User login
Minilaparoscopy is the next step in minimally invasive surgery
Minimally invasive surgeons have been intrigued for more than 2 decades by the clinical aspects and benefits of minilaparoscopy. Miniature instruments (2-3.5 mm) were introduced starting in the late 1980s, and through the 1990s minilaparoscopic procedures were performed across multiple specialties. However, the instrumentation available at the time had limited durability and functionality (for example, a lack of electrosurgical capability), and clinical experience and resulting data were sparse. The minilaparoscopic approach failed to gain momentum and was never widely adopted.
In the past 5-10 years, with new innovations in technology and improved instrumentation, minilaparoscopy is undergoing a renaissance in surgical circles. Medical device companies have developed numerous electrosurgical and other advanced energy options as well as a variety of needle holders, graspers, and other instruments – all with diameters of 3.5 mm or less and with significantly more durability than the earlier generation of mini-instruments. While surgeons oftentimes still use larger telescopes for better visualization, 2- to 3.5-mm telescopes are available in various lengths and angles, and optic quality is continually improving.
The minilaparoscopic approach is more similar to conventional laparoscopy than laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, which has not met early expectations. It is a more logical next step in the evolution of minimally invasive surgery and its goals of further reducing surgical trauma and improving cosmesis. I am performing hysterectomies in which I place two 5-mm nonbladed trocars through incisions inside the umbilicus and a minilaparoscopic percutaneous cannula below the bikini line; it is a “hybrid” procedure, in essence, that incorporates the use of mini-instrumentation.
In addition to diagnostic laparoscopy, I also use minilaparoscopy for some of my patients who need ovarian cystectomy, oophorectomy, appendectomy, treatment of early-stage endometriosis or adhesiolysis. Throughout the world and across multiple specialties, it is being adopted for a wide range of adult and pediatric procedures, from abdominopelvic adhesions and inguinal hernia repair to cholecystectomy, and even to enhance diagnosis in the ED or ICU.1
The importance of surgical scars
The resurgence of interest in minilaparoscopy has been driven largely by its clinical advantages. From a clinical standpoint, less intrusion through the abdominal wall with the use of smaller instruments and fewer insertion points generally means less surgical trauma, and less analgesic medication and postoperative pain, for instance, as well as fewer vascular injuries and a more minimal risk of adhesions. Scar cosmesis also has been viewed as an advantage, just as it was when the abdominal hysterectomy was being replaced by laparoscopic hysterectomy starting in 1989. Still, for me, the clinical aspects have long been at the forefront.
My interest in providing my patients the very best cosmetic results changed after we surveyed patients who were scheduled for a hysterectomy in my practice over the span of 1 year. All patients seen during that time (from November 2012 to November 2013) were asked to complete a questionnaire on their knowledge of hysterectomy incisional scars, their perceptions, and their desires. Almost all of the 200 women who completed the survey – 93% – indicated that cosmetic issues such as scars are important to them (“slightly,” “moderately,” “quite,” or “extremely” important), and of these, 24% chose “extremely important.”
Asked how they feel about the appearance of their scars from prior abdominal surgery, 58% indicated the appearance bothered them to some extent, and 11% said they were “extremely” bothered. Almost all of the 200 patients – 92% – said they would be interested in a surgery that would leave no scars, and 45% said they were “extremely” interested.2
The findings juxtaposed the clinical benefits of more minimally invasive surgery – what had been foremost on my mind – with patients’ attention to and concern about scars. The study demonstrated that patient preferences are just as compelling, if not more, than what the surgeon wants. It showed, moreover, how important it is to discuss hysterectomy incision options – and patient preferences regarding incision location, size, and number – prior to surgery.
When asked about their familiarity with the locations of skin incisions in different hysterectomy procedures (abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, robotic, and mini), between 25% and 56% indicated they were not at all familiar with them. Familiarity was greatest with incisions in traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Yet patients want to have that knowledge: Almost all of the survey participants – 93% – indicated it is important to discuss the location, number, and size of incisions prior to surgery, and 59% said it is “extremely” important.
Patients also were asked to rank a short list of incision locations (above or below the belly button, and above or below the bikini line) from the least desirable to most desirable, and the results suggest just how different personal preferences can be. The most-desirable incision location was below the bikini line for 68% of patients, followed by above the belly button for 16%. The least-desirable location was above the belly button for 69%, followed by below the bikini line for 15%. Asked whether it is cosmetically superior for one’s incisions to be low (below the bikini line), 86% said they agreed.
Other research has similarly shown that cosmesis is important for women undergoing gynecologic surgery. For instance, women in another single-practice study were more likely to prefer single-site and traditional laparoscopic incisions over robotic ones when they were shown photos of an abdomen marked up with the incision lengths and locations typical for each of these three approaches.3 And notably, there has been research looking at the psychological impact of incisional scars specifically in patients who are morbidly obese.
While we may not be accustomed to discussing incisions and scars, it behooves us as surgeons to consider initiating a conversation about incisions with all our patients – regardless of their body mass index and prior surgical history – during the preoperative evaluation.
My hysterectomy approach
I have utilized one of the most recent developments in minilaparoscopy instrumentation – the MiniLap percutaneous surgical system (Teleflex) – to develop a mini technique for hysterectomy I’ve trademarked as the Cosmetic Hysterectomy. The percutaneous system has an outer diameter of 2.3 mm, integrated needle tips that facilitate insertion without a trocar, and a selection of integrated graspers (e.g., a miniature clutch or alligator) that open up to 12.5 mm and can be advanced and retracted through the cannula. The graspers can be locked onto the tissue, and the system itself can be stabilized extracorporeally so that it can be hands free.
For the hysterectomy, I make two 5-mm vertical incisions within the umbilicus – one for a nonbladed 5-mm trocar at 12 o’clock and the other for a second nonbladed 5-mm trocar at 6 o’clock, penetrating the fascia. The trocars house a 30-degree extra-long laparoscope with camera attached, and an advanced bipolar electrosