival rate compared with a 77% 3-year survival rate for patients with the non–leg subtype or a single lesion.3 Treatment with rituximab has been shown to be effective in at least short-term control of the disease, and the R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen is the standard of treatment.^3,4

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, can mimic multiple other cutaneous presentations of disease. Myeloid sarcoma (leukemia cutis) is a rare condition that presents as an extramedullary tumor often simultaneously with the onset or relapse of acute myeloid leukemia.⁵ Our patient had no history of leukemia, but myeloid sarcoma may predate acute myeloid leukemia in about a quarter of cases.⁵ It most commonly presents histologically as a diffuse dermal infiltrate that splays between collagen bundles and often is associated with an overlying Grenz zone. A nodular, or perivascular and periadnexal, pattern also may be seen. Upon closer inspection, the infiltrate is composed of immature myeloid cells (blasts) with background inflammation occasionally containing eosinophils. The immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the type of differentiation and degree of maturity of the cells. The histologic findings in our patient were inconsistent with myeloid sarcoma.

Erythema elevatum diutinum (EED) usually presents as dark red, brown, or violaceous papules or plaques and often is found on the extensor surfaces. It often is associated with hematologic abnormalities as well as recurrent bacterial or viral infections.⁶ Histologically, EED initially manifests as leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate typically featuring an abundance of neutrophils, making this condition unlikely in this case. As the lesion progresses, fibrosis and scarring ensue as inflammation wanes. The fibrosis often is described as having an onion skin–like pattern, which is characteristic of established EED lesions. Our patient had no history of vasculitis, and the histologic findings were inconsistent with EED.

Angiosarcoma can present as a central nodule surrounded by an erythematous plaque. Although potentially clinically similar to primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, angiosarcoma was unlikely in this case because of an absence of lymphedema and no history of radiation to the leg, both of which are key historical features of angiosarcoma.⁷ Additionally, the histology of cutaneous angiosarcoma is marked by vascular proliferation, which was not seen in the lesion biopsied in our patient. The histology of angiosarcoma is that of an atypical vascular proliferation, and a hallmark feature is infiltration between collagen, often referred to as giving the appearance of dissection between collagen bundles. The degree of atypia can vary widely, and epithelioid variants exist, producing a potential diagnostic pitfall. Lesional cells are positive for vascular markers, which can be used for confirmation of the endothelial lineage.

Sarcoidosis is notorious for its mimicry, which can be the case both clinically and histologically. Characteristic pathology of sarcoidosis is that of well-formed epithelioid granulomas with minimal associated inflammation and lack of caseating necrosis. Our patient had no known history of systemic sarcoidosis, and the pathologic features of noncaseating granulomas were not present. As a diagnosis of exclusion, correlation with special stains and culture studies is necessary to exclude an infectious process. The differential diagnosis for sarcoidal granulomatous dermatitis also includes foreign body reaction, inflammatory bowel disease, and granulomatous cheilitis, among others.

None of us like being wrong, especially about a patient’s diagnosis. To help you avoid diagnostic errors for 4 difficult diagnoses, read and study the article in this issue of JFP by Rosen and colleagues.¹ They discuss misdiagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica, fibromyalgia, ovarian cancer, and Lewy body dementia to illustrate how we can go astray if we do not take care to pause and think through things carefully. They point out that, for quick and mostly accurate diagnoses, pattern recognition or type 1 thinking serves us well in a busy office practice. However, we must frequently pause and reflect, using type 2 thinking—especially when the puzzle pieces don’t quite fit together.

I still recall vividly a diagnostic error I made many years ago. One of my patients, whom I had diagnosed and was treating for hyperlipidemia, returned for follow-up while I was on vacation. My partner conducted the follow-up visit. To my chagrin, he noticed her puffy face and weight gain and ordered thyroid studies. Sure enough, my patient was severely hypothyroid, and her lipid levels normalized with thyroid replacement therapy.

I recall vividly a diagnostic error I made years ago. I was treating a patient for hyperlipidemia but my partner recognized it as a case of severe hypothyroid.

A happier tale for me was making the correct diagnosis for a woman with chronic cough. She had been evaluated by multiple specialists during the prior year and treated with a nasal steroid for allergies, a proton pump inhibitor for reflux, and a steroid inhaler for possible asthma. None of these relieved her cough. After reviewing her medication list and noting that it included amitriptyline, which has anticholinergic adverse effects, I recommended she stop taking that medication and the cough resolved.

