User login
A case-based framework for de-escalating conflict
Hospital medicine can be a demanding and fast-paced environment where resources are stretched thin, with both clinicians and patients stressed. A hospitalist’s role is dynamic, serving as an advocate, leader, or role model while working with interdisciplinary and diverse teams for the welfare of the patient. This constellation of pressures makes a degree of conflict inevitable.
Often, an unexpected scenario can render the hospitalist uncertain and yet the hospitalist’s response can escalate or deescalate conflict. The multiple roles that a hospitalist represents may buckle to the single role of advocating for themselves, a colleague, or a patient in a tense scenario. When this happens, many hospitalists feel disempowered to respond.
De-escalation is a practical skill that involves being calm, respectful, and open minded toward the other person, while also maintaining boundaries. Here we provide case-based tips and skills that highlight the role for de-escalation.
Questions to ask yourself in midst of conflict:
- How did the problematic behavior make you feel?
- What will be your approach in handling this?
- When should you address this?
- What is the outcome you are hoping to achieve?
- What is the outcome the other person is hoping to achieve?
Case 1
There is a female physician rounding with your team. Introductions were made at the start of a patient encounter. The patient repeatedly calls the female physician by her first name and refers to a male colleague as “doctor.”
Commentary: This scenario is commonly encountered by women who are physicians. They may be mistaken for the nurse, a technician, or a housekeeper. This exacerbates inequality and impostor syndrome as women can feel unheard, undervalued, and not recognized for their expertise and achievements. It can be challenging for a woman to reaffirm herself as she worries that the patient will not respect her or will think that she is being aggressive.
Approach: It is vital to interject by firmly reintroducing the female physician by her correct title. If you are the subject of this scenario, you may interject by firmly reintroducing yourself. If the patient or a colleague continues to refer to her by her first name, it is appropriate to say, “Please call her Dr. XYZ.” There is likely another female colleague or trainee nearby that will view this scenario as a model for setting boundaries.
To prevent similar future situations, consistently refer to all peers by their title in front of patients and peers in all professional settings (such as lectures, luncheons, etc.) to establish this as a cultural norm. Also, utilize hospital badges that clearly display roles in large letters.
Case 2
During sign out from a colleague, the colleague repeatedly refers to a patient hospitalized with sickle cell disease as a “frequent flyer” and “drug seeker,” and then remarks, “you know how these patients are.”
Commentary: A situation like this raises concerns about bias and stereotyping. Everyone has implicit bias. Recognizing and acknowledging when implicit bias affects objectivity in patient care is vital to providing appropriate care. It can be intimidating to broach this subject with a colleague as it may cause the colleague to become defensive and uncomfortable as revealing another person’s bias can be difficult. But physicians owe it to a patient’s wellbeing to remain objective and to prevent future colleagues from providing subpar care as a result.
Approach: In this case, saying, “Sometimes my previous experiences can affect my thinking. Will you explain what behaviors the patient has shown this admission that are concerning to you? This will allow me to grasp the complexity of the situation.” Another strategy is to share that there are new recommendations for how to use language about patients with sickle cell disease and patients who require opioids as a part of their treatment plan. Your hospitalist group could have a journal club on how bias affects patients and about the best practices in the care of people with sickle cell disease. A next step could be to build a quality improvement project to review the care of patients hospitalized for sickle cell disease or opioid use.
Case 3
You are conducting bedside rounds with your team. Your intern, a person of color, begins to present. The patient interjects by requesting that the intern leave as he “does not want a foreigner taking care” of him.
Commentary: Requests like this can be shocking. The team leader has a responsibility to immediately act to ensure the psychological safety of the team. Ideally, your response should set firm boundaries and expectations that support the learner as a valued and respected clinician and allow the intern to complete the presentation. In this scenario, regardless of the response the patient takes, it is vital to maintain a safe environment for the trainee. It is crucial to debrief with the team immediately after as an exchange of thoughts and emotions in a safe space can allow for everyone to feel welcome. Additionally, this debrief can provide insights to the team leader of how to address similar situations in the future. The opportunity to allow the intern to no longer follow the patient should be offered, and if the intern opts to no longer follow the patient, accommodations should be made.
Approach: “This physician is a member of the medical team, and we are all working together to provide you with the best care. Everyone on this team is an equal. We value diversity of our team members as it allows us to take care of all our patients. We respect you and expect respect for each member of the team. If you feel that you are unable to respect our team members right now, we will leave for now and return later.” To ensure the patient is provided with appropriate care, be sure to debrief with the patient’s nurse.
Conclusion
These scenarios represent some of the many complex interpersonal challenges hospitalists encounter. These approaches are suggestions that are open to improvement as de-escalation of a conflict is a critical and evolving skill and practice.
For more tips on managing conflict, consider reading “Crucial Conversations” by Kerry Patterson and colleagues. These skills can provide the tools we need to recenter ourselves when we are in the midst of these challenging situations.
Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Ashford is assistant professor and program director in the department of internal medicine/pediatrics at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. Dr. Lee and Dr. Barrett are based in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque. This article is sponsored by the SHM Physicians in Training (PIT) committee, which submits quarterly content to The Hospitalist on topics relevant to trainees and early career hospitalists.
Hospital medicine can be a demanding and fast-paced environment where resources are stretched thin, with both clinicians and patients stressed. A hospitalist’s role is dynamic, serving as an advocate, leader, or role model while working with interdisciplinary and diverse teams for the welfare of the patient. This constellation of pressures makes a degree of conflict inevitable.
Often, an unexpected scenario can render the hospitalist uncertain and yet the hospitalist’s response can escalate or deescalate conflict. The multiple roles that a hospitalist represents may buckle to the single role of advocating for themselves, a colleague, or a patient in a tense scenario. When this happens, many hospitalists feel disempowered to respond.
De-escalation is a practical skill that involves being calm, respectful, and open minded toward the other person, while also maintaining boundaries. Here we provide case-based tips and skills that highlight the role for de-escalation.
Questions to ask yourself in midst of conflict:
- How did the problematic behavior make you feel?
- What will be your approach in handling this?
- When should you address this?
- What is the outcome you are hoping to achieve?
- What is the outcome the other person is hoping to achieve?
Case 1
There is a female physician rounding with your team. Introductions were made at the start of a patient encounter. The patient repeatedly calls the female physician by her first name and refers to a male colleague as “doctor.”
Commentary: This scenario is commonly encountered by women who are physicians. They may be mistaken for the nurse, a technician, or a housekeeper. This exacerbates inequality and impostor syndrome as women can feel unheard, undervalued, and not recognized for their expertise and achievements. It can be challenging for a woman to reaffirm herself as she worries that the patient will not respect her or will think that she is being aggressive.
Approach: It is vital to interject by firmly reintroducing the female physician by her correct title. If you are the subject of this scenario, you may interject by firmly reintroducing yourself. If the patient or a colleague continues to refer to her by her first name, it is appropriate to say, “Please call her Dr. XYZ.” There is likely another female colleague or trainee nearby that will view this scenario as a model for setting boundaries.
To prevent similar future situations, consistently refer to all peers by their title in front of patients and peers in all professional settings (such as lectures, luncheons, etc.) to establish this as a cultural norm. Also, utilize hospital badges that clearly display roles in large letters.
Case 2
During sign out from a colleague, the colleague repeatedly refers to a patient hospitalized with sickle cell disease as a “frequent flyer” and “drug seeker,” and then remarks, “you know how these patients are.”
Commentary: A situation like this raises concerns about bias and stereotyping. Everyone has implicit bias. Recognizing and acknowledging when implicit bias affects objectivity in patient care is vital to providing appropriate care. It can be intimidating to broach this subject with a colleague as it may cause the colleague to become defensive and uncomfortable as revealing another person’s bias can be difficult. But physicians owe it to a patient’s wellbeing to remain objective and to prevent future colleagues from providing subpar care as a result.
Approach: In this case, saying, “Sometimes my previous experiences can affect my thinking. Will you explain what behaviors the patient has shown this admission that are concerning to you? This will allow me to grasp the complexity of the situation.” Another strategy is to share that there are new recommendations for how to use language about patients with sickle cell disease and patients who require opioids as a part of their treatment plan. Your hospitalist group could have a journal club on how bias affects patients and about the best practices in the care of people with sickle cell disease. A next step could be to build a quality improvement project to review the care of patients hospitalized for sickle cell disease or opioid use.
Case 3
You are conducting bedside rounds with your team. Your intern, a person of color, begins to present. The patient interjects by requesting that the intern leave as he “does not want a foreigner taking care” of him.
Commentary: Requests like this can be shocking. The team leader has a responsibility to immediately act to ensure the psychological safety of the team. Ideally, your response should set firm boundaries and expectations that support the learner as a valued and respected clinician and allow the intern to complete the presentation. In this scenario, regardless of the response the patient takes, it is vital to maintain a safe environment for the trainee. It is crucial to debrief with the team immediately after as an exchange of thoughts and emotions in a safe space can allow for everyone to feel welcome. Additionally, this debrief can provide insights to the team leader of how to address similar situations in the future. The opportunity to allow the intern to no longer follow the patient should be offered, and if the intern opts to no longer follow the patient, accommodations should be made.
Approach: “This physician is a member of the medical team, and we are all working together to provide you with the best care. Everyone on this team is an equal. We value diversity of our team members as it allows us to take care of all our patients. We respect you and expect respect for each member of the team. If you feel that you are unable to respect our team members right now, we will leave for now and return later.” To ensure the patient is provided with appropriate care, be sure to debrief with the patient’s nurse.
Conclusion
These scenarios represent some of the many complex interpersonal challenges hospitalists encounter. These approaches are suggestions that are open to improvement as de-escalation of a conflict is a critical and evolving skill and practice.
For more tips on managing conflict, consider reading “Crucial Conversations” by Kerry Patterson and colleagues. These skills can provide the tools we need to recenter ourselves when we are in the midst of these challenging situations.
Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Ashford is assistant professor and program director in the department of internal medicine/pediatrics at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. Dr. Lee and Dr. Barrett are based in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque. This article is sponsored by the SHM Physicians in Training (PIT) committee, which submits quarterly content to The Hospitalist on topics relevant to trainees and early career hospitalists.
Hospital medicine can be a demanding and fast-paced environment where resources are stretched thin, with both clinicians and patients stressed. A hospitalist’s role is dynamic, serving as an advocate, leader, or role model while working with interdisciplinary and diverse teams for the welfare of the patient. This constellation of pressures makes a degree of conflict inevitable.
Often, an unexpected scenario can render the hospitalist uncertain and yet the hospitalist’s response can escalate or deescalate conflict. The multiple roles that a hospitalist represents may buckle to the single role of advocating for themselves, a colleague, or a patient in a tense scenario. When this happens, many hospitalists feel disempowered to respond.
De-escalation is a practical skill that involves being calm, respectful, and open minded toward the other person, while also maintaining boundaries. Here we provide case-based tips and skills that highlight the role for de-escalation.
Questions to ask yourself in midst of conflict:
- How did the problematic behavior make you feel?
- What will be your approach in handling this?
- When should you address this?
- What is the outcome you are hoping to achieve?
- What is the outcome the other person is hoping to achieve?
Case 1
There is a female physician rounding with your team. Introductions were made at the start of a patient encounter. The patient repeatedly calls the female physician by her first name and refers to a male colleague as “doctor.”
Commentary: This scenario is commonly encountered by women who are physicians. They may be mistaken for the nurse, a technician, or a housekeeper. This exacerbates inequality and impostor syndrome as women can feel unheard, undervalued, and not recognized for their expertise and achievements. It can be challenging for a woman to reaffirm herself as she worries that the patient will not respect her or will think that she is being aggressive.
Approach: It is vital to interject by firmly reintroducing the female physician by her correct title. If you are the subject of this scenario, you may interject by firmly reintroducing yourself. If the patient or a colleague continues to refer to her by her first name, it is appropriate to say, “Please call her Dr. XYZ.” There is likely another female colleague or trainee nearby that will view this scenario as a model for setting boundaries.
To prevent similar future situations, consistently refer to all peers by their title in front of patients and peers in all professional settings (such as lectures, luncheons, etc.) to establish this as a cultural norm. Also, utilize hospital badges that clearly display roles in large letters.
Case 2
During sign out from a colleague, the colleague repeatedly refers to a patient hospitalized with sickle cell disease as a “frequent flyer” and “drug seeker,” and then remarks, “you know how these patients are.”
Commentary: A situation like this raises concerns about bias and stereotyping. Everyone has implicit bias. Recognizing and acknowledging when implicit bias affects objectivity in patient care is vital to providing appropriate care. It can be intimidating to broach this subject with a colleague as it may cause the colleague to become defensive and uncomfortable as revealing another person’s bias can be difficult. But physicians owe it to a patient’s wellbeing to remain objective and to prevent future colleagues from providing subpar care as a result.
Approach: In this case, saying, “Sometimes my previous experiences can affect my thinking. Will you explain what behaviors the patient has shown this admission that are concerning to you? This will allow me to grasp the complexity of the situation.” Another strategy is to share that there are new recommendations for how to use language about patients with sickle cell disease and patients who require opioids as a part of their treatment plan. Your hospitalist group could have a journal club on how bias affects patients and about the best practices in the care of people with sickle cell disease. A next step could be to build a quality improvement project to review the care of patients hospitalized for sickle cell disease or opioid use.
Case 3
You are conducting bedside rounds with your team. Your intern, a person of color, begins to present. The patient interjects by requesting that the intern leave as he “does not want a foreigner taking care” of him.
Commentary: Requests like this can be shocking. The team leader has a responsibility to immediately act to ensure the psychological safety of the team. Ideally, your response should set firm boundaries and expectations that support the learner as a valued and respected clinician and allow the intern to complete the presentation. In this scenario, regardless of the response the patient takes, it is vital to maintain a safe environment for the trainee. It is crucial to debrief with the team immediately after as an exchange of thoughts and emotions in a safe space can allow for everyone to feel welcome. Additionally, this debrief can provide insights to the team leader of how to address similar situations in the future. The opportunity to allow the intern to no longer follow the patient should be offered, and if the intern opts to no longer follow the patient, accommodations should be made.
Approach: “This physician is a member of the medical team, and we are all working together to provide you with the best care. Everyone on this team is an equal. We value diversity of our team members as it allows us to take care of all our patients. We respect you and expect respect for each member of the team. If you feel that you are unable to respect our team members right now, we will leave for now and return later.” To ensure the patient is provided with appropriate care, be sure to debrief with the patient’s nurse.
Conclusion
These scenarios represent some of the many complex interpersonal challenges hospitalists encounter. These approaches are suggestions that are open to improvement as de-escalation of a conflict is a critical and evolving skill and practice.
For more tips on managing conflict, consider reading “Crucial Conversations” by Kerry Patterson and colleagues. These skills can provide the tools we need to recenter ourselves when we are in the midst of these challenging situations.
Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Ashford is assistant professor and program director in the department of internal medicine/pediatrics at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. Dr. Lee and Dr. Barrett are based in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque. This article is sponsored by the SHM Physicians in Training (PIT) committee, which submits quarterly content to The Hospitalist on topics relevant to trainees and early career hospitalists.
Acid series: Azelaic acid
However, it has many positive qualities, including being gentle enough to use daily and is safe to use in pregnancy. It is antibacterial, comedolytic, keratolytic, and has antioxidant activity. Unfortunately, in the last decade the formulations of azelaic acid have not been changed considerably. The 20% cream, 15% gel, and 15% foam vehicles are often too irritating and drying to be used in the population it is intended for: those with rosacea, or with inflamed or sensitive skin.
Azelaic acid is a dicarboxylic acid produced by Pityrosporum ovale. It inhibits the synthesis of cellular proteins and is bactericidal against Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Azelaic acid is both keratolytic and comedolytic by decreasing keratohyalin granules and reducing filaggrin in the epidermis. It not only scavenges free oxygen radicals, thereby reducing inflammation, but is also a tyrosinase inhibitor – making it a safe, non–hydroquinone-based alternative to skin lightening.
Azelaic acid has little toxicity, it is ingested regularly as it is found in wheat, barley, and rye. Topical side effects are usually mild and can subside with increased use. The most common side effects include erythema, local stinging, pruritus, scaling, and a burning sensation. It is considered safe in pregnancy and a great alternative to medications for acne in pregnant or nursing patients.
The largest constraint with azelaic acid preparations on the market – and most likely the reason it has not been more widely used for acne, rosacea, antiaging, and hyperpigmentation – is the formulation. The foam and gel preparations are irritating and difficult to use on dry or sensitive skin. The 20% cream preparations are slightly better tolerated; however, in vitro skin-penetration studies have shown that cutaneous penetration of azelaic acid is greater after application of a 15% gel (aqueous-based vehicle) and 15% foam (hydrophilic oil-in-water emulsion) as compared with the 20% cream formulations.
In my clinical experience, azelaic acid can only be used in rosacea patients with oily or nonsensitive skin. The majority of my rosacea patients cannot tolerate the burning sensation, albeit transient and mild. Acne patients who do not have dry skin and pregnant patients with mild acne are a great population for integrating azelaic acid into an acne regimen. I also use azelaic acid as an alternative for mild melasma and lentigines in patients who are tapering off hydroquinone or cannot use hydroquinone. In the future, we need better, creamier, nonirritating formulations to be developed and more studies of higher concentrations of this acid for both prescription/patient at-home use, as well as more elegant in-office localized peel systems using azelaic acid.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Fitton A and Goa KL. Drugs. 1991 May;41(5):780-98.
Del Rosso JQ. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2017 Mar;10(3):37-40.
Breathnach AC et al. Clin Dermatol. Apr-Jun 1989;7(2):106-19.
However, it has many positive qualities, including being gentle enough to use daily and is safe to use in pregnancy. It is antibacterial, comedolytic, keratolytic, and has antioxidant activity. Unfortunately, in the last decade the formulations of azelaic acid have not been changed considerably. The 20% cream, 15% gel, and 15% foam vehicles are often too irritating and drying to be used in the population it is intended for: those with rosacea, or with inflamed or sensitive skin.
Azelaic acid is a dicarboxylic acid produced by Pityrosporum ovale. It inhibits the synthesis of cellular proteins and is bactericidal against Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Azelaic acid is both keratolytic and comedolytic by decreasing keratohyalin granules and reducing filaggrin in the epidermis. It not only scavenges free oxygen radicals, thereby reducing inflammation, but is also a tyrosinase inhibitor – making it a safe, non–hydroquinone-based alternative to skin lightening.
Azelaic acid has little toxicity, it is ingested regularly as it is found in wheat, barley, and rye. Topical side effects are usually mild and can subside with increased use. The most common side effects include erythema, local stinging, pruritus, scaling, and a burning sensation. It is considered safe in pregnancy and a great alternative to medications for acne in pregnant or nursing patients.
The largest constraint with azelaic acid preparations on the market – and most likely the reason it has not been more widely used for acne, rosacea, antiaging, and hyperpigmentation – is the formulation. The foam and gel preparations are irritating and difficult to use on dry or sensitive skin. The 20% cream preparations are slightly better tolerated; however, in vitro skin-penetration studies have shown that cutaneous penetration of azelaic acid is greater after application of a 15% gel (aqueous-based vehicle) and 15% foam (hydrophilic oil-in-water emulsion) as compared with the 20% cream formulations.
In my clinical experience, azelaic acid can only be used in rosacea patients with oily or nonsensitive skin. The majority of my rosacea patients cannot tolerate the burning sensation, albeit transient and mild. Acne patients who do not have dry skin and pregnant patients with mild acne are a great population for integrating azelaic acid into an acne regimen. I also use azelaic acid as an alternative for mild melasma and lentigines in patients who are tapering off hydroquinone or cannot use hydroquinone. In the future, we need better, creamier, nonirritating formulations to be developed and more studies of higher concentrations of this acid for both prescription/patient at-home use, as well as more elegant in-office localized peel systems using azelaic acid.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Fitton A and Goa KL. Drugs. 1991 May;41(5):780-98.
Del Rosso JQ. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2017 Mar;10(3):37-40.
Breathnach AC et al. Clin Dermatol. Apr-Jun 1989;7(2):106-19.
However, it has many positive qualities, including being gentle enough to use daily and is safe to use in pregnancy. It is antibacterial, comedolytic, keratolytic, and has antioxidant activity. Unfortunately, in the last decade the formulations of azelaic acid have not been changed considerably. The 20% cream, 15% gel, and 15% foam vehicles are often too irritating and drying to be used in the population it is intended for: those with rosacea, or with inflamed or sensitive skin.
Azelaic acid is a dicarboxylic acid produced by Pityrosporum ovale. It inhibits the synthesis of cellular proteins and is bactericidal against Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Azelaic acid is both keratolytic and comedolytic by decreasing keratohyalin granules and reducing filaggrin in the epidermis. It not only scavenges free oxygen radicals, thereby reducing inflammation, but is also a tyrosinase inhibitor – making it a safe, non–hydroquinone-based alternative to skin lightening.
Azelaic acid has little toxicity, it is ingested regularly as it is found in wheat, barley, and rye. Topical side effects are usually mild and can subside with increased use. The most common side effects include erythema, local stinging, pruritus, scaling, and a burning sensation. It is considered safe in pregnancy and a great alternative to medications for acne in pregnant or nursing patients.
The largest constraint with azelaic acid preparations on the market – and most likely the reason it has not been more widely used for acne, rosacea, antiaging, and hyperpigmentation – is the formulation. The foam and gel preparations are irritating and difficult to use on dry or sensitive skin. The 20% cream preparations are slightly better tolerated; however, in vitro skin-penetration studies have shown that cutaneous penetration of azelaic acid is greater after application of a 15% gel (aqueous-based vehicle) and 15% foam (hydrophilic oil-in-water emulsion) as compared with the 20% cream formulations.
In my clinical experience, azelaic acid can only be used in rosacea patients with oily or nonsensitive skin. The majority of my rosacea patients cannot tolerate the burning sensation, albeit transient and mild. Acne patients who do not have dry skin and pregnant patients with mild acne are a great population for integrating azelaic acid into an acne regimen. I also use azelaic acid as an alternative for mild melasma and lentigines in patients who are tapering off hydroquinone or cannot use hydroquinone. In the future, we need better, creamier, nonirritating formulations to be developed and more studies of higher concentrations of this acid for both prescription/patient at-home use, as well as more elegant in-office localized peel systems using azelaic acid.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Fitton A and Goa KL. Drugs. 1991 May;41(5):780-98.
Del Rosso JQ. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2017 Mar;10(3):37-40.
Breathnach AC et al. Clin Dermatol. Apr-Jun 1989;7(2):106-19.
Booster recommendations for pregnant women, teens, and other groups explained
These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.
The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.
The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.1
But what about a fourth dose? There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one. For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series. This distinction may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.
Boosters in women who are pregnant
The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,2 along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.
The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.3
I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years
Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.
Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.1
Booster brand for those over 18 years?
Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.
The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
Take home message
Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.
2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.
3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.
These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.
The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.
The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.1
But what about a fourth dose? There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one. For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series. This distinction may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.
Boosters in women who are pregnant
The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,2 along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.
The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.3
I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years
Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.
Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.1
Booster brand for those over 18 years?
Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.
The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
Take home message
Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.
2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.
3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.
These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.
The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.
The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.1
But what about a fourth dose? There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one. For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series. This distinction may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.
Boosters in women who are pregnant
The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,2 along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.
The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.3
I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years
Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.
Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.1
Booster brand for those over 18 years?
Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.
The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
Take home message
Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.
2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.
3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.
Moisturizers and skin barrier repair
There are dozens of skin care products that claim to repair the barrier that do not have the science or ingredient content to back them up.
Does a skin barrier repair moisturizer really repair?
First, let’s briefly review what the skin barrier is. The stratum corneum (SC), the most superficial layer of the epidermis, averages approximately 15-cell layers in thickness.1,2 The keratinocytes reside there in a pattern resembling a brick wall. The “mortar” is composed of the lipid contents extruded from the lamellar granules. This protective barrier functions to prevent transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and entry of allergens, irritants, and pathogens into deeper layers of the skin. This column will focus briefly on the structure and function of the skin barrier and the barrier repair technologies that use synthetic lipids such as myristoyl-palmitoyl and myristyl/palmityl-oxo-stearamide/arachamide MEA.
Structure of the skin barrier
SC keratinocytes are surrounded by lamella made from lipid bilayers. The lipids have hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails; the bilayer arises when the hydrophobic tails face the center and the hydrophilic heads face out of the bilayer. This formation yields a disc-shaped hydrophobic lamellar center. There are actually several of these lamellar layers between keratinocytes.
The naturally occurring primary lipids of the bilayer lamellae are made up of an equal ratio of ceramides, cholesterol, and free fatty acid. Arranged in a 1:1:1 ratio, they fit together like pieces of a puzzle to achieve skin barrier homeostasis. The shape and size of these puzzle pieces is critical. An incorrect shape results in a hole in the skin barrier resulting in dehydration, inflammation, and sensitivity.
Ceramides
Ceramides are a complex family of lipids (sphingolipids – a sphingoid base and a fatty acid) involved in cell, as well as barrier, homeostasis and water-holding capacity. In fact, they are known to play a crucial role in cell proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis.3 There are at least 16 types of naturally occurring ceramides. For years, they have been included in barrier repair moisturizers. They are difficult to work with in moisturizers for several reasons:
- Ceramides are abundant in brain tissue and the ceramides used in moisturizers in the past were derived from bovine brain tissue. Prior to the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), many ceramides in skin-care products were animal derived, which made them expensive and undesirable.
- Ceramides in skin care that are made from plant sources are referred to as phyto-derived ceramides. Although they share a similar structure with ceramides that occur in human skin, there are differences in chain length, hydroxylation pattern, and the degree of unsaturation that lead to structural diversity.4 The shape of ceramides is critical for a strong skin barrier because the lipids in the skin barrier must fit together like puzzle pieces to form a water-tight barrier. Natural sources of ceramides include rice, wheat, potato, konjac, and maize. Standardization of ceramide shape and structure makes using phyto-derived ceramides in skin care products challenging.
- Ceramides, because of their waxy consistency, require heat during the mixing process of skin care product manufacturing. This heat can make other ingredients inactive in the skin care formulation. (Ceramides are typically added early in the formulation process, and the heat-sensitive ones are added later.)
- Many forms of ceramides are unstable in the product manufacturing and bottling processes.
- Skin penetration of ceramides depends on the shape and size of ceramides.
Synthetic ceramides have been developed to make ceramides safe, affordable, and more easily formulated into moisturizers. These formulations synthesized in the lab are sometimes called pseudoceramides because they are structurally different compounds that mimic the activity of ceramides. They are developed to be less expensive to manufacture, safer than those derived from animals, and easier to formulate, and they can be made into the specific shape of the ceramide puzzle piece.
Ceramides in skin care
The naturally occurring intercellular lipids of the SC are composed of approximately equal proportions of ceramides, cholesterol, and fatty acids (referred to in this article as the “three barrier lipids” for simplicity).5-9 Alterations in any of these three barrier lipids or their regulatory enzymes result in impairments in the function of the epidermal barrier. Therefore, any synthetic ceramide must mimic the shape of natural ceramides, or the three barrier lipids in the moisturizer must mimic the shape of the entire bilayer lamella. Unfortunately, most barrier repair moisturizers do not meet these criteria and are not true barrier repair moisturizers.
How do you know if a moisturizer repairs the skin barrier?
Clinical tests such as measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) with a Tewameter are usually done to support the barrier repair claim. However, occlusive ingredients like oils can lower TEWL without affecting the barrier. In fact, we believe that sebum on the skin can make an impaired barrier and result in normal TEWL even when the barrier is impaired. So, just because a product improved TEWL does not necessarily mean that it repairs the barrier.
One way to test the ability of a moisturizer to repair the barrier is to look at a structural analysis of the moisturizer to see if it forms the requisite bilayer lamellar shape. An easy way to do this testing is to look for the cross pattern under a cross polarized microscope. The cross pattern is known as optical anisotropy. 8
The best barrier repair creams
Optimal barrier repair creams either feature a 1:1:1 ratio of epidermal lipids or form a cross structure when viewed with a cross-polarized microscope.8 There are several categories of barrier repair moisturizers that meet these criteria.
Barrier repair creams with a 1:1:1 ratio of lipids:
Peter Elias, MD, holds the patent on barrier repair moisturizer technology that has a 1:1:1 ratio. His well-established technology is used in a prescription barrier repair cream called EpiCeram® which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat eczema. There are no other moisturizers that I know of that contain this 1:1:1 lipid ratio.
There is a barrier repair cream on the market that contains a 2:4:2 ratio of lipids based on a study that showed that this ratio is effective in older skin with an impaired barrier. It is unknown if this moisturizer forms a cross pattern.
Barrier repair creams that demonstrate a cross pattern:
Multilamellar emulsion (MLE) technology: This barrier repair technology, invented in South Korea, contains the synthetic pseudoceramide called myristyl/palmityl-oxo-stearamide/arachamide MEA (C34H67NO3/C36H71NO3/C38H75NO3), or the pseudoceramide myristoyl-palmitoyl-oxostearamide-arachamide MEA.