John Ely, MD, MPH, a family physician who has spent his academic career investigating causes of and solutions to diagnostic errors, has outlined important steps we can take. These include: (1) obtaining your own complete medical history, (2) performing a “focused and purposeful” physical exam, (3) generating initial hypotheses and differentiating them through additional history taking, exams, and diagnostic tests, (4) pausing to reflect [my emphasis], and (5) embarking on a plan (while acknowledging uncertainty) and ensuring there is a pathway for follow-up.²

To help avoid diagnostic errors, Dr. Ely developed and uses a set of checklists that cover the differential diagnosis for 72 presenting complaints/conditions, including syncope, back pain, insomnia, and headache.² When you are faced with diagnostic uncertainty, it takes just a few minutes to run through the checklist for the patient’s presenting complaint.

None of us like being wrong, especially about a patient’s diagnosis. To help you avoid diagnostic errors for 4 difficult diagnoses, read and study the article in this issue of JFP by Rosen and colleagues.¹ They discuss misdiagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica, fibromyalgia, ovarian cancer, and Lewy body dementia to illustrate how we can go astray if we do not take care to pause and think through things carefully. They point out that, for quick and mostly accurate diagnoses, pattern recognition or type 1 thinking serves us well in a busy office practice. However, we must frequently pause and reflect, using type 2 thinking—especially when the puzzle pieces don’t quite fit together.

I still recall vividly a diagnostic error I made many years ago. One of my patients, whom I had diagnosed and was treating for hyperlipidemia, returned for follow-up while I was on vacation. My partner conducted the follow-up visit. To my chagrin, he noticed her puffy face and weight gain and ordered thyroid studies. Sure enough, my patient was severely hypothyroid, and her lipid levels normalized with thyroid replacement therapy.

I recall vividly a diagnostic error I made years ago. I was treating a patient for hyperlipidemia but my partner recognized it as a case of severe hypothyroid.

A happier tale for me was making the correct diagnosis for a woman with chronic cough. She had been evaluated by multiple specialists during the prior year and treated with a nasal steroid for allergies, a proton pump inhibitor for reflux, and a steroid inhaler for possible asthma. None of these relieved her cough. After reviewing her medication list and noting that it included amitriptyline, which has anticholinergic adverse effects, I recommended she stop taking that medication and the cough resolved.

John Ely, MD, MPH, a family physician who has spent his academic career investigating causes of and solutions to diagnostic errors, has outlined important steps we can take. These include: (1) obtaining your own complete medical history, (2) performing a “focused and purposeful” physical exam, (3) generating initial hypotheses and differentiating them through additional history taking, exams, and diagnostic tests, (4) pausing to reflect [my emphasis], and (5) embarking on a plan (while acknowledging uncertainty) and ensuring there is a pathway for follow-up.²

To help avoid diagnostic errors, Dr. Ely developed and uses a set of checklists that cover the differential diagnosis for 72 presenting complaints/conditions, including syncope, back pain, insomnia, and headache.² When you are faced with diagnostic uncertainty, it takes just a few minutes to run through the checklist for the patient’s presenting complaint.

None of us like being wrong, especially about a patient’s diagnosis. To help you avoid diagnostic errors for 4 difficult diagnoses, read and study the article in this issue of JFP by Rosen and colleagues.¹ They discuss misdiagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica, fibromyalgia, ovarian cancer, and Lewy body dementia to illustrate how we can go astray if we do not take care to pause and think through things carefully. They point out that, for quick and mostly accurate diagnoses, pattern recognition or type 1 thinking serves us well in a busy office practice. However, we must frequently pause and reflect, using type 2 thinking—especially when the puzzle pieces don’t quite fit together.

I still recall vividly a diagnostic error I made many years ago. One of my patients, whom I had diagnosed and was treating for hyperlipidemia, returned for follow-up while I was on vacation. My partner conducted the follow-up visit. To my chagrin, he noticed her puffy face and weight gain and ordered thyroid studies. Sure enough, my patient was severely hypothyroid, and her lipid levels normalized with thyroid replacement therapy.

I recall vividly a diagnostic error I made years ago. I was treating a patient for hyperlipidemia but my partner recognized it as a case of severe hypothyroid.

A happier tale for me was making the correct diagnosis for a woman with chronic cough. She had been evaluated by multiple specialists during the prior year and treated with a nasal steroid for allergies, a proton pump inhibitor for reflux, and a steroid inhaler for possible asthma. None of these relieved her cough. After reviewing her medication list and noting that it included amitriptyline, which has anticholinergic adverse effects, I recommended she stop taking that medication and the cough resolved.

John Ely, MD, MPH, a family physician who has spent his academic career investigating causes of and solutions to diagnostic errors, has outlined important steps we can take. These include: (1) obtaining your own complete medical history, (2) performing a “focused and purposeful” physical exam, (3) generating initial hypotheses and differentiating them through additional history taking, exams, and diagnostic tests, (4) pausing to reflect [my emphasis], and (5) embarking on a plan (while acknowledging uncertainty) and ensuring there is a pathway for follow-up.²

To help avoid diagnostic errors, Dr. Ely developed and uses a set of checklists that cover the differential diagnosis for 72 presenting complaints/conditions, including syncope, back pain, insomnia, and headache.² When you are faced with diagnostic uncertainty, it takes just a few minutes to run through the checklist for the patient’s presenting complaint.

THE CASE 

An active 61-year-old woman (140 lbs) in good health became ill during a sailing holiday in the Virgin Islands. During the trip, she ate various fish in local restaurants; after one lunch, she developed nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, and light-headedness. In the following days, she suffered “intense itching” in the ears, dizziness, malaise, a “fluttering feeling” throughout her body, genitourinary sensitivity, and a “rhythmic buzzing sensation near the rectum.”

She said that cold objects and beverages felt uncomfortably hot (cold allodynia). She noted heightened senses of smell and taste, as well as paresthesia down her spine, and described feeling “moody.” She reduced her workload, took many days off from work, and ceased consuming meat and alcohol because these items seemed to aggravate her symptoms.

The paresthesia persisted, and she consulted her family physician one month later. Laboratory tests—including a complete blood count, hematocrit, thyroid-stimulating hormone, antinuclear antibodies, and titers for Ehrlichia chaffeensis, Lyme disease, and Anaplasma phagocytophila—all yielded normal results. Her symptoms continued for 3 more months before referral to Medical Toxicology.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient’s symptoms and history were consistent with ciguatera poisoning. Features supporting this diagnosis included an acute gastrointestinal illness after eating fish caught in tropical waters and subsequent persistent paresthesia, including cold allodynia.¹ Laboratory testing excluded acute infection, anemia, thyroid dysfunction, vitamin B12 deficiency, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme disease, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis.

DISCUSSION

Ciguatera results from ciguatoxin, a class of heat-stable polycyclic toxins produced in warm tropical waters by microscopic dinoflagellates (most often Gambierdiscus toxicus).^2,3 Small variations exist in the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian Ocean forms. Ciguatoxin bio-­accumulates in the food chain, and humans most often ingest it by eating larger fish (typically barracuda, snapper, grouper, or amberjack).⁴ Because ciguatoxin confers no characteristic taste or smell to the fish, people who prepare or eat contaminated seafood have no reliable means to detect and avoid it.

Ciguatoxin opens neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels and blocks delayed-­rectifier potassium channels.⁵ These cause repetitive, spontaneous action potentials that explain the paresthesia. Sodium influx triggers an increase in intracellular calcium concentrations. Increased intracellular sodium and calcium concentrations draw water into the intracellular space and cause neuronal edema.

Death is rarely associated with ciguatera (< 0.1% in the largest observational study).¹ Even without treatment (discussed shortly), symptoms of ciguatera will gradually resolve over several weeks to several months in most cases.^1,4,5 However, after recovery, patients often briefly experience milder symptoms after consuming fish, alcohol, or nuts.⁶

Continue to: Treatment of ciguatera

Treatment of ciguatera may include intravenous (IV) mannitol infusion. Other treatments, such as amitriptyline, gabapentin, pregabalin, and tocainide, have been used, but there is limited supporting evidence and they appear variably effective.⁷

Mannitol reverses the effects of ciguatoxin, with suppression of spontaneous action potentials and reversal of neuronal edema.^8,9 It is reasonable to offer mannitol for acute or persistent symptoms of ciguatera fish poisoning even after a delay of several weeks.

Ciguatoxin confers no characteristic taste or smell to the fish. Thus, people who prepare or eat contaminated seafood have no reliable means to detect and avoid it.

A recent systematic review found that mannitol has the largest body of evidence supporting its use, although that evidence is generally of low quality (case reports and large case series).⁷ While these reports^10-13 describe beneficial effects of mannitol, a single randomized trial suggested that mannitol is no more effective than normal saline.¹⁴ However, this study was underpowered and had inadequate treatment concealment; twice as many saline control patients as mannitol-treated patients requested a rescue dose of mannitol.¹⁴

Mannitol may be most effective when given early in the course of ciguatera but has shown some success when given later.^5,12,13 In 1 large case series, the longest interval from symptom onset to successful treatment was 70 days, although most patients with satisfactory results received mannitol in the first few days.⁵

Our patient was administered an IV infusion of 100 g of 20% mannitol over 1 hour. She received the infusion 140 days after the onset of her symptoms and experienced rapid symptom relief.

Continue to: At a follow-up visit...