In a 2019 pilot study by Ye and colleagues, the investigators treated 33 older volunteers twice daily for 30 days with approximately 3 mL of an emollient containing MLE technology. In addition, 30 untreated older subjects and 11 young volunteers served as controls. The investigators found that the topically applied barrier repair emollient significantly improved barrier function, as well as stratum corneum hydration. Circulating levels of the important, age-related plasma cytokines interleukin-1 beta and IL-6 were found to have normalized, while tumor necrosis factor–alpha decreased markedly. The investigators suggested that repair of the skin barrier might diminish circulating proinflammatory cytokine levels (such as amyloid A) in aged humans, potentially mitigating the development of chronic inflammatory conditions.10
MLE technology has also been shown to improve childhood atopic dermatitis and prevent steroid atrophy.11,12 The consistent use of MLE technology in moisturizers has been shown to alleviate inflammatory factors in the blood and is believed to lessen systemic inflammation.10
Physiologic (PSL) lipid repair technology: This technology was invented by one of the South Korean researchers who helped develop MLE technology. It contains pseudoceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol. The figure of the cross pattern above, as seen under the cross polarized microscope, is an image taken of this PSL lipid repair technology.
Conclusion
Do not believe that a moisturizer repairs the barrier just because it says so on the label. Three of the most popular body moisturizes used to treat eczema do not actually have the proper formula to repair the barrier. Unfortunately, there are dozens of skin care products that claim to repair the barrier that do not have the science or ingredient content to back them up. To restore the skin barrier to a healthy condition, it is imperative that the barrier repair moisturizers that you are recommending for patients have the correct 1:1:1 ratio of epidermal lipids or contain bilayer lamella that mimic the natural multilamellar layers and display the cross pattern under a cross-polarized microscope.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Christophers E and Kligman AM. J Invest Dermatol. 1964;42:407-9.
2. Blair C. Br J Dermatol. 1968;80(7):430-6.
3. Morita O et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009 Apr;47(4):681-6.
4. Tessema E N et al. Skin pharmacology and physiology. 2017;30(3):115-38.
5. Coderch L et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4(2):107-29.
6. Man MQ et al. Arch Dermatol. 1993;129(6):728-38.
7. Man MQ M et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1996 May;106(5):1096-101.
8. Park BD et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;121(4):794-801.
9. Proksch E and Jensen J. Skin as an organ of protection, in “Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine,” 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008, pp. 383-95.
10. Ye L et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(11):2197-201.
11. Lee EJ et al. Ann Dermatol. 2003;15(4):133-8.
12. Ahn SK et al. J Dermatol. 2006;33(2):80-90.
There are dozens of skin care products that claim to repair the barrier that do not have the science or ingredient content to back them up.
Does a skin barrier repair moisturizer really repair?
First, let’s briefly review what the skin barrier is. The stratum corneum (SC), the most superficial layer of the epidermis, averages approximately 15-cell layers in thickness.1,2 The keratinocytes reside there in a pattern resembling a brick wall. The “mortar” is composed of the lipid contents extruded from the lamellar granules. This protective barrier functions to prevent transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and entry of allergens, irritants, and pathogens into deeper layers of the skin. This column will focus briefly on the structure and function of the skin barrier and the barrier repair technologies that use synthetic lipids such as myristoyl-palmitoyl and myristyl/palmityl-oxo-stearamide/arachamide MEA.
Structure of the skin barrier
SC keratinocytes are surrounded by lamella made from lipid bilayers. The lipids have hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails; the bilayer arises when the hydrophobic tails face the center and the hydrophilic heads face out of the bilayer. This formation yields a disc-shaped hydrophobic lamellar center. There are actually several of these lamellar layers between keratinocytes.
The naturally occurring primary lipids of the bilayer lamellae are made up of an equal ratio of ceramides, cholesterol, and free fatty acid. Arranged in a 1:1:1 ratio, they fit together like pieces of a puzzle to achieve skin barrier homeostasis. The shape and size of these puzzle pieces is critical. An incorrect shape results in a hole in the skin barrier resulting in dehydration, inflammation, and sensitivity.
Ceramides
Ceramides are a complex family of lipids (sphingolipids – a sphingoid base and a fatty acid) involved in cell, as well as barrier, homeostasis and water-holding capacity. In fact, they are known to play a crucial role in cell proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis.3 There are at least 16 types of naturally occurring ceramides. For years, they have been included in barrier repair moisturizers. They are difficult to work with in moisturizers for several reasons:
- Ceramides are abundant in brain tissue and the ceramides used in moisturizers in the past were derived from bovine brain tissue. Prior to the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), many ceramides in skin-care products were animal derived, which made them expensive and undesirable.
- Ceramides in skin care that are made from plant sources are referred to as phyto-derived ceramides. Although they share a similar structure with ceramides that occur in human skin, there are differences in chain length, hydroxylation pattern, and the degree of unsaturation that lead to structural diversity.4 The shape of ceramides is critical for a strong skin barrier because the lipids in the skin barrier must fit together like puzzle pieces to form a water-tight barrier. Natural sources of ceramides include rice, wheat, potato, konjac, and maize. Standardization of ceramide shape and structure makes using phyto-derived ceramides in skin care products challenging.
- Ceramides, because of their waxy consistency, require heat during the mixing process of skin care product manufacturing. This heat can make other ingredients inactive in the skin care formulation. (Ceramides are typically added early in the formulation process, and the heat-sensitive ones are added later.)
- Many forms of ceramides are unstable in the product manufacturing and bottling processes.
- Skin penetration of ceramides depends on the shape and size of ceramides.
Synthetic ceramides have been developed to make ceramides safe, affordable, and more easily formulated into moisturizers. These formulations synthesized in the lab are sometimes called pseudoceramides because they are structurally different compounds that mimic the activity of ceramides. They are developed to be less expensive to manufacture, safer than those derived from animals, and easier to formulate, and they can be made into the specific shape of the ceramide puzzle piece.
Ceramides in skin care
The naturally occurring intercellular lipids of the SC are composed of approximately equal proportions of ceramides, cholesterol, and fatty acids (referred to in this article as the “three barrier lipids” for simplicity).5-9 Alterations in any of these three barrier lipids or their regulatory enzymes result in impairments in the function of the epidermal barrier. Therefore, any synthetic ceramide must mimic the shape of natural ceramides, or the three barrier lipids in the moisturizer must mimic the shape of the entire bilayer lamella. Unfortunately, most barrier repair moisturizers do not meet these criteria and are not true barrier repair moisturizers.
How do you know if a moisturizer repairs the skin barrier?
Clinical tests such as measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) with a Tewameter are usually done to support the barrier repair claim. However, occlusive ingredients like oils can lower TEWL without affecting the barrier. In fact, we believe that sebum on the skin can make an impaired barrier and result in normal TEWL even when the barrier is impaired. So, just because a product improved TEWL does not necessarily mean that it repairs the barrier.
One way to test the ability of a moisturizer to repair the barrier is to look at a structural analysis of the moisturizer to see if it forms the requisite bilayer lamellar shape. An easy way to do this testing is to look for the cross pattern under a cross polarized microscope. The cross pattern is known as optical anisotropy. 8
The best barrier repair creams
Optimal barrier repair creams either feature a 1:1:1 ratio of epidermal lipids or form a cross structure when viewed with a cross-polarized microscope.8 There are several categories of barrier repair moisturizers that meet these criteria.
Barrier repair creams with a 1:1:1 ratio of lipids:
Peter Elias, MD, holds the patent on barrier repair moisturizer technology that has a 1:1:1 ratio. His well-established technology is used in a prescription barrier repair cream called EpiCeram® which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat eczema. There are no other moisturizers that I know of that contain this 1:1:1 lipid ratio.
There is a barrier repair cream on the market that contains a 2:4:2 ratio of lipids based on a study that showed that this ratio is effective in older skin with an impaired barrier. It is unknown if this moisturizer forms a cross pattern.
Barrier repair creams that demonstrate a cross pattern:
Multilamellar emulsion (MLE) technology: This barrier repair technology, invented in South Korea, contains the synthetic pseudoceramide called myristyl/palmityl-oxo-stearamide/arachamide MEA (C34H67NO3/C36H71NO3/C38H75NO3), or the pseudoceramide myristoyl-palmitoyl-oxostearamide-arachamide MEA.
In a 2019 pilot study by Ye and colleagues, the investigators treated 33 older volunteers twice daily for 30 days with approximately 3 mL of an emollient containing MLE technology. In addition, 30 untreated older subjects and 11 young volunteers served as controls. The investigators found that the topically applied barrier repair emollient significantly improved barrier function, as well as stratum corneum hydration. Circulating levels of the important, age-related plasma cytokines interleukin-1 beta and IL-6 were found to have normalized, while tumor necrosis factor–alpha decreased markedly. The investigators suggested that repair of the skin barrier might diminish circulating proinflammatory cytokine levels (such as amyloid A) in aged humans, potentially mitigating the development of chronic inflammatory conditions.10
MLE technology has also been shown to improve childhood atopic dermatitis and prevent steroid atrophy.11,12 The consistent use of MLE technology in moisturizers has been shown to alleviate inflammatory factors in the blood and is believed to lessen systemic inflammation.10
Physiologic (PSL) lipid repair technology: This technology was invented by one of the South Korean researchers who helped develop MLE technology. It contains pseudoceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol. The figure of the cross pattern above, as seen under the cross polarized microscope, is an image taken of this PSL lipid repair technology.
Conclusion
Do not believe that a moisturizer repairs the barrier just because it says so on the label. Three of the most popular body moisturizes used to treat eczema do not actually have the proper formula to repair the barrier. Unfortunately, there are dozens of skin care products that claim to repair the barrier that do not have the science or ingredient content to back them up. To restore the skin barrier to a healthy condition, it is imperative that the barrier repair moisturizers that you are recommending for patients have the correct 1:1:1 ratio of epidermal lipids or contain bilayer lamella that mimic the natural multilamellar layers and display the cross pattern under a cross-polarized microscope.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Christophers E and Kligman AM. J Invest Dermatol. 1964;42:407-9.
2. Blair C. Br J Dermatol. 1968;80(7):430-6.
3. Morita O et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009 Apr;47(4):681-6.
4. Tessema E N et al. Skin pharmacology and physiology. 2017;30(3):115-38.
5. Coderch L et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4(2):107-29.
6. Man MQ et al. Arch Dermatol. 1993;129(6):728-38.
7. Man MQ M et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1996 May;106(5):1096-101.
8. Park BD et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;121(4):794-801.
9. Proksch E and Jensen J. Skin as an organ of protection, in “Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine,” 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008, pp. 383-95.
10. Ye L et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(11):2197-201.
11. Lee EJ et al. Ann Dermatol. 2003;15(4):133-8.
12. Ahn SK et al. J Dermatol. 2006;33(2):80-90.
There are dozens of skin care products that claim to repair the barrier that do not have the science or ingredient content to back them up.
Does a skin barrier repair moisturizer really repair?
First, let’s briefly review what the skin barrier is. The stratum corneum (SC), the most superficial layer of the epidermis, averages approximately 15-cell layers in thickness.1,2 The keratinocytes reside there in a pattern resembling a brick wall. The “mortar” is composed of the lipid contents extruded from the lamellar granules. This protective barrier functions to prevent transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and entry of allergens, irritants, and pathogens into deeper layers of the skin. This column will focus briefly on the structure and function of the skin barrier and the barrier repair technologies that use synthetic lipids such as myristoyl-palmitoyl and myristyl/palmityl-oxo-stearamide/arachamide MEA.
Structure of the skin barrier
SC keratinocytes are surrounded by lamella made from lipid bilayers. The lipids have hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails; the bilayer arises when the hydrophobic tails face the center and the hydrophilic heads face out of the bilayer. This formation yields a disc-shaped hydrophobic lamellar center. There are actually several of these lamellar layers between keratinocytes.
The naturally occurring primary lipids of the bilayer lamellae are made up of an equal ratio of ceramides, cholesterol, and free fatty acid. Arranged in a 1:1:1 ratio, they fit together like pieces of a puzzle to achieve skin barrier homeostasis. The shape and size of these puzzle pieces is critical. An incorrect shape results in a hole in the skin barrier resulting in dehydration, inflammation, and sensitivity.
Ceramides
Ceramides are a complex family of lipids (sphingolipids – a sphingoid base and a fatty acid) involved in cell, as well as barrier, homeostasis and water-holding capacity. In fact, they are known to play a crucial role in cell proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis.3 There are at least 16 types of naturally occurring ceramides. For years, they have been included in barrier repair moisturizers. They are difficult to work with in moisturizers for several reasons:
- Ceramides are abundant in brain tissue and the ceramides used in moisturizers in the past were derived from bovine brain tissue. Prior to the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), many ceramides in skin-care products were animal derived, which made them expensive and undesirable.
- Ceramides in skin care that are made from plant sources are referred to as phyto-derived ceramides. Although they share a similar structure with ceramides that occur in human skin, there are differences in chain length, hydroxylation pattern, and the degree of unsaturation that lead to structural diversity.4 The shape of ceramides is critical for a strong skin barrier because the lipids in the skin barrier must fit together like puzzle pieces to form a water-tight barrier. Natural sources of ceramides include rice, wheat, potato, konjac, and maize. Standardization of ceramide shape and structure makes using phyto-derived ceramides in skin care products challenging.
- Ceramides, because of their waxy consistency, require heat during the mixing process of skin care product manufacturing. This heat can make other ingredients inactive in the skin care formulation. (Ceramides are typically added early in the formulation process, and the heat-sensitive ones are added later.)
- Many forms of ceramides are unstable in the product manufacturing and bottling processes.
- Skin penetration of ceramides depends on the shape and size of ceramides.
Synthetic ceramides have been developed to make ceramides safe, affordable, and more easily formulated into moisturizers. These formulations synthesized in the lab are sometimes called pseudoceramides because they are structurally different compounds that mimic the activity of ceramides. They are developed to be less expensive to manufacture, safer than those derived from animals, and easier to formulate, and they can be made into the specific shape of the ceramide puzzle piece.
Ceramides in skin care
The naturally occurring intercellular lipids of the SC are composed of approximately equal proportions of ceramides, cholesterol, and fatty acids (referred to in this article as the “three barrier lipids” for simplicity).5-9 Alterations in any of these three barrier lipids or their regulatory enzymes result in impairments in the function of the epidermal barrier. Therefore, any synthetic ceramide must mimic the shape of natural ceramides, or the three barrier lipids in the moisturizer must mimic the shape of the entire bilayer lamella. Unfortunately, most barrier repair moisturizers do not meet these criteria and are not true barrier repair moisturizers.
How do you know if a moisturizer repairs the skin barrier?
Clinical tests such as measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) with a Tewameter are usually done to support the barrier repair claim. However, occlusive ingredients like oils can lower TEWL without affecting the barrier. In fact, we believe that sebum on the skin can make an impaired barrier and result in normal TEWL even when the barrier is impaired. So, just because a product improved TEWL does not necessarily mean that it repairs the barrier.