At a follow-up visit 2 weeks later, she described increased energy and further improvement in her paresthesia. She returned to a full work schedule and resumed all of her daily activities. However, she continued to avoid alcohol and proteins, as she had experienced a mild recurrence that she temporally related to eating meat and drinking alcohol.

At the 2-month follow-up, the patient reported continued improvement in her paresthesia but continued to experience occasional gastrointestinal symptoms and fatigue associated with meat and alcohol consumption.

The Takeaway 

Ciguatera fish poisoning is largely a clinical diagnosis. It is based on early gastrointestinal symptoms followed by persistent paresthesia and cold allodynia after consumption of fish caught in tropical waters. Family physicians may see ciguatera in returning travelers or people who have consumed certain fish imported from endemic areas. Untreated symptoms may last for many weeks or months. IV mannitol may relieve symptoms of ciguatera poisoning even when administered several months after symptom onset.

Acknowledgement
We are grateful to our patient, who allowed us to share her story in the hope of helping other travelers.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael E. Mullins, MD, Division of Medical Toxicology, Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8072, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63110; [email protected]

THE CASE 

An active 61-year-old woman (140 lbs) in good health became ill during a sailing holiday in the Virgin Islands. During the trip, she ate various fish in local restaurants; after one lunch, she developed nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, and light-headedness. In the following days, she suffered “intense itching” in the ears, dizziness, malaise, a “fluttering feeling” throughout her body, genitourinary sensitivity, and a “rhythmic buzzing sensation near the rectum.”

She said that cold objects and beverages felt uncomfortably hot (cold allodynia). She noted heightened senses of smell and taste, as well as paresthesia down her spine, and described feeling “moody.” She reduced her workload, took many days off from work, and ceased consuming meat and alcohol because these items seemed to aggravate her symptoms.

The paresthesia persisted, and she consulted her family physician one month later. Laboratory tests—including a complete blood count, hematocrit, thyroid-stimulating hormone, antinuclear antibodies, and titers for Ehrlichia chaffeensis, Lyme disease, and Anaplasma phagocytophila—all yielded normal results. Her symptoms continued for 3 more months before referral to Medical Toxicology.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient’s symptoms and history were consistent with ciguatera poisoning. Features supporting this diagnosis included an acute gastrointestinal illness after eating fish caught in tropical waters and subsequent persistent paresthesia, including cold allodynia.¹ Laboratory testing excluded acute infection, anemia, thyroid dysfunction, vitamin B12 deficiency, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme disease, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis.

DISCUSSION

Ciguatera results from ciguatoxin, a class of heat-stable polycyclic toxins produced in warm tropical waters by microscopic dinoflagellates (most often Gambierdiscus toxicus).^2,3 Small variations exist in the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian Ocean forms. Ciguatoxin bio-­accumulates in the food chain, and humans most often ingest it by eating larger fish (typically barracuda, snapper, grouper, or amberjack).⁴ Because ciguatoxin confers no characteristic taste or smell to the fish, people who prepare or eat contaminated seafood have no reliable means to detect and avoid it.

Ciguatoxin opens neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels and blocks delayed-­rectifier potassium channels.⁵ These cause repetitive, spontaneous action potentials that explain the paresthesia. Sodium influx triggers an increase in intracellular calcium concentrations. Increased intracellular sodium and calcium concentrations draw water into the intracellular space and cause neuronal edema.

Death is rarely associated with ciguatera (< 0.1% in the largest observational study).¹ Even without treatment (discussed shortly), symptoms of ciguatera will gradually resolve over several weeks to several months in most cases.^1,4,5 However, after recovery, patients often briefly experience milder symptoms after consuming fish, alcohol, or nuts.⁶

Continue to: Treatment of ciguatera

Treatment of ciguatera may include intravenous (IV) mannitol infusion. Other treatments, such as amitriptyline, gabapentin, pregabalin, and tocainide, have been used, but there is limited supporting evidence and they appear variably effective.⁷

Mannitol reverses the effects of ciguatoxin, with suppression of spontaneous action potentials and reversal of neuronal edema.^8,9 It is reasonable to offer mannitol for acute or persistent symptoms of ciguatera fish poisoning even after a delay of several weeks.

Ciguatoxin confers no characteristic taste or smell to the fish. Thus, people who prepare or eat contaminated seafood have no reliable means to detect and avoid it.

A recent systematic review found that mannitol has the largest body of evidence supporting its use, although that evidence is generally of low quality (case reports and large case series).⁷ While these reports^10-13 describe beneficial effects of mannitol, a single randomized trial suggested that mannitol is no more effective than normal saline.¹⁴ However, this study was underpowered and had inadequate treatment concealment; twice as many saline control patients as mannitol-treated patients requested a rescue dose of mannitol.¹⁴

Mannitol may be most effective when given early in the course of ciguatera but has shown some success when given later.^5,12,13 In 1 large case series, the longest interval from symptom onset to successful treatment was 70 days, although most patients with satisfactory results received mannitol in the first few days.⁵

Our patient was administered an IV infusion of 100 g of 20% mannitol over 1 hour. She received the infusion 140 days after the onset of her symptoms and experienced rapid symptom relief.

Continue to: At a follow-up visit...

At a follow-up visit 2 weeks later, she described increased energy and further improvement in her paresthesia. She returned to a full work schedule and resumed all of her daily activities. However, she continued to avoid alcohol and proteins, as she had experienced a mild recurrence that she temporally related to eating meat and drinking alcohol.

At the 2-month follow-up, the patient reported continued improvement in her paresthesia but continued to experience occasional gastrointestinal symptoms and fatigue associated with meat and alcohol consumption.

The Takeaway 

Ciguatera fish poisoning is largely a clinical diagnosis. It is based on early gastrointestinal symptoms followed by persistent paresthesia and cold allodynia after consumption of fish caught in tropical waters. Family physicians may see ciguatera in returning travelers or people who have consumed certain fish imported from endemic areas. Untreated symptoms may last for many weeks or months. IV mannitol may relieve symptoms of ciguatera poisoning even when administered several months after symptom onset.

Acknowledgement
We are grateful to our patient, who allowed us to share her story in the hope of helping other travelers.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael E. Mullins, MD, Division of Medical Toxicology, Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8072, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63110; [email protected]

THE CASE 

An active 61-year-old woman (140 lbs) in good health became ill during a sailing holiday in the Virgin Islands. During the trip, she ate various fish in local restaurants; after one lunch, she developed nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, and light-headedness. In the following days, she suffered “intense itching” in the ears, dizziness, malaise, a “fluttering feeling” throughout her body, genitourinary sensitivity, and a “rhythmic buzzing sensation near the rectum.”

She said that cold objects and beverages felt uncomfortably hot (cold allodynia). She noted heightened senses of smell and taste, as well as paresthesia down her spine, and described feeling “moody.” She reduced her workload, took many days off from work, and ceased consuming meat and alcohol because these items seemed to aggravate her symptoms.

The paresthesia persisted, and she consulted her family physician one month later. Laboratory tests—including a complete blood count, hematocrit, thyroid-stimulating hormone, antinuclear antibodies, and titers for Ehrlichia chaffeensis, Lyme disease, and Anaplasma phagocytophila—all yielded normal results. Her symptoms continued for 3 more months before referral to Medical Toxicology.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient’s symptoms and history were consistent with ciguatera poisoning. Features supporting this diagnosis included an acute gastrointestinal illness after eating fish caught in tropical waters and subsequent persistent paresthesia, including cold allodynia.¹ Laboratory testing excluded acute infection, anemia, thyroid dysfunction, vitamin B12 deficiency, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme disease, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis.

DISCUSSION

Ciguatera results from ciguatoxin, a class of heat-stable polycyclic toxins produced in warm tropical waters by microscopic dinoflagellates (most often Gambierdiscus toxicus).^2,3 Small variations exist in the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian Ocean forms. Ciguatoxin bio-­accumulates in the food chain, and humans most often ingest it by eating larger fish (typically barracuda, snapper, grouper, or amberjack).⁴ Because ciguatoxin confers no characteristic taste or smell to the fish, people who prepare or eat contaminated seafood have no reliable means to detect and avoid it.

Ciguatoxin opens neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels and blocks delayed-­rectifier potassium channels.⁵ These cause repetitive, spontaneous action potentials that explain the paresthesia. Sodium influx triggers an increase in intracellular calcium concentrations. Increased intracellular sodium and calcium concentrations draw water into the intracellular space and cause neuronal edema.

Death is rarely associated with ciguatera (< 0.1% in the largest observational study).¹ Even without treatment (discussed shortly), symptoms of ciguatera will gradually resolve over several weeks to several months in most cases.^1,4,5 However, after recovery, patients often briefly experience milder symptoms after consuming fish, alcohol, or nuts.⁶

Continue to: Treatment of ciguatera

Treatment of ciguatera may include intravenous (IV) mannitol infusion. Other treatments, such as amitriptyline, gabapentin, pregabalin, and tocainide, have been used, but there is limited supporting evidence and they appear variably effective.⁷

Mannitol reverses the effects of ciguatoxin, with suppression of spontaneous action potentials and reversal of neuronal edema.^8,9 It is reasonable to offer mannitol for acute or persistent symptoms of ciguatera fish poisoning even after a delay of several weeks.

Ciguatoxin confers no characteristic taste or smell to the fish. Thus, people who prepare or eat contaminated seafood have no reliable means to detect and avoid it.