One way to test the ability of a moisturizer to repair the barrier is to look at a structural analysis of the moisturizer to see if it forms the requisite bilayer lamellar shape. An easy way to do this testing is to look for the cross pattern under a cross polarized microscope. The cross pattern is known as optical anisotropy. 8
The best barrier repair creams
Optimal barrier repair creams either feature a 1:1:1 ratio of epidermal lipids or form a cross structure when viewed with a cross-polarized microscope.8 There are several categories of barrier repair moisturizers that meet these criteria.
Barrier repair creams with a 1:1:1 ratio of lipids:
Peter Elias, MD, holds the patent on barrier repair moisturizer technology that has a 1:1:1 ratio. His well-established technology is used in a prescription barrier repair cream called EpiCeram® which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat eczema. There are no other moisturizers that I know of that contain this 1:1:1 lipid ratio.
There is a barrier repair cream on the market that contains a 2:4:2 ratio of lipids based on a study that showed that this ratio is effective in older skin with an impaired barrier. It is unknown if this moisturizer forms a cross pattern.
Barrier repair creams that demonstrate a cross pattern:
Multilamellar emulsion (MLE) technology: This barrier repair technology, invented in South Korea, contains the synthetic pseudoceramide called myristyl/palmityl-oxo-stearamide/arachamide MEA (C34H67NO3/C36H71NO3/C38H75NO3), or the pseudoceramide myristoyl-palmitoyl-oxostearamide-arachamide MEA.
In a 2019 pilot study by Ye and colleagues, the investigators treated 33 older volunteers twice daily for 30 days with approximately 3 mL of an emollient containing MLE technology. In addition, 30 untreated older subjects and 11 young volunteers served as controls. The investigators found that the topically applied barrier repair emollient significantly improved barrier function, as well as stratum corneum hydration. Circulating levels of the important, age-related plasma cytokines interleukin-1 beta and IL-6 were found to have normalized, while tumor necrosis factor–alpha decreased markedly. The investigators suggested that repair of the skin barrier might diminish circulating proinflammatory cytokine levels (such as amyloid A) in aged humans, potentially mitigating the development of chronic inflammatory conditions.10
MLE technology has also been shown to improve childhood atopic dermatitis and prevent steroid atrophy.11,12 The consistent use of MLE technology in moisturizers has been shown to alleviate inflammatory factors in the blood and is believed to lessen systemic inflammation.10
Physiologic (PSL) lipid repair technology: This technology was invented by one of the South Korean researchers who helped develop MLE technology. It contains pseudoceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol. The figure of the cross pattern above, as seen under the cross polarized microscope, is an image taken of this PSL lipid repair technology.
Conclusion
Do not believe that a moisturizer repairs the barrier just because it says so on the label. Three of the most popular body moisturizes used to treat eczema do not actually have the proper formula to repair the barrier. Unfortunately, there are dozens of skin care products that claim to repair the barrier that do not have the science or ingredient content to back them up. To restore the skin barrier to a healthy condition, it is imperative that the barrier repair moisturizers that you are recommending for patients have the correct 1:1:1 ratio of epidermal lipids or contain bilayer lamella that mimic the natural multilamellar layers and display the cross pattern under a cross-polarized microscope.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Christophers E and Kligman AM. J Invest Dermatol. 1964;42:407-9.
2. Blair C. Br J Dermatol. 1968;80(7):430-6.
3. Morita O et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009 Apr;47(4):681-6.
4. Tessema E N et al. Skin pharmacology and physiology. 2017;30(3):115-38.
5. Coderch L et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4(2):107-29.
6. Man MQ et al. Arch Dermatol. 1993;129(6):728-38.
7. Man MQ M et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1996 May;106(5):1096-101.
8. Park BD et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;121(4):794-801.
9. Proksch E and Jensen J. Skin as an organ of protection, in “Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine,” 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008, pp. 383-95.
10. Ye L et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(11):2197-201.
11. Lee EJ et al. Ann Dermatol. 2003;15(4):133-8.
12. Ahn SK et al. J Dermatol. 2006;33(2):80-90.
A 22-year-old presented with erythematous papules on her fingers and toes
than men. Clinically, distal extremities such as toes, fingertips and heels, as well as the rims of the ears or nose develop erythematous to purple plaques. Lesions may be painful or pruritic. Over time, lesions may develop atrophy and resemble those of discoid lupus. While the pathogenesis is unknown, exposure to cold or wet environments can precipitate lesions.
Histopathology reveals a deep and superficial lymphocytic infiltrate with perieccrine involvement and fibrin deposition in vessels. Dermal edema is often present. Direct immunofluorescence shows an interface dermatitis positive for IgM, IgA, and C3.
The Mayo Clinic developed diagnostic criteria for diagnosing chilblains lupus. Two major criteria are acral skin lesions induced by cold exposure and evidence of lupus erythematosus in skin lesions (histopathologically or by direct immunofluorescence). Three minor criteria are the coexistence of systemic lupus erythematosus or discoid lupus erythematosus, response to antilupus treatment, and negative cryoglobulin and cold agglutinin studies.
Chilblains, or perniosis, has a similar clinical presentation to chilblain lupus erythematosus. However, serologic evidence of lupus, such as a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA), will be absent. Lupus pernio (Besnier-Tenneson syndrome) is a form of sarcoidosis that tends to favor the nose. These lesions are not precipitated by cold. It can be differentiated on histology. “COVID toes” is an entity described during the coronavirus pandemic, during which dermatologists noted pernio-like lesions in patients testing positive for coronavirus.
The patient’s labs revealed a positive ANA at 1:320 in a nucleolar speckled pattern, elevated double-stranded DNA, low C3 and C4 levels, elevated cardiolipin IgM Ab, and elevated sedimentation rate. COVID-19 antigen testing and COVID-19 antibodies were negative. A serum protein electrophoresis was negative. Cryoglobulins were negative.
Treatment includes protection from cold. Smoking cessation should be discussed. Topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatments for mild disease. Antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine can be helpful. Systemic calcium channel blockers, systemic steroids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus have all been reported as treatments. This patient responded well to hydroxychloroquine and topical steroids with full resolution of lesions.
This case was submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
Su WP et al. Cutis. 1994 Dec;54(6):395-9.
Werth V and Newman S. Chilblain lupus (SLE pernio). Dermatology Advisor. 2017.
than men. Clinically, distal extremities such as toes, fingertips and heels, as well as the rims of the ears or nose develop erythematous to purple plaques. Lesions may be painful or pruritic. Over time, lesions may develop atrophy and resemble those of discoid lupus. While the pathogenesis is unknown, exposure to cold or wet environments can precipitate lesions.
Histopathology reveals a deep and superficial lymphocytic infiltrate with perieccrine involvement and fibrin deposition in vessels. Dermal edema is often present. Direct immunofluorescence shows an interface dermatitis positive for IgM, IgA, and C3.
The Mayo Clinic developed diagnostic criteria for diagnosing chilblains lupus. Two major criteria are acral skin lesions induced by cold exposure and evidence of lupus erythematosus in skin lesions (histopathologically or by direct immunofluorescence). Three minor criteria are the coexistence of systemic lupus erythematosus or discoid lupus erythematosus, response to antilupus treatment, and negative cryoglobulin and cold agglutinin studies.
Chilblains, or perniosis, has a similar clinical presentation to chilblain lupus erythematosus. However, serologic evidence of lupus, such as a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA), will be absent. Lupus pernio (Besnier-Tenneson syndrome) is a form of sarcoidosis that tends to favor the nose. These lesions are not precipitated by cold. It can be differentiated on histology. “COVID toes” is an entity described during the coronavirus pandemic, during which dermatologists noted pernio-like lesions in patients testing positive for coronavirus.
The patient’s labs revealed a positive ANA at 1:320 in a nucleolar speckled pattern, elevated double-stranded DNA, low C3 and C4 levels, elevated cardiolipin IgM Ab, and elevated sedimentation rate. COVID-19 antigen testing and COVID-19 antibodies were negative. A serum protein electrophoresis was negative. Cryoglobulins were negative.
Treatment includes protection from cold. Smoking cessation should be discussed. Topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatments for mild disease. Antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine can be helpful. Systemic calcium channel blockers, systemic steroids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus have all been reported as treatments. This patient responded well to hydroxychloroquine and topical steroids with full resolution of lesions.
This case was submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
Su WP et al. Cutis. 1994 Dec;54(6):395-9.
Werth V and Newman S. Chilblain lupus (SLE pernio). Dermatology Advisor. 2017.
than men. Clinically, distal extremities such as toes, fingertips and heels, as well as the rims of the ears or nose develop erythematous to purple plaques. Lesions may be painful or pruritic. Over time, lesions may develop atrophy and resemble those of discoid lupus. While the pathogenesis is unknown, exposure to cold or wet environments can precipitate lesions.
Histopathology reveals a deep and superficial lymphocytic infiltrate with perieccrine involvement and fibrin deposition in vessels. Dermal edema is often present. Direct immunofluorescence shows an interface dermatitis positive for IgM, IgA, and C3.
The Mayo Clinic developed diagnostic criteria for diagnosing chilblains lupus. Two major criteria are acral skin lesions induced by cold exposure and evidence of lupus erythematosus in skin lesions (histopathologically or by direct immunofluorescence). Three minor criteria are the coexistence of systemic lupus erythematosus or discoid lupus erythematosus, response to antilupus treatment, and negative cryoglobulin and cold agglutinin studies.
Chilblains, or perniosis, has a similar clinical presentation to chilblain lupus erythematosus. However, serologic evidence of lupus, such as a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA), will be absent. Lupus pernio (Besnier-Tenneson syndrome) is a form of sarcoidosis that tends to favor the nose. These lesions are not precipitated by cold. It can be differentiated on histology. “COVID toes” is an entity described during the coronavirus pandemic, during which dermatologists noted pernio-like lesions in patients testing positive for coronavirus.
The patient’s labs revealed a positive ANA at 1:320 in a nucleolar speckled pattern, elevated double-stranded DNA, low C3 and C4 levels, elevated cardiolipin IgM Ab, and elevated sedimentation rate. COVID-19 antigen testing and COVID-19 antibodies were negative. A serum protein electrophoresis was negative. Cryoglobulins were negative.
Treatment includes protection from cold. Smoking cessation should be discussed. Topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatments for mild disease. Antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine can be helpful. Systemic calcium channel blockers, systemic steroids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus have all been reported as treatments. This patient responded well to hydroxychloroquine and topical steroids with full resolution of lesions.
This case was submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
Su WP et al. Cutis. 1994 Dec;54(6):395-9.
Werth V and Newman S. Chilblain lupus (SLE pernio). Dermatology Advisor. 2017.
The patient denied any arthralgias, alopecia, oral ulcers, or photosensitivity. She denied any recent illness.
Reflecting on 2021, looking forward to 2022
This month marks the end of my first full calendar year as SHM CEO. Over the years, I have made it a habit to take time to reflect during the month of December, assessing the previous year by reviewing what went well and what could have gone better, and how I can grow and change to meet the needs of future challenges. This reflection sets the stage for my personal and professional “New Year” goals.
This year, 2021, is certainly a year deserving of reflection, and I believe 2022 (and beyond) will need ambitious goals made by dedicated leaders, hospitalists included. Here are my thoughts on what went well in 2021 and what I wish went better – from our greater society to our specialty, to SHM.
Society (as in the larger society)
What went well: Vaccines
There is a lot to be impressed with in 2021, and for me, at the top of that list are the COVID-19 vaccines. I realize the research for mRNA vaccines started more than 20 years ago, and the most successful mRNA vaccine companies have been around for more than a decade, but to roll out a COVID-19 vaccine in less than a year is still just incredible. To take a disease with a 2% mortality rate for someone like myself and effectively reduce that to near zero is something historians will be writing about for years to come.
What I wish went better: Open dialogue
I can’t remember when we stopped listening to each other, and by that, I mean listening to those who do not think exactly like ourselves. As a kid, I was taught to be careful about discussing topics at social events that could go sideways. That usually involved politics, money, or strong beliefs, but wow – now, that list is much longer. Talking about the weather used to be safe, but not anymore. If I were to show pictures of the recent flooding in Annapolis? There would almost certainly be a debate about climate change. At least we can agree on Ted Lasso as a safe topic.
Our specialty
What went well: Hospitalists are vital
There are many, many professions that deserve “hero” status for their part in taming this pandemic: nurses, doctors, emergency medical services, physical therapists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, administrators, and more. But in the doctor category, hospitalists are at the top. Along with our emergency department and intensivist colleagues, hospitalists are one of the pillars of the inpatient response to COVID. More than 3.2 million COVID-19 hospitalizations have occurred, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with numerous state dashboards showing three-quarters of those are cared for on general medical wards, the domain of hospitalists (for example, see my own state of Maryland’s COVID-19 dashboard: https://coronavirus.maryland.gov).
We’ve always had “two patients” – the patient in the bed and the health care system. Many hospitalists have helped their institutions by building COVID care teams, COVID wards, or in the case of Dr. Mindy Kantsiper, building an entire COVID field hospital in a convention center. Without hospitalists, both patients and the system that serves them would have fared much worse in this pandemic. Hospitalists are vital to patients and the health care system. The end. Period. End of story.
What I wish went better: Getting credit
As a profession, we need to be more deliberate about getting credit for the fantastic work we have done to care for COVID-19 patients, as well as inpatients in general. SHM can and must focus more on how to highlight the great work hospitalists have done and will continue to do. A greater understanding by the health care industry – as well as the general public – regarding the important role we play for patient care will help add autonomy in our profession, which in turn adds to resilience during these challenging times.
SHM
What went well: Membership grew
This is the one thing that we at SHM – and I personally – are most proud of. SHM is a membership society; it is the single most important metric for me personally. If physicians aren’t joining, then we are not meeting our core mission to provide value to hospitalists. My sense is the services SHM provides to hospitalists continue to be of value – even during these strenuous times of the pandemic when we had to be physically distant.
Whether it’s our Government Relations Department advocating for hospitalists in Washington, or the Journal of Hospital Medicine, or this very magazine, The Hospitalist, or SHM’s numerous educational offerings, chapter events, and SHM national meetings (Converge, Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Leadership Academies, Academic Hospitalist Academy, and more), SHM continues to provide hospitalists with vital tools to help you in your career.
This is also very much a two-way street. If you are reading this, know that without you, our members, our success would not be possible. Your passion and partnership drive us to innovate to meet your needs and those of the patients you serve every day. Thank you for your continued support and inspiration.
What could have gone better: Seeing more of you, in person
This is a tough one for me. Everything I worried about going wrong for SHM in 2021 never materialized. A year ago, my fears for SHM were that membership would shrink, finances would dry up, and the SHM staff would leave (by furlough or by choice). Thankfully, membership grew, our finances are in very good shape for any year, let alone a pandemic year, and the staff have remained at SHM and are engaged and dedicated! SHM even received a “Best Place to Work” award from the Philadelphia Business Journal.