A recent systematic review found that mannitol has the largest body of evidence supporting its use, although that evidence is generally of low quality (case reports and large case series).⁷ While these reports^10-13 describe beneficial effects of mannitol, a single randomized trial suggested that mannitol is no more effective than normal saline.¹⁴ However, this study was underpowered and had inadequate treatment concealment; twice as many saline control patients as mannitol-treated patients requested a rescue dose of mannitol.¹⁴

Mannitol may be most effective when given early in the course of ciguatera but has shown some success when given later.^5,12,13 In 1 large case series, the longest interval from symptom onset to successful treatment was 70 days, although most patients with satisfactory results received mannitol in the first few days.⁵

Our patient was administered an IV infusion of 100 g of 20% mannitol over 1 hour. She received the infusion 140 days after the onset of her symptoms and experienced rapid symptom relief.

Continue to: At a follow-up visit...

At a follow-up visit 2 weeks later, she described increased energy and further improvement in her paresthesia. She returned to a full work schedule and resumed all of her daily activities. However, she continued to avoid alcohol and proteins, as she had experienced a mild recurrence that she temporally related to eating meat and drinking alcohol.

At the 2-month follow-up, the patient reported continued improvement in her paresthesia but continued to experience occasional gastrointestinal symptoms and fatigue associated with meat and alcohol consumption.

The Takeaway 

Ciguatera fish poisoning is largely a clinical diagnosis. It is based on early gastrointestinal symptoms followed by persistent paresthesia and cold allodynia after consumption of fish caught in tropical waters. Family physicians may see ciguatera in returning travelers or people who have consumed certain fish imported from endemic areas. Untreated symptoms may last for many weeks or months. IV mannitol may relieve symptoms of ciguatera poisoning even when administered several months after symptom onset.

Acknowledgement
We are grateful to our patient, who allowed us to share her story in the hope of helping other travelers.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael E. Mullins, MD, Division of Medical Toxicology, Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8072, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63110; [email protected]

A healthy woman in her 60s presented to the clinic with a 1-month history of red, itchy, and slightly painful nodules on the scalp and back. The patient had travelled to Belize for a vacation in the weeks prior to the onset of the lesions. She was initially given a course of cephalexin for presumed furunculosis at another clinic, without improvement.

Examination revealed inflamed nodules with a central open pore on the left upper back (FIGURE 1) and the occipital scalp. Notably, when the lesions were observed with a dermatoscope, intermittent air bubbles were seen through the skin opening.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Given the patient’s clinical presentation and travel history, furuncular myiasis infestation was suspected and confirmed by punch biopsy. Pathologic exam revealed botfly larvae in both wounds, consistent with the human botfly, Dermatobia hominis (FIGURE 2). Myiasis is not common in the United States but should be suspected in patients who have recently traveled to tropical or subtropical areas. Furuncular myiasis describes the condition in which fly larvae penetrate healthy skin in a localized fashion, leading to the development of a ­furuncle-like nodule with 1 or more larvae within it.

Dermatobia hominis is the most common causative organism for furuncular myiasis in the regions of the Americas. Patients typically present with 1 lesion on an exposed part of the body (eg, scalp, face, extremities). The lesions typically contain a central pore with purulent or serosanguinous exudate.¹ Upon dermatoscopic inspection, one can often see the posterior part of the larva or the respiratory spiracles, which look like tiny black dots on the surface of the wound. The organism may also be indirectly viewed through respiratory bubble formation within the exudate.^1,2 Diagnosis is confirmed by extracting the larvae from the wound and having the species identified by an experienced pathologist or parasitologist.

Mode of transmission

Phoresis is the name of the process by which Dermatobia hominis invades the skin.³ The female fly lays her eggs onto captured mosquitos using a quick-drying adhesive. The eggs are then transferred to the host by a mosquito bite. The host’s body heat induces egg hatching, and the larvae burrow into follicular openings or skin perforations. This leads to the development of a small erythematous papule, which can further lead to a furuncle-like nodule with a central pore that allows the organism to respirate. When ready to pupate, the larvae work their way to the skin surface and drop to the soil, where they can further develop. After pupation, the fly hatches and develops into an adult, and the cycle repeats.

Common infectious and inflammatory lesions are in the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis includes bacterial abscess, exaggerated arthropod reaction, and ruptured epidermal cyst. With our patient, the travel history and unique exam findings led to the suspicion of myiasis.

Bacterial abscess is likely to have more notable purulence with response to appropriate oral antibiotics and no bubbling phenomenon on exam. It is also unlikely to be present for 1 month without progressive worsening.

Continue to: Exaggerated arthropod reaction

Exaggerated arthropod reaction usually manifests as a smooth, red, papular lesion without bubble formation from a central pore.

Ruptured epidermal cyst would be considered if there was a known preexisting cyst that recently changed. No bubble formation would be observed from the central pore.

Extraction is the treatment of choice

Treatment of furuncular myiasis involves removing the larvae or forcing them out of the lesion. Wounds can be covered with a substance, such as petrolatum, nail polish, beeswax, paraffin, or mineral oil, to block respiration.³ Occlusion may be needed for 24 hours to create adequate localized hypoxia to force the larvae to migrate from the wound and allow for easier manual extraction. Surgical removal of the larvae is also effective. A cruciate incision can be made adjacent to the central pore to avoid damaging the organisms.³ A topical, broad-based antiparasitic, such as a 10% ivermectin solution, has also been successfully used to treat furuncular myiasis. This approach works by either inducing larval migration outward or simply killing the larvae.³

Our patient recovered well after we performed a punch biopsy to make a larger wound opening and remove the intact larvae.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Richard Pollack, PhD, at IdentifyUS, LLC, for providing the botfly larvae photo.

A healthy woman in her 60s presented to the clinic with a 1-month history of red, itchy, and slightly painful nodules on the scalp and back. The patient had travelled to Belize for a vacation in the weeks prior to the onset of the lesions. She was initially given a course of cephalexin for presumed furunculosis at another clinic, without improvement.

Examination revealed inflamed nodules with a central open pore on the left upper back (FIGURE 1) and the occipital scalp. Notably, when the lesions were observed with a dermatoscope, intermittent air bubbles were seen through the skin opening.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Given the patient’s clinical presentation and travel history, furuncular myiasis infestation was suspected and confirmed by punch biopsy. Pathologic exam revealed botfly larvae in both wounds, consistent with the human botfly, Dermatobia hominis (FIGURE 2). Myiasis is not common in the United States but should be suspected in patients who have recently traveled to tropical or subtropical areas. Furuncular myiasis describes the condition in which fly larvae penetrate healthy skin in a localized fashion, leading to the development of a ­furuncle-like nodule with 1 or more larvae within it.

Dermatobia hominis is the most common causative organism for furuncular myiasis in the regions of the Americas. Patients typically present with 1 lesion on an exposed part of the body (eg, scalp, face, extremities). The lesions typically contain a central pore with purulent or serosanguinous exudate.¹ Upon dermatoscopic inspection, one can often see the posterior part of the larva or the respiratory spiracles, which look like tiny black dots on the surface of the wound. The organism may also be indirectly viewed through respiratory bubble formation within the exudate.^1,2 Diagnosis is confirmed by extracting the larvae from the wound and having the species identified by an experienced pathologist or parasitologist.

Mode of transmission

Phoresis is the name of the process by which Dermatobia hominis invades the skin.³ The female fly lays her eggs onto captured mosquitos using a quick-drying adhesive. The eggs are then transferred to the host by a mosquito bite. The host’s body heat induces egg hatching, and the larvae burrow into follicular openings or skin perforations. This leads to the development of a small erythematous papule, which can further lead to a furuncle-like nodule with a central pore that allows the organism to respirate. When ready to pupate, the larvae work their way to the skin surface and drop to the soil, where they can further develop. After pupation, the fly hatches and develops into an adult, and the cycle repeats.

Common infectious and inflammatory lesions are in the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis includes bacterial abscess, exaggerated arthropod reaction, and ruptured epidermal cyst. With our patient, the travel history and unique exam findings led to the suspicion of myiasis.

Bacterial abscess is likely to have more notable purulence with response to appropriate oral antibiotics and no bubbling phenomenon on exam. It is also unlikely to be present for 1 month without progressive worsening.

Continue to: Exaggerated arthropod reaction

Exaggerated arthropod reaction usually manifests as a smooth, red, papular lesion without bubble formation from a central pore.

Ruptured epidermal cyst would be considered if there was a known preexisting cyst that recently changed. No bubble formation would be observed from the central pore.

Extraction is the treatment of choice

Treatment of furuncular myiasis involves removing the larvae or forcing them out of the lesion. Wounds can be covered with a substance, such as petrolatum, nail polish, beeswax, paraffin, or mineral oil, to block respiration.³ Occlusion may be needed for 24 hours to create adequate localized hypoxia to force the larvae to migrate from the wound and allow for easier manual extraction. Surgical removal of the larvae is also effective. A cruciate incision can be made adjacent to the central pore to avoid damaging the organisms.³ A topical, broad-based antiparasitic, such as a 10% ivermectin solution, has also been successfully used to treat furuncular myiasis. This approach works by either inducing larval migration outward or simply killing the larvae.³

Our patient recovered well after we performed a punch biopsy to make a larger wound opening and remove the intact larvae.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Richard Pollack, PhD, at IdentifyUS, LLC, for providing the botfly larvae photo.