Maybe the one regret I have is that we could not do more in-person events. But even there, I think we did better than most. We had some chapter meetings in person, and the October 2021 Leadership Academy hosted 110 hospitalist leaders, in person, at Amelia Island, Fla. That Leadership Academy went off without a hitch, and the early reviews are superb. I am very optimistic about 2022 in-person events!
Looking forward: 2022 and beyond
I have no illusions that 2022 is going to be easy. I know that the pandemic will not be gone (even though cases are falling nationwide as of this writing), that our nation will struggle with how to deal with polarization, and the workplace will continue to be redefined. Yet, I can’t help but be optimistic.
The pandemic will end eventually; all pandemics do. My hope is that young leaders will step forward to help our nation work through the divisive challenges, and some of those leaders will even be hospitalists! I also know that our profession is more vital than ever, for both patients and the health care system. We’re even getting ready to celebrate SHM’s 25th anniversary, and we can’t wait to revisit our humble beginnings while looking at the bright future of our society and our field.
I am working on my 2022 “New Year” goals, but you can be pretty sure they will revolve around making the world a better place, investing in people, and being ethical and transparent.
Dr. Howell is the CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
This month marks the end of my first full calendar year as SHM CEO. Over the years, I have made it a habit to take time to reflect during the month of December, assessing the previous year by reviewing what went well and what could have gone better, and how I can grow and change to meet the needs of future challenges. This reflection sets the stage for my personal and professional “New Year” goals.
This year, 2021, is certainly a year deserving of reflection, and I believe 2022 (and beyond) will need ambitious goals made by dedicated leaders, hospitalists included. Here are my thoughts on what went well in 2021 and what I wish went better – from our greater society to our specialty, to SHM.
Society (as in the larger society)
What went well: Vaccines
There is a lot to be impressed with in 2021, and for me, at the top of that list are the COVID-19 vaccines. I realize the research for mRNA vaccines started more than 20 years ago, and the most successful mRNA vaccine companies have been around for more than a decade, but to roll out a COVID-19 vaccine in less than a year is still just incredible. To take a disease with a 2% mortality rate for someone like myself and effectively reduce that to near zero is something historians will be writing about for years to come.
What I wish went better: Open dialogue
I can’t remember when we stopped listening to each other, and by that, I mean listening to those who do not think exactly like ourselves. As a kid, I was taught to be careful about discussing topics at social events that could go sideways. That usually involved politics, money, or strong beliefs, but wow – now, that list is much longer. Talking about the weather used to be safe, but not anymore. If I were to show pictures of the recent flooding in Annapolis? There would almost certainly be a debate about climate change. At least we can agree on Ted Lasso as a safe topic.
Our specialty
What went well: Hospitalists are vital
There are many, many professions that deserve “hero” status for their part in taming this pandemic: nurses, doctors, emergency medical services, physical therapists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, administrators, and more. But in the doctor category, hospitalists are at the top. Along with our emergency department and intensivist colleagues, hospitalists are one of the pillars of the inpatient response to COVID. More than 3.2 million COVID-19 hospitalizations have occurred, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with numerous state dashboards showing three-quarters of those are cared for on general medical wards, the domain of hospitalists (for example, see my own state of Maryland’s COVID-19 dashboard: https://coronavirus.maryland.gov).
We’ve always had “two patients” – the patient in the bed and the health care system. Many hospitalists have helped their institutions by building COVID care teams, COVID wards, or in the case of Dr. Mindy Kantsiper, building an entire COVID field hospital in a convention center. Without hospitalists, both patients and the system that serves them would have fared much worse in this pandemic. Hospitalists are vital to patients and the health care system. The end. Period. End of story.
What I wish went better: Getting credit
As a profession, we need to be more deliberate about getting credit for the fantastic work we have done to care for COVID-19 patients, as well as inpatients in general. SHM can and must focus more on how to highlight the great work hospitalists have done and will continue to do. A greater understanding by the health care industry – as well as the general public – regarding the important role we play for patient care will help add autonomy in our profession, which in turn adds to resilience during these challenging times.
SHM
What went well: Membership grew
This is the one thing that we at SHM – and I personally – are most proud of. SHM is a membership society; it is the single most important metric for me personally. If physicians aren’t joining, then we are not meeting our core mission to provide value to hospitalists. My sense is the services SHM provides to hospitalists continue to be of value – even during these strenuous times of the pandemic when we had to be physically distant.
Whether it’s our Government Relations Department advocating for hospitalists in Washington, or the Journal of Hospital Medicine, or this very magazine, The Hospitalist, or SHM’s numerous educational offerings, chapter events, and SHM national meetings (Converge, Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Leadership Academies, Academic Hospitalist Academy, and more), SHM continues to provide hospitalists with vital tools to help you in your career.
This is also very much a two-way street. If you are reading this, know that without you, our members, our success would not be possible. Your passion and partnership drive us to innovate to meet your needs and those of the patients you serve every day. Thank you for your continued support and inspiration.
What could have gone better: Seeing more of you, in person
This is a tough one for me. Everything I worried about going wrong for SHM in 2021 never materialized. A year ago, my fears for SHM were that membership would shrink, finances would dry up, and the SHM staff would leave (by furlough or by choice). Thankfully, membership grew, our finances are in very good shape for any year, let alone a pandemic year, and the staff have remained at SHM and are engaged and dedicated! SHM even received a “Best Place to Work” award from the Philadelphia Business Journal.
Maybe the one regret I have is that we could not do more in-person events. But even there, I think we did better than most. We had some chapter meetings in person, and the October 2021 Leadership Academy hosted 110 hospitalist leaders, in person, at Amelia Island, Fla. That Leadership Academy went off without a hitch, and the early reviews are superb. I am very optimistic about 2022 in-person events!
Looking forward: 2022 and beyond
I have no illusions that 2022 is going to be easy. I know that the pandemic will not be gone (even though cases are falling nationwide as of this writing), that our nation will struggle with how to deal with polarization, and the workplace will continue to be redefined. Yet, I can’t help but be optimistic.
The pandemic will end eventually; all pandemics do. My hope is that young leaders will step forward to help our nation work through the divisive challenges, and some of those leaders will even be hospitalists! I also know that our profession is more vital than ever, for both patients and the health care system. We’re even getting ready to celebrate SHM’s 25th anniversary, and we can’t wait to revisit our humble beginnings while looking at the bright future of our society and our field.
I am working on my 2022 “New Year” goals, but you can be pretty sure they will revolve around making the world a better place, investing in people, and being ethical and transparent.
Dr. Howell is the CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
This month marks the end of my first full calendar year as SHM CEO. Over the years, I have made it a habit to take time to reflect during the month of December, assessing the previous year by reviewing what went well and what could have gone better, and how I can grow and change to meet the needs of future challenges. This reflection sets the stage for my personal and professional “New Year” goals.
This year, 2021, is certainly a year deserving of reflection, and I believe 2022 (and beyond) will need ambitious goals made by dedicated leaders, hospitalists included. Here are my thoughts on what went well in 2021 and what I wish went better – from our greater society to our specialty, to SHM.
Society (as in the larger society)
What went well: Vaccines
There is a lot to be impressed with in 2021, and for me, at the top of that list are the COVID-19 vaccines. I realize the research for mRNA vaccines started more than 20 years ago, and the most successful mRNA vaccine companies have been around for more than a decade, but to roll out a COVID-19 vaccine in less than a year is still just incredible. To take a disease with a 2% mortality rate for someone like myself and effectively reduce that to near zero is something historians will be writing about for years to come.
What I wish went better: Open dialogue
I can’t remember when we stopped listening to each other, and by that, I mean listening to those who do not think exactly like ourselves. As a kid, I was taught to be careful about discussing topics at social events that could go sideways. That usually involved politics, money, or strong beliefs, but wow – now, that list is much longer. Talking about the weather used to be safe, but not anymore. If I were to show pictures of the recent flooding in Annapolis? There would almost certainly be a debate about climate change. At least we can agree on Ted Lasso as a safe topic.
Our specialty
What went well: Hospitalists are vital
There are many, many professions that deserve “hero” status for their part in taming this pandemic: nurses, doctors, emergency medical services, physical therapists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, administrators, and more. But in the doctor category, hospitalists are at the top. Along with our emergency department and intensivist colleagues, hospitalists are one of the pillars of the inpatient response to COVID. More than 3.2 million COVID-19 hospitalizations have occurred, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with numerous state dashboards showing three-quarters of those are cared for on general medical wards, the domain of hospitalists (for example, see my own state of Maryland’s COVID-19 dashboard: https://coronavirus.maryland.gov).
We’ve always had “two patients” – the patient in the bed and the health care system. Many hospitalists have helped their institutions by building COVID care teams, COVID wards, or in the case of Dr. Mindy Kantsiper, building an entire COVID field hospital in a convention center. Without hospitalists, both patients and the system that serves them would have fared much worse in this pandemic. Hospitalists are vital to patients and the health care system. The end. Period. End of story.
What I wish went better: Getting credit
As a profession, we need to be more deliberate about getting credit for the fantastic work we have done to care for COVID-19 patients, as well as inpatients in general. SHM can and must focus more on how to highlight the great work hospitalists have done and will continue to do. A greater understanding by the health care industry – as well as the general public – regarding the important role we play for patient care will help add autonomy in our profession, which in turn adds to resilience during these challenging times.
SHM
What went well: Membership grew
This is the one thing that we at SHM – and I personally – are most proud of. SHM is a membership society; it is the single most important metric for me personally. If physicians aren’t joining, then we are not meeting our core mission to provide value to hospitalists. My sense is the services SHM provides to hospitalists continue to be of value – even during these strenuous times of the pandemic when we had to be physically distant.
Whether it’s our Government Relations Department advocating for hospitalists in Washington, or the Journal of Hospital Medicine, or this very magazine, The Hospitalist, or SHM’s numerous educational offerings, chapter events, and SHM national meetings (Converge, Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Leadership Academies, Academic Hospitalist Academy, and more), SHM continues to provide hospitalists with vital tools to help you in your career.
This is also very much a two-way street. If you are reading this, know that without you, our members, our success would not be possible. Your passion and partnership drive us to innovate to meet your needs and those of the patients you serve every day. Thank you for your continued support and inspiration.
What could have gone better: Seeing more of you, in person
This is a tough one for me. Everything I worried about going wrong for SHM in 2021 never materialized. A year ago, my fears for SHM were that membership would shrink, finances would dry up, and the SHM staff would leave (by furlough or by choice). Thankfully, membership grew, our finances are in very good shape for any year, let alone a pandemic year, and the staff have remained at SHM and are engaged and dedicated! SHM even received a “Best Place to Work” award from the Philadelphia Business Journal.
Maybe the one regret I have is that we could not do more in-person events. But even there, I think we did better than most. We had some chapter meetings in person, and the October 2021 Leadership Academy hosted 110 hospitalist leaders, in person, at Amelia Island, Fla. That Leadership Academy went off without a hitch, and the early reviews are superb. I am very optimistic about 2022 in-person events!
Looking forward: 2022 and beyond
I have no illusions that 2022 is going to be easy. I know that the pandemic will not be gone (even though cases are falling nationwide as of this writing), that our nation will struggle with how to deal with polarization, and the workplace will continue to be redefined. Yet, I can’t help but be optimistic.
The pandemic will end eventually; all pandemics do. My hope is that young leaders will step forward to help our nation work through the divisive challenges, and some of those leaders will even be hospitalists! I also know that our profession is more vital than ever, for both patients and the health care system. We’re even getting ready to celebrate SHM’s 25th anniversary, and we can’t wait to revisit our humble beginnings while looking at the bright future of our society and our field.
I am working on my 2022 “New Year” goals, but you can be pretty sure they will revolve around making the world a better place, investing in people, and being ethical and transparent.
Dr. Howell is the CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
What is the diagnosis?
As the lesion was growing, getting more violaceous and indurated, a biopsy was performed. The biopsy showed multiple discrete lobules of dermal capillaries with slight extension into the superficial subcutis. Capillary lobules demonstrate the “cannonball-like” architecture often associated with tufted angioma, and some lobules showed bulging into adjacent thin-walled vessels. Spindled endothelial cells lining slit-like vessels were present in the mid dermis, although this comprises a minority of the lesion. The majority of the subcutis was uninvolved. The findings are overall most consistent with a tufted angioma.
Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) has been considered given the presence of occasional slit-like vascular spaces; however, the lesion is predominantly superficial and therefore the lesion is best classified as tufted angioma. GLUT–1 staining was negative.
At the time of biopsy, blood work was ordered, which showed a normal complete blood count with normal number of platelets, slightly elevated D-dimer, and slightly low fibrinogen. Several repeat blood counts and coagulation tests once a week for a few weeks revealed no changes.
The patient was started on aspirin at a dose of 5 mg/kg per day. After a week on the medication the lesion was starting to get smaller and less red.
Tufted angiomas are a rare type of vascular tumor within the spectrum of kaposiform hemangioendotheliomas. Most cases present within the first year of life; some occur at birth. They usually present as papules, plaques, or erythematous, violaceous indurated nodules on the face, neck, trunk, and extremities. The lesions can also be present with hyperhidrosis and hypertrichosis. Clinically, the lesions will have to be differentiated from other vascular tumors such as infantile hemangiomas, congenital hemangiomas, and Kaposi’s sarcoma, as well as subcutaneous fat necrosis of the newborn, cellulitis, and nonaccidental trauma.
Pathogenesis of tufted angiomas is poorly understood. A recent case report found a somatic mutation on GNA14.This protein regulates Ras activity and modulates endothelial cell permeability and migration in response to FGF2 and VEGFA. The p.205L mutation causes activation of GNA14, which upregulates pERK-MAPK pathway, suggesting MAPK inhibition as a potential target for therapy. Clinically, tufted angioma can present in three patterns: uncomplicated tufted angioma (most common type); tufted angioma without thrombocytopenia but with chronic coagulopathy, as it was seen in our patient; and tufted angioma associated with Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon (KMP). KMP is characterized by thrombocytopenia in association with microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, consumptive coagulopathy, and enlarging vascular tumor. Treatment of uncomplicated tufted angioma will depend on symptomatology, size, and location of the lesion. Smaller lesions in noncosmetically sensitive areas can be treated with surgical excision. Cases that are not amenable to excision can be treated with aspirin. There are also reports of response to topical modalities including tacrolimus and timolol. For complicated cases associated with KMP, sirolimus, systemic corticosteroids, ticlopidine, interferon, or vincristine are recommended. Some lesions may demonstrate spontaneous regression.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.
References
Cohen S et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Sep 15;25(9):13030/qt6pv254mc.
Lim YH et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Nov;36(6):963-4.
Prasuna A, Rao PN. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6:266-8.
As the lesion was growing, getting more violaceous and indurated, a biopsy was performed. The biopsy showed multiple discrete lobules of dermal capillaries with slight extension into the superficial subcutis. Capillary lobules demonstrate the “cannonball-like” architecture often associated with tufted angioma, and some lobules showed bulging into adjacent thin-walled vessels. Spindled endothelial cells lining slit-like vessels were present in the mid dermis, although this comprises a minority of the lesion. The majority of the subcutis was uninvolved. The findings are overall most consistent with a tufted angioma.
Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) has been considered given the presence of occasional slit-like vascular spaces; however, the lesion is predominantly superficial and therefore the lesion is best classified as tufted angioma. GLUT–1 staining was negative.
At the time of biopsy, blood work was ordered, which showed a normal complete blood count with normal number of platelets, slightly elevated D-dimer, and slightly low fibrinogen. Several repeat blood counts and coagulation tests once a week for a few weeks revealed no changes.
The patient was started on aspirin at a dose of 5 mg/kg per day. After a week on the medication the lesion was starting to get smaller and less red.
Tufted angiomas are a rare type of vascular tumor within the spectrum of kaposiform hemangioendotheliomas. Most cases present within the first year of life; some occur at birth. They usually present as papules, plaques, or erythematous, violaceous indurated nodules on the face, neck, trunk, and extremities. The lesions can also be present with hyperhidrosis and hypertrichosis. Clinically, the lesions will have to be differentiated from other vascular tumors such as infantile hemangiomas, congenital hemangiomas, and Kaposi’s sarcoma, as well as subcutaneous fat necrosis of the newborn, cellulitis, and nonaccidental trauma.
Pathogenesis of tufted angiomas is poorly understood. A recent case report found a somatic mutation on GNA14.This protein regulates Ras activity and modulates endothelial cell permeability and migration in response to FGF2 and VEGFA. The p.205L mutation causes activation of GNA14, which upregulates pERK-MAPK pathway, suggesting MAPK inhibition as a potential target for therapy. Clinically, tufted angioma can present in three patterns: uncomplicated tufted angioma (most common type); tufted angioma without thrombocytopenia but with chronic coagulopathy, as it was seen in our patient; and tufted angioma associated with Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon (KMP). KMP is characterized by thrombocytopenia in association with microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, consumptive coagulopathy, and enlarging vascular tumor. Treatment of uncomplicated tufted angioma will depend on symptomatology, size, and location of the lesion. Smaller lesions in noncosmetically sensitive areas can be treated with surgical excision. Cases that are not amenable to excision can be treated with aspirin. There are also reports of response to topical modalities including tacrolimus and timolol. For complicated cases associated with KMP, sirolimus, systemic corticosteroids, ticlopidine, interferon, or vincristine are recommended. Some lesions may demonstrate spontaneous regression.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.
References
Cohen S et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Sep 15;25(9):13030/qt6pv254mc.
Lim YH et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Nov;36(6):963-4.
Prasuna A, Rao PN. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6:266-8.
As the lesion was growing, getting more violaceous and indurated, a biopsy was performed. The biopsy showed multiple discrete lobules of dermal capillaries with slight extension into the superficial subcutis. Capillary lobules demonstrate the “cannonball-like” architecture often associated with tufted angioma, and some lobules showed bulging into adjacent thin-walled vessels. Spindled endothelial cells lining slit-like vessels were present in the mid dermis, although this comprises a minority of the lesion. The majority of the subcutis was uninvolved. The findings are overall most consistent with a tufted angioma.
Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) has been considered given the presence of occasional slit-like vascular spaces; however, the lesion is predominantly superficial and therefore the lesion is best classified as tufted angioma. GLUT–1 staining was negative.
At the time of biopsy, blood work was ordered, which showed a normal complete blood count with normal number of platelets, slightly elevated D-dimer, and slightly low fibrinogen. Several repeat blood counts and coagulation tests once a week for a few weeks revealed no changes.
The patient was started on aspirin at a dose of 5 mg/kg per day. After a week on the medication the lesion was starting to get smaller and less red.
Tufted angiomas are a rare type of vascular tumor within the spectrum of kaposiform hemangioendotheliomas. Most cases present within the first year of life; some occur at birth. They usually present as papules, plaques, or erythematous, violaceous indurated nodules on the face, neck, trunk, and extremities. The lesions can also be present with hyperhidrosis and hypertrichosis. Clinically, the lesions will have to be differentiated from other vascular tumors such as infantile hemangiomas, congenital hemangiomas, and Kaposi’s sarcoma, as well as subcutaneous fat necrosis of the newborn, cellulitis, and nonaccidental trauma.
Pathogenesis of tufted angiomas is poorly understood. A recent case report found a somatic mutation on GNA14.This protein regulates Ras activity and modulates endothelial cell permeability and migration in response to FGF2 and VEGFA. The p.205L mutation causes activation of GNA14, which upregulates pERK-MAPK pathway, suggesting MAPK inhibition as a potential target for therapy. Clinically, tufted angioma can present in three patterns: uncomplicated tufted angioma (most common type); tufted angioma without thrombocytopenia but with chronic coagulopathy, as it was seen in our patient; and tufted angioma associated with Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon (KMP). KMP is characterized by thrombocytopenia in association with microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, consumptive coagulopathy, and enlarging vascular tumor. Treatment of uncomplicated tufted angioma will depend on symptomatology, size, and location of the lesion. Smaller lesions in noncosmetically sensitive areas can be treated with surgical excision. Cases that are not amenable to excision can be treated with aspirin. There are also reports of response to topical modalities including tacrolimus and timolol. For complicated cases associated with KMP, sirolimus, systemic corticosteroids, ticlopidine, interferon, or vincristine are recommended. Some lesions may demonstrate spontaneous regression.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.
References
Cohen S et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Sep 15;25(9):13030/qt6pv254mc.
Lim YH et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Nov;36(6):963-4.
Prasuna A, Rao PN. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6:266-8.
A 35-day-old female was referred to our pediatric dermatology clinic for evaluation of a red lesion on the right arm. The lesion presented at about 4 days of life as a red plaque (image 1 at 8 days of life).
On the following days, the lesion started growing but it didn't seem to be tender or bothersome to the patient (image 2, at 35 days of life).
At a 2-week follow up the lesion was getting fuller and more violaceous. There was no history of fever and the lesion didn't appear tender to the touch.
She was born via normal spontaneous vaginal delivery. There were no complications and the mother received prenatal care.
On exam she had a red to violaceous nodule on the right arm (image 3 at 45 days of life).
Chronically interrupted: The importance of communication with patient and family during the COVID-19 pandemic
Case narrative
A 35-year-old woman has worsening alcoholic cirrhosis and repeated admissions for ascites, hepato-renal syndrome, and alcoholic hepatitis. Upon recognition of her grave prognosis, we proceeded with a shared-management approach involving medicine, gastroenterology, social work, chaplaincy, and palliative care. When the team spoke with the patient’s health care proxy (HCP), family, and friends for collateral information and involvement in goals of care conversation, we realized that none were aware of her months-long decline and poor prognosis for recovery to hospital discharge.
Although several factors contributed to the disconnect between the patient and her support system, the obstacles were greatly exacerbated by profound changes in hospital protocol because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians feel underprepared and challenged by prognostication and discussion of end of life during normal times; we believe COVID-19 has limited this essential physician role and led to tragic delays in effective communication and end of life planning.
Closing the loop
For patients with complex medical issues or those reaching end of life, effective communication within the health care system is critical. While inpatient teams often drive the plan, they care for their patients during a snapshot in time; contrarily, primary care providers and specialists often have established longitudinal relationships with their patients. Ergo, clinicians should communicate directly, and ideally with both patients and families, to achieve patient-centered and goal-concordant care.
For medically complex patients, PCPs tend to prefer verbal hand-offs. Timely and reliable communication between inpatient and outpatient providers has also been shown to prevent medical adverse events.1 Despite this, direct communication occurs infrequently.2 Given that hospitalists serve as primary inpatient providers for most general admissions, it is their responsibility to communicate with outpatient providers.
A multidisciplinary team redesigned the process by which PCPs were contacted following patient discharge. The transmission of information should ideally occur prior to discharge.3 Deficits in communication are extremely common and may negatively impact patient care, patient satisfaction, and patient safety.
Changes during the COVID-19 era
During the pandemic, patients have only one visitor per day, restricted visiting hours, and limited interactions with clinicians per implemented policies. Along with the increased burdens from personal protective equipment, remote hospital providers (social workers, case managers), and increased bureaucratic duties, COVID-19 has elucidated limitations in medical capacity and revealed the difficulties that clinicians face in communicating with patients and families, especially about serious illness.
Tasks include facilitating virtual goodbyes between dying patients and families, conducting family meetings via teleconference, and discussing patient care with specialists through virtual technologies.4 While these tasks are arguably more important during a global disaster, COVID-19 paradoxically restricts physical presence and severely hinders communication.5 Clinicians should continue to utilize core skills like building rapport, assessing patient/family perspectives and agenda, and using empathy.6 Patients tend to more frequently value functional outcomes while clinicians tend to default to treatment modalities.7 Additionally, goals of care and end of life discussions are associated with improved quality of life, fewer aggressive medical interventions near death, and even increased survival.
Given the limited resources and difficulties in communication during the pandemic, clinicians should place greater emphasis on values-based shared decision-making. Internet-based solutions are essential and widely used, and videoconferencing has been initiated at the institutional scale at many hospitals. Many clinicians with little experience are broadly implementing these technologies.7 Despite these technological innovations, issues still arise in how to communicate effectively in the hospital setting, and we must acknowledge that strategies require devices, Internet access, and technological literacy, highlighting disparities in access to quality health care.6 Conversations during the pandemic will require listening, empathy, responsive action, and the acknowledgment of the social determinants of health.7
Improving communication and transition of care
Multiple steps will be warranted to implement the safe transition process and improve communication. High-quality patient care encompasses careful review of medications, communication between inpatient and outpatient providers, and close follow-up at discharge. These steps serve to increase our reliance on patient compliance and the exchange of information about global progression of disease.
The quantitative and qualitative steps of transition of care should overcome disconnect between teams, specifically deficit areas regarding postdischarge communication, monitoring, and understanding of prognosis around the relevance to this era of COVID-19.
Dr. Haddad is a resident physician in the psychiatry residency program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Halporn is clinic director, Division of Adult Palliative Care, in the department of psychosocial oncology and palliative care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Barkoudah is associate director of the Hospital Medicine Unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
References
1. Goldman L et al. Passing the clinical baton: 6 principles to guide the hospitalist. Am J Med. 2001;111(9B):36S-39S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(01)00968-8.
2. Kripalani S et al. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians. JAMA. 2007 Feb 28;297(8):831-41. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.8.831.
3. Scotten M et al. Minding the gap: Interprofessional communication during inpatient and post discharge chasm care. Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Jul;98(7):895-900. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.009.
4. Back A et al. Communication skills in the age of COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 2;172(11):759-60. doi: 10.7326/M20-1376.
5. Hart JL et al. Family-centered care during the COVID-19 era. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Aug;60(2):e93-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.017.
6. Rubinelli S et al. Implications of the current COVID-19 pandemic for communication in healthcare. Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Jun;103(6):1067-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.04.021.
7. Simpson N et al. Don’t forget shared decision-making in the COVID-19 crisis. Intern Med J. 2020 Jun;50(6):761-3. doi: 10.1111/imj.14862.
Case narrative
A 35-year-old woman has worsening alcoholic cirrhosis and repeated admissions for ascites, hepato-renal syndrome, and alcoholic hepatitis. Upon recognition of her grave prognosis, we proceeded with a shared-management approach involving medicine, gastroenterology, social work, chaplaincy, and palliative care. When the team spoke with the patient’s health care proxy (HCP), family, and friends for collateral information and involvement in goals of care conversation, we realized that none were aware of her months-long decline and poor prognosis for recovery to hospital discharge.
Although several factors contributed to the disconnect between the patient and her support system, the obstacles were greatly exacerbated by profound changes in hospital protocol because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians feel underprepared and challenged by prognostication and discussion of end of life during normal times; we believe COVID-19 has limited this essential physician role and led to tragic delays in effective communication and end of life planning.
Closing the loop
For patients with complex medical issues or those reaching end of life, effective communication within the health care system is critical. While inpatient teams often drive the plan, they care for their patients during a snapshot in time; contrarily, primary care providers and specialists often have established longitudinal relationships with their patients. Ergo, clinicians should communicate directly, and ideally with both patients and families, to achieve patient-centered and goal-concordant care.
For medically complex patients, PCPs tend to prefer verbal hand-offs. Timely and reliable communication between inpatient and outpatient providers has also been shown to prevent medical adverse events.1 Despite this, direct communication occurs infrequently.2 Given that hospitalists serve as primary inpatient providers for most general admissions, it is their responsibility to communicate with outpatient providers.
A multidisciplinary team redesigned the process by which PCPs were contacted following patient discharge. The transmission of information should ideally occur prior to discharge.3 Deficits in communication are extremely common and may negatively impact patient care, patient satisfaction, and patient safety.
Changes during the COVID-19 era
During the pandemic, patients have only one visitor per day, restricted visiting hours, and limited interactions with clinicians per implemented policies. Along with the increased burdens from personal protective equipment, remote hospital providers (social workers, case managers), and increased bureaucratic duties, COVID-19 has elucidated limitations in medical capacity and revealed the difficulties that clinicians face in communicating with patients and families, especially about serious illness.
Tasks include facilitating virtual goodbyes between dying patients and families, conducting family meetings via teleconference, and discussing patient care with specialists through virtual technologies.4 While these tasks are arguably more important during a global disaster, COVID-19 paradoxically restricts physical presence and severely hinders communication.5 Clinicians should continue to utilize core skills like building rapport, assessing patient/family perspectives and agenda, and using empathy.6 Patients tend to more frequently value functional outcomes while clinicians tend to default to treatment modalities.7 Additionally, goals of care and end of life discussions are associated with improved quality of life, fewer aggressive medical interventions near death, and even increased survival.
Given the limited resources and difficulties in communication during the pandemic, clinicians should place greater emphasis on values-based shared decision-making. Internet-based solutions are essential and widely used, and videoconferencing has been initiated at the institutional scale at many hospitals. Many clinicians with little experience are broadly implementing these technologies.7 Despite these technological innovations, issues still arise in how to communicate effectively in the hospital setting, and we must acknowledge that strategies require devices, Internet access, and technological literacy, highlighting disparities in access to quality health care.6 Conversations during the pandemic will require listening, empathy, responsive action, and the acknowledgment of the social determinants of health.7
Improving communication and transition of care
Multiple steps will be warranted to implement the safe transition process and improve communication. High-quality patient care encompasses careful review of medications, communication between inpatient and outpatient providers, and close follow-up at discharge. These steps serve to increase our reliance on patient compliance and the exchange of information about global progression of disease.