A healthy woman in her 60s presented to the clinic with a 1-month history of red, itchy, and slightly painful nodules on the scalp and back. The patient had travelled to Belize for a vacation in the weeks prior to the onset of the lesions. She was initially given a course of cephalexin for presumed furunculosis at another clinic, without improvement.

Examination revealed inflamed nodules with a central open pore on the left upper back (FIGURE 1) and the occipital scalp. Notably, when the lesions were observed with a dermatoscope, intermittent air bubbles were seen through the skin opening.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Given the patient’s clinical presentation and travel history, furuncular myiasis infestation was suspected and confirmed by punch biopsy. Pathologic exam revealed botfly larvae in both wounds, consistent with the human botfly, Dermatobia hominis (FIGURE 2). Myiasis is not common in the United States but should be suspected in patients who have recently traveled to tropical or subtropical areas. Furuncular myiasis describes the condition in which fly larvae penetrate healthy skin in a localized fashion, leading to the development of a ­furuncle-like nodule with 1 or more larvae within it.

Dermatobia hominis is the most common causative organism for furuncular myiasis in the regions of the Americas. Patients typically present with 1 lesion on an exposed part of the body (eg, scalp, face, extremities). The lesions typically contain a central pore with purulent or serosanguinous exudate.¹ Upon dermatoscopic inspection, one can often see the posterior part of the larva or the respiratory spiracles, which look like tiny black dots on the surface of the wound. The organism may also be indirectly viewed through respiratory bubble formation within the exudate.^1,2 Diagnosis is confirmed by extracting the larvae from the wound and having the species identified by an experienced pathologist or parasitologist.

Mode of transmission

Phoresis is the name of the process by which Dermatobia hominis invades the skin.³ The female fly lays her eggs onto captured mosquitos using a quick-drying adhesive. The eggs are then transferred to the host by a mosquito bite. The host’s body heat induces egg hatching, and the larvae burrow into follicular openings or skin perforations. This leads to the development of a small erythematous papule, which can further lead to a furuncle-like nodule with a central pore that allows the organism to respirate. When ready to pupate, the larvae work their way to the skin surface and drop to the soil, where they can further develop. After pupation, the fly hatches and develops into an adult, and the cycle repeats.

Common infectious and inflammatory lesions are in the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis includes bacterial abscess, exaggerated arthropod reaction, and ruptured epidermal cyst. With our patient, the travel history and unique exam findings led to the suspicion of myiasis.

Bacterial abscess is likely to have more notable purulence with response to appropriate oral antibiotics and no bubbling phenomenon on exam. It is also unlikely to be present for 1 month without progressive worsening.

Continue to: Exaggerated arthropod reaction

Exaggerated arthropod reaction usually manifests as a smooth, red, papular lesion without bubble formation from a central pore.

Ruptured epidermal cyst would be considered if there was a known preexisting cyst that recently changed. No bubble formation would be observed from the central pore.

Extraction is the treatment of choice

Treatment of furuncular myiasis involves removing the larvae or forcing them out of the lesion. Wounds can be covered with a substance, such as petrolatum, nail polish, beeswax, paraffin, or mineral oil, to block respiration.³ Occlusion may be needed for 24 hours to create adequate localized hypoxia to force the larvae to migrate from the wound and allow for easier manual extraction. Surgical removal of the larvae is also effective. A cruciate incision can be made adjacent to the central pore to avoid damaging the organisms.³ A topical, broad-based antiparasitic, such as a 10% ivermectin solution, has also been successfully used to treat furuncular myiasis. This approach works by either inducing larval migration outward or simply killing the larvae.³

Our patient recovered well after we performed a punch biopsy to make a larger wound opening and remove the intact larvae.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Richard Pollack, PhD, at IdentifyUS, LLC, for providing the botfly larvae photo.

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

Continue to: We developed and piloted...

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Continue to: Efficiency and competing priorities

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“ Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“ [Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

Continue to: A minority of staff...

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Continue to: Almost all respondents...

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male-­dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries.¹⁹ Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.

Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs.^8,24 However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE
Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

Continue to: We developed and piloted...

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Continue to: Efficiency and competing priorities

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“ Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“ [Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

Continue to: A minority of staff...

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Continue to: Almost all respondents...

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male-­dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries.¹⁹ Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.

Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs.^8,24 However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE
Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

Continue to: We developed and piloted...

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Continue to: Efficiency and competing priorities

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“ Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“ [Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

Continue to: A minority of staff...

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Continue to: Almost all respondents...

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male-­dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries.¹⁹ Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.

Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs.^8,24 However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE
Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]