The quantitative and qualitative steps of transition of care should overcome disconnect between teams, specifically deficit areas regarding postdischarge communication, monitoring, and understanding of prognosis around the relevance to this era of COVID-19.
Dr. Haddad is a resident physician in the psychiatry residency program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Halporn is clinic director, Division of Adult Palliative Care, in the department of psychosocial oncology and palliative care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Barkoudah is associate director of the Hospital Medicine Unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
References
1. Goldman L et al. Passing the clinical baton: 6 principles to guide the hospitalist. Am J Med. 2001;111(9B):36S-39S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(01)00968-8.
2. Kripalani S et al. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians. JAMA. 2007 Feb 28;297(8):831-41. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.8.831.
3. Scotten M et al. Minding the gap: Interprofessional communication during inpatient and post discharge chasm care. Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Jul;98(7):895-900. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.009.
4. Back A et al. Communication skills in the age of COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 2;172(11):759-60. doi: 10.7326/M20-1376.
5. Hart JL et al. Family-centered care during the COVID-19 era. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Aug;60(2):e93-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.017.
6. Rubinelli S et al. Implications of the current COVID-19 pandemic for communication in healthcare. Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Jun;103(6):1067-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.04.021.
7. Simpson N et al. Don’t forget shared decision-making in the COVID-19 crisis. Intern Med J. 2020 Jun;50(6):761-3. doi: 10.1111/imj.14862.
Case narrative
A 35-year-old woman has worsening alcoholic cirrhosis and repeated admissions for ascites, hepato-renal syndrome, and alcoholic hepatitis. Upon recognition of her grave prognosis, we proceeded with a shared-management approach involving medicine, gastroenterology, social work, chaplaincy, and palliative care. When the team spoke with the patient’s health care proxy (HCP), family, and friends for collateral information and involvement in goals of care conversation, we realized that none were aware of her months-long decline and poor prognosis for recovery to hospital discharge.
Although several factors contributed to the disconnect between the patient and her support system, the obstacles were greatly exacerbated by profound changes in hospital protocol because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians feel underprepared and challenged by prognostication and discussion of end of life during normal times; we believe COVID-19 has limited this essential physician role and led to tragic delays in effective communication and end of life planning.
Closing the loop
For patients with complex medical issues or those reaching end of life, effective communication within the health care system is critical. While inpatient teams often drive the plan, they care for their patients during a snapshot in time; contrarily, primary care providers and specialists often have established longitudinal relationships with their patients. Ergo, clinicians should communicate directly, and ideally with both patients and families, to achieve patient-centered and goal-concordant care.
For medically complex patients, PCPs tend to prefer verbal hand-offs. Timely and reliable communication between inpatient and outpatient providers has also been shown to prevent medical adverse events.1 Despite this, direct communication occurs infrequently.2 Given that hospitalists serve as primary inpatient providers for most general admissions, it is their responsibility to communicate with outpatient providers.
A multidisciplinary team redesigned the process by which PCPs were contacted following patient discharge. The transmission of information should ideally occur prior to discharge.3 Deficits in communication are extremely common and may negatively impact patient care, patient satisfaction, and patient safety.
Changes during the COVID-19 era
During the pandemic, patients have only one visitor per day, restricted visiting hours, and limited interactions with clinicians per implemented policies. Along with the increased burdens from personal protective equipment, remote hospital providers (social workers, case managers), and increased bureaucratic duties, COVID-19 has elucidated limitations in medical capacity and revealed the difficulties that clinicians face in communicating with patients and families, especially about serious illness.
Tasks include facilitating virtual goodbyes between dying patients and families, conducting family meetings via teleconference, and discussing patient care with specialists through virtual technologies.4 While these tasks are arguably more important during a global disaster, COVID-19 paradoxically restricts physical presence and severely hinders communication.5 Clinicians should continue to utilize core skills like building rapport, assessing patient/family perspectives and agenda, and using empathy.6 Patients tend to more frequently value functional outcomes while clinicians tend to default to treatment modalities.7 Additionally, goals of care and end of life discussions are associated with improved quality of life, fewer aggressive medical interventions near death, and even increased survival.
Given the limited resources and difficulties in communication during the pandemic, clinicians should place greater emphasis on values-based shared decision-making. Internet-based solutions are essential and widely used, and videoconferencing has been initiated at the institutional scale at many hospitals. Many clinicians with little experience are broadly implementing these technologies.7 Despite these technological innovations, issues still arise in how to communicate effectively in the hospital setting, and we must acknowledge that strategies require devices, Internet access, and technological literacy, highlighting disparities in access to quality health care.6 Conversations during the pandemic will require listening, empathy, responsive action, and the acknowledgment of the social determinants of health.7
Improving communication and transition of care
Multiple steps will be warranted to implement the safe transition process and improve communication. High-quality patient care encompasses careful review of medications, communication between inpatient and outpatient providers, and close follow-up at discharge. These steps serve to increase our reliance on patient compliance and the exchange of information about global progression of disease.
The quantitative and qualitative steps of transition of care should overcome disconnect between teams, specifically deficit areas regarding postdischarge communication, monitoring, and understanding of prognosis around the relevance to this era of COVID-19.
Dr. Haddad is a resident physician in the psychiatry residency program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Halporn is clinic director, Division of Adult Palliative Care, in the department of psychosocial oncology and palliative care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Barkoudah is associate director of the Hospital Medicine Unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
References
1. Goldman L et al. Passing the clinical baton: 6 principles to guide the hospitalist. Am J Med. 2001;111(9B):36S-39S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(01)00968-8.
2. Kripalani S et al. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians. JAMA. 2007 Feb 28;297(8):831-41. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.8.831.
3. Scotten M et al. Minding the gap: Interprofessional communication during inpatient and post discharge chasm care. Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Jul;98(7):895-900. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.009.
4. Back A et al. Communication skills in the age of COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 2;172(11):759-60. doi: 10.7326/M20-1376.
5. Hart JL et al. Family-centered care during the COVID-19 era. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Aug;60(2):e93-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.017.
6. Rubinelli S et al. Implications of the current COVID-19 pandemic for communication in healthcare. Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Jun;103(6):1067-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.04.021.
7. Simpson N et al. Don’t forget shared decision-making in the COVID-19 crisis. Intern Med J. 2020 Jun;50(6):761-3. doi: 10.1111/imj.14862.
Mumps: Sometimes forgotten but not gone
The 7-year-old boy sat at the edge of a stretcher in the emergency department, looking miserable, as his mother recounted his symptoms to a senior resident physician on duty. Low-grade fever, fatigue, and myalgias prompted rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing at his school. That test, as well as a repeat test at the pediatrician’s office, were negative. A triage protocol in the emergency department prompted a third test, which was also negative.
“Everyone has told me that it’s likely just a different virus,” the mother said. “But then his cheek started to swell. Have you ever seen anything like this?”
The boy turned his head, revealing a diffuse swelling that extended down his right cheek to the angle of his jaw.
“Only in textbooks,” the resident physician responded.
It is a credit to our national immunization program that most practicing clinicians have never actually seen a case of mumps. Before vaccination was introduced in 1967, infection in childhood was nearly universal. Unilateral or bilateral tender swelling of the parotid gland is the typical clinical finding. Low-grade fever, myalgias, decreased appetite, malaise, and headache may precede parotid swelling in some patients. Other patients infected with mumps may have only respiratory symptoms, and some may have no symptoms at all.
Two doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine have been recommended for children in the United States since 1989, with the first dose administered at 12-15 months of age. According to data collected through the National Immunization Survey, more than 92% of children in the United States receive at least one dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine by 24 months of age. The vaccine is immunogenic, with 94% of recipients developing measurable mumps antibody (range, 89%-97%). The vaccine has been a public health success: Overall, mumps cases declined more than 99% between 1967 and 2005.
But in the mid-2000s, mumps cases started to rise again, with more than 28,000 reported between 2007 and 2019. Annual cases ranged from 229 to 6,369 and while large, localized outbreaks have contributed to peak years, mumps has been reported from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. According to a recently published paper in Pediatrics, nearly a third of these cases occurred in children <18 years of age and most had been appropriately immunized for age.
Of the 9,172 cases reported in children, 5,461 or 60% occurred between 2015 and 2019. Of these, 55% were in boys. While cases occurred in children of all ages, 54% were in children 11-17 years of age, and 33% were in children 5-10 years of age. Non-Hispanic Asian and/or Pacific Islander children accounted for 38% of cases. Only 2% of cases were associated with international travel and were presumed to have been acquired outside the United States
The reason for the increase in mumps cases in recent years is not well understood. Outbreaks in fully immunized college students have prompted concern about poor B-cell memory after vaccination resulting in waning immunity over time. In the past, antibodies against mumps were boosted by exposure to wild-type mumps virus but such exposures have become fortunately rare for most of us. Cases in recently immunized children suggest there is more to the story. Notably, there is a mismatch between the genotype A mumps virus contained in the current MMR and MMRV vaccines and the genotype G virus currently circulating in the United States.
With the onset of the pandemic and implementation of mitigation measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, circulation of some common respiratory viruses, including respiratory syncytial virus and influenza, was sharply curtailed. Mumps continued to circulate, albeit at reduced levels, with 616 cases reported in 2020. In 2021, 30 states and jurisdictions reported 139 cases through Dec. 1.
Clinicians should suspect mumps in all cases of parotitis, regardless of an individual’s age, vaccination status, or travel history. Laboratory testing is required to distinguish mumps from other infectious and noninfectious causes of parotitis. Infectious causes include gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial infection, as well as other viral infections, including Epstein-Barr virus, coxsackie viruses, parainfluenza, and rarely, influenza. Case reports also describe parotitis coincident with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
When parotitis has been present for 3 days or less, a buccal swab for RT-PCR should be obtained, massaging the parotid gland for 30 seconds before specimen collection. When parotitis has been present for >3 days, a mumps Immunoglobulin M serum antibody should be collected in addition to the buccal swab PCR. A negative IgM does not exclude the possibility of infection, especially in immunized individuals. Mumps is a nationally notifiable disease, and all confirmed and suspect cases should be reported to the state or local health department.
Back in the emergency department, the mother was counseled about the potential diagnosis of mumps and the need for her son to isolate at home for 5 days after the onset of the parotid swelling. She was also educated about potential complications of mumps, including orchitis, aseptic meningitis and encephalitis, and hearing loss. Fortunately, complications are less common in individuals who have been immunized, and orchitis rarely occurs in prepubertal boys.
The resident physician also confirmed that other members of the household had been appropriately immunized for age. While the MMR vaccine does not prevent illness in those already infected with mumps and is not indicated as postexposure prophylaxis, providing vaccine to those not already immunized can protect against future exposures. A third dose of MMR vaccine is only indicated in the setting of an outbreak and when specifically recommended by public health authorities for those deemed to be in a high-risk group. Additional information about mumps is available at www.cdc.gov/mumps/hcp.html#report.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
The 7-year-old boy sat at the edge of a stretcher in the emergency department, looking miserable, as his mother recounted his symptoms to a senior resident physician on duty. Low-grade fever, fatigue, and myalgias prompted rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing at his school. That test, as well as a repeat test at the pediatrician’s office, were negative. A triage protocol in the emergency department prompted a third test, which was also negative.
“Everyone has told me that it’s likely just a different virus,” the mother said. “But then his cheek started to swell. Have you ever seen anything like this?”
The boy turned his head, revealing a diffuse swelling that extended down his right cheek to the angle of his jaw.
“Only in textbooks,” the resident physician responded.
It is a credit to our national immunization program that most practicing clinicians have never actually seen a case of mumps. Before vaccination was introduced in 1967, infection in childhood was nearly universal. Unilateral or bilateral tender swelling of the parotid gland is the typical clinical finding. Low-grade fever, myalgias, decreased appetite, malaise, and headache may precede parotid swelling in some patients. Other patients infected with mumps may have only respiratory symptoms, and some may have no symptoms at all.
Two doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine have been recommended for children in the United States since 1989, with the first dose administered at 12-15 months of age. According to data collected through the National Immunization Survey, more than 92% of children in the United States receive at least one dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine by 24 months of age. The vaccine is immunogenic, with 94% of recipients developing measurable mumps antibody (range, 89%-97%). The vaccine has been a public health success: Overall, mumps cases declined more than 99% between 1967 and 2005.
But in the mid-2000s, mumps cases started to rise again, with more than 28,000 reported between 2007 and 2019. Annual cases ranged from 229 to 6,369 and while large, localized outbreaks have contributed to peak years, mumps has been reported from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. According to a recently published paper in Pediatrics, nearly a third of these cases occurred in children <18 years of age and most had been appropriately immunized for age.
Of the 9,172 cases reported in children, 5,461 or 60% occurred between 2015 and 2019. Of these, 55% were in boys. While cases occurred in children of all ages, 54% were in children 11-17 years of age, and 33% were in children 5-10 years of age. Non-Hispanic Asian and/or Pacific Islander children accounted for 38% of cases. Only 2% of cases were associated with international travel and were presumed to have been acquired outside the United States
The reason for the increase in mumps cases in recent years is not well understood. Outbreaks in fully immunized college students have prompted concern about poor B-cell memory after vaccination resulting in waning immunity over time. In the past, antibodies against mumps were boosted by exposure to wild-type mumps virus but such exposures have become fortunately rare for most of us. Cases in recently immunized children suggest there is more to the story. Notably, there is a mismatch between the genotype A mumps virus contained in the current MMR and MMRV vaccines and the genotype G virus currently circulating in the United States.
With the onset of the pandemic and implementation of mitigation measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, circulation of some common respiratory viruses, including respiratory syncytial virus and influenza, was sharply curtailed. Mumps continued to circulate, albeit at reduced levels, with 616 cases reported in 2020. In 2021, 30 states and jurisdictions reported 139 cases through Dec. 1.
Clinicians should suspect mumps in all cases of parotitis, regardless of an individual’s age, vaccination status, or travel history. Laboratory testing is required to distinguish mumps from other infectious and noninfectious causes of parotitis. Infectious causes include gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial infection, as well as other viral infections, including Epstein-Barr virus, coxsackie viruses, parainfluenza, and rarely, influenza. Case reports also describe parotitis coincident with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
When parotitis has been present for 3 days or less, a buccal swab for RT-PCR should be obtained, massaging the parotid gland for 30 seconds before specimen collection. When parotitis has been present for >3 days, a mumps Immunoglobulin M serum antibody should be collected in addition to the buccal swab PCR. A negative IgM does not exclude the possibility of infection, especially in immunized individuals. Mumps is a nationally notifiable disease, and all confirmed and suspect cases should be reported to the state or local health department.
Back in the emergency department, the mother was counseled about the potential diagnosis of mumps and the need for her son to isolate at home for 5 days after the onset of the parotid swelling. She was also educated about potential complications of mumps, including orchitis, aseptic meningitis and encephalitis, and hearing loss. Fortunately, complications are less common in individuals who have been immunized, and orchitis rarely occurs in prepubertal boys.
The resident physician also confirmed that other members of the household had been appropriately immunized for age. While the MMR vaccine does not prevent illness in those already infected with mumps and is not indicated as postexposure prophylaxis, providing vaccine to those not already immunized can protect against future exposures. A third dose of MMR vaccine is only indicated in the setting of an outbreak and when specifically recommended by public health authorities for those deemed to be in a high-risk group. Additional information about mumps is available at www.cdc.gov/mumps/hcp.html#report.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
The 7-year-old boy sat at the edge of a stretcher in the emergency department, looking miserable, as his mother recounted his symptoms to a senior resident physician on duty. Low-grade fever, fatigue, and myalgias prompted rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing at his school. That test, as well as a repeat test at the pediatrician’s office, were negative. A triage protocol in the emergency department prompted a third test, which was also negative.
“Everyone has told me that it’s likely just a different virus,” the mother said. “But then his cheek started to swell. Have you ever seen anything like this?”
The boy turned his head, revealing a diffuse swelling that extended down his right cheek to the angle of his jaw.
“Only in textbooks,” the resident physician responded.
It is a credit to our national immunization program that most practicing clinicians have never actually seen a case of mumps. Before vaccination was introduced in 1967, infection in childhood was nearly universal. Unilateral or bilateral tender swelling of the parotid gland is the typical clinical finding. Low-grade fever, myalgias, decreased appetite, malaise, and headache may precede parotid swelling in some patients. Other patients infected with mumps may have only respiratory symptoms, and some may have no symptoms at all.
Two doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine have been recommended for children in the United States since 1989, with the first dose administered at 12-15 months of age. According to data collected through the National Immunization Survey, more than 92% of children in the United States receive at least one dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine by 24 months of age. The vaccine is immunogenic, with 94% of recipients developing measurable mumps antibody (range, 89%-97%). The vaccine has been a public health success: Overall, mumps cases declined more than 99% between 1967 and 2005.
But in the mid-2000s, mumps cases started to rise again, with more than 28,000 reported between 2007 and 2019. Annual cases ranged from 229 to 6,369 and while large, localized outbreaks have contributed to peak years, mumps has been reported from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. According to a recently published paper in Pediatrics, nearly a third of these cases occurred in children <18 years of age and most had been appropriately immunized for age.
Of the 9,172 cases reported in children, 5,461 or 60% occurred between 2015 and 2019. Of these, 55% were in boys. While cases occurred in children of all ages, 54% were in children 11-17 years of age, and 33% were in children 5-10 years of age. Non-Hispanic Asian and/or Pacific Islander children accounted for 38% of cases. Only 2% of cases were associated with international travel and were presumed to have been acquired outside the United States
The reason for the increase in mumps cases in recent years is not well understood. Outbreaks in fully immunized college students have prompted concern about poor B-cell memory after vaccination resulting in waning immunity over time. In the past, antibodies against mumps were boosted by exposure to wild-type mumps virus but such exposures have become fortunately rare for most of us. Cases in recently immunized children suggest there is more to the story. Notably, there is a mismatch between the genotype A mumps virus contained in the current MMR and MMRV vaccines and the genotype G virus currently circulating in the United States.
With the onset of the pandemic and implementation of mitigation measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, circulation of some common respiratory viruses, including respiratory syncytial virus and influenza, was sharply curtailed. Mumps continued to circulate, albeit at reduced levels, with 616 cases reported in 2020. In 2021, 30 states and jurisdictions reported 139 cases through Dec. 1.
Clinicians should suspect mumps in all cases of parotitis, regardless of an individual’s age, vaccination status, or travel history. Laboratory testing is required to distinguish mumps from other infectious and noninfectious causes of parotitis. Infectious causes include gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial infection, as well as other viral infections, including Epstein-Barr virus, coxsackie viruses, parainfluenza, and rarely, influenza. Case reports also describe parotitis coincident with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
When parotitis has been present for 3 days or less, a buccal swab for RT-PCR should be obtained, massaging the parotid gland for 30 seconds before specimen collection. When parotitis has been present for >3 days, a mumps Immunoglobulin M serum antibody should be collected in addition to the buccal swab PCR. A negative IgM does not exclude the possibility of infection, especially in immunized individuals. Mumps is a nationally notifiable disease, and all confirmed and suspect cases should be reported to the state or local health department.
Back in the emergency department, the mother was counseled about the potential diagnosis of mumps and the need for her son to isolate at home for 5 days after the onset of the parotid swelling. She was also educated about potential complications of mumps, including orchitis, aseptic meningitis and encephalitis, and hearing loss. Fortunately, complications are less common in individuals who have been immunized, and orchitis rarely occurs in prepubertal boys.
The resident physician also confirmed that other members of the household had been appropriately immunized for age. While the MMR vaccine does not prevent illness in those already infected with mumps and is not indicated as postexposure prophylaxis, providing vaccine to those not already immunized can protect against future exposures. A third dose of MMR vaccine is only indicated in the setting of an outbreak and when specifically recommended by public health authorities for those deemed to be in a high-risk group. Additional information about mumps is available at www.cdc.gov/mumps/hcp.html#report.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Spam filter failure: Selling physician emails equals big $$
Despite the best efforts of my institution’s spam filter, I’ve realized that I spend at least 4 minutes every day of the week removing junk email from my in basket: EMR vendors, predatory journals trying to lure me into paying their outrageous publication fees, people who want to help me with my billing software (evidently that .edu extension hasn’t clicked for them yet), headhunters trying to fill specialty positions in other states, market researchers offering a gift card for 40 minutes filling out a survey.
If you do the math, 4 minutes daily is 1,460 minutes per year. That’s an entire day of my life lost each year to this useless nonsense, which I never agreed to receive in the first place. Now multiply that by the 22 million health care workers in the United States, or even just by the 985,000 licensed physicians in this country. Then factor in the $638 per hour in gross revenue generated by the average primary care physician, as a conservative, well-documented value.
By my reckoning, these bozos owe the United States alone over $15 billion in lost GDP each year.
So why don’t we shut it down!? The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 attempted to at least mitigate the problem. It applies only to commercial entities (I know, I’d love to report some political groups, too). To avoid violating the law and risking fines of up to $16,000 per individual email, senders must:
- Not use misleading header info (including domain name and email address)
- Not use deceptive subject lines
- Clearly label the email as an ad
- Give an actual physical address of the sender
- Tell recipients how to opt out of future emails
- Honor opt-out requests within 10 business days
- Monitor the activities of any subcontractor sending email on their behalf
I can say with certainty that much of the trash in my inbox violates at least one of these. But that doesn’t matter if there is not an efficient way to report the violators and ensure that they’ll be tracked down. Hard enough if they live here, impossible if the email is routed from overseas, as much of it clearly is.
If you receive email in violation of the act, experts recommend that you write down the email address and the business name of the sender, fill out a complaint form on the Federal Trade Commission website, or send an email to [email protected], then send an email to your Internet service provider’s abuse desk. If you’re not working within a big institution like mine that has hot and cold running IT personnel that operate their own abuse prevention office, the address you’ll need is likely abuse@domain_name or postmaster@domain_name. Just hitting the spam button at the top of your browser/email software may do the trick. There’s more good advice at the FTC’s consumer spam page.
The answer came, ironically, to my email inbox in the form of one of those emails that did indeed violate the law.
I rolled my eyes and started into my reporting subroutine but then stopped cold. Just 1 second. If this person is selling lists of email addresses of conference attendees, somebody within the conference structure must be providing them. How is that legal? I have never agreed, in registering for a medical conference, to allow them to share my email address with anyone. To think that they are making money from that is extremely galling.
Vermont, at least, has enacted a law requiring companies that traffic in such email lists to register with the state. Although it has been in effect for 2 years, the jury is out regarding its efficacy. Our European counterparts are protected by the General Data Protection Regulation, which specifies that commercial email can be sent only to individuals who have explicitly opted into such mailings, and that purchased email lists are not compliant with the requirement.
Anybody have the inside scoop on this? Can we demand that our professional societies safeguard their attendee databases so this won’t happen? If they won’t, why am I paying big money to attend their conferences, only for them to make even more money at my expense?
Dr. Hitchcock is assistant professor, department of radiation oncology, at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She reported receiving research grant money from Merck. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite the best efforts of my institution’s spam filter, I’ve realized that I spend at least 4 minutes every day of the week removing junk email from my in basket: EMR vendors, predatory journals trying to lure me into paying their outrageous publication fees, people who want to help me with my billing software (evidently that .edu extension hasn’t clicked for them yet), headhunters trying to fill specialty positions in other states, market researchers offering a gift card for 40 minutes filling out a survey.
If you do the math, 4 minutes daily is 1,460 minutes per year. That’s an entire day of my life lost each year to this useless nonsense, which I never agreed to receive in the first place. Now multiply that by the 22 million health care workers in the United States, or even just by the 985,000 licensed physicians in this country. Then factor in the $638 per hour in gross revenue generated by the average primary care physician, as a conservative, well-documented value.
By my reckoning, these bozos owe the United States alone over $15 billion in lost GDP each year.
So why don’t we shut it down!? The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 attempted to at least mitigate the problem. It applies only to commercial entities (I know, I’d love to report some political groups, too). To avoid violating the law and risking fines of up to $16,000 per individual email, senders must:
- Not use misleading header info (including domain name and email address)
- Not use deceptive subject lines
- Clearly label the email as an ad
- Give an actual physical address of the sender
- Tell recipients how to opt out of future emails
- Honor opt-out requests within 10 business days
- Monitor the activities of any subcontractor sending email on their behalf
I can say with certainty that much of the trash in my inbox violates at least one of these. But that doesn’t matter if there is not an efficient way to report the violators and ensure that they’ll be tracked down. Hard enough if they live here, impossible if the email is routed from overseas, as much of it clearly is.
If you receive email in violation of the act, experts recommend that you write down the email address and the business name of the sender, fill out a complaint form on the Federal Trade Commission website, or send an email to [email protected], then send an email to your Internet service provider’s abuse desk. If you’re not working within a big institution like mine that has hot and cold running IT personnel that operate their own abuse prevention office, the address you’ll need is likely abuse@domain_name or postmaster@domain_name. Just hitting the spam button at the top of your browser/email software may do the trick. There’s more good advice at the FTC’s consumer spam page.
The answer came, ironically, to my email inbox in the form of one of those emails that did indeed violate the law.
I rolled my eyes and started into my reporting subroutine but then stopped cold. Just 1 second. If this person is selling lists of email addresses of conference attendees, somebody within the conference structure must be providing them. How is that legal? I have never agreed, in registering for a medical conference, to allow them to share my email address with anyone. To think that they are making money from that is extremely galling.
Vermont, at least, has enacted a law requiring companies that traffic in such email lists to register with the state. Although it has been in effect for 2 years, the jury is out regarding its efficacy. Our European counterparts are protected by the General Data Protection Regulation, which specifies that commercial email can be sent only to individuals who have explicitly opted into such mailings, and that purchased email lists are not compliant with the requirement.
Anybody have the inside scoop on this? Can we demand that our professional societies safeguard their attendee databases so this won’t happen? If they won’t, why am I paying big money to attend their conferences, only for them to make even more money at my expense?
Dr. Hitchcock is assistant professor, department of radiation oncology, at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She reported receiving research grant money from Merck. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite the best efforts of my institution’s spam filter, I’ve realized that I spend at least 4 minutes every day of the week removing junk email from my in basket: EMR vendors, predatory journals trying to lure me into paying their outrageous publication fees, people who want to help me with my billing software (evidently that .edu extension hasn’t clicked for them yet), headhunters trying to fill specialty positions in other states, market researchers offering a gift card for 40 minutes filling out a survey.
If you do the math, 4 minutes daily is 1,460 minutes per year. That’s an entire day of my life lost each year to this useless nonsense, which I never agreed to receive in the first place. Now multiply that by the 22 million health care workers in the United States, or even just by the 985,000 licensed physicians in this country. Then factor in the $638 per hour in gross revenue generated by the average primary care physician, as a conservative, well-documented value.
By my reckoning, these bozos owe the United States alone over $15 billion in lost GDP each year.
So why don’t we shut it down!? The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 attempted to at least mitigate the problem. It applies only to commercial entities (I know, I’d love to report some political groups, too). To avoid violating the law and risking fines of up to $16,000 per individual email, senders must:
- Not use misleading header info (including domain name and email address)
- Not use deceptive subject lines
- Clearly label the email as an ad
- Give an actual physical address of the sender
- Tell recipients how to opt out of future emails
- Honor opt-out requests within 10 business days
- Monitor the activities of any subcontractor sending email on their behalf
I can say with certainty that much of the trash in my inbox violates at least one of these. But that doesn’t matter if there is not an efficient way to report the violators and ensure that they’ll be tracked down. Hard enough if they live here, impossible if the email is routed from overseas, as much of it clearly is.
If you receive email in violation of the act, experts recommend that you write down the email address and the business name of the sender, fill out a complaint form on the Federal Trade Commission website, or send an email to [email protected], then send an email to your Internet service provider’s abuse desk. If you’re not working within a big institution like mine that has hot and cold running IT personnel that operate their own abuse prevention office, the address you’ll need is likely abuse@domain_name or postmaster@domain_name. Just hitting the spam button at the top of your browser/email software may do the trick. There’s more good advice at the FTC’s consumer spam page.
The answer came, ironically, to my email inbox in the form of one of those emails that did indeed violate the law.
I rolled my eyes and started into my reporting subroutine but then stopped cold. Just 1 second. If this person is selling lists of email addresses of conference attendees, somebody within the conference structure must be providing them. How is that legal? I have never agreed, in registering for a medical conference, to allow them to share my email address with anyone. To think that they are making money from that is extremely galling.
Vermont, at least, has enacted a law requiring companies that traffic in such email lists to register with the state. Although it has been in effect for 2 years, the jury is out regarding its efficacy. Our European counterparts are protected by the General Data Protection Regulation, which specifies that commercial email can be sent only to individuals who have explicitly opted into such mailings, and that purchased email lists are not compliant with the requirement.
Anybody have the inside scoop on this? Can we demand that our professional societies safeguard their attendee databases so this won’t happen? If they won’t, why am I paying big money to attend their conferences, only for them to make even more money at my expense?
Dr. Hitchcock is assistant professor, department of radiation oncology, at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She reported receiving research grant money from Merck. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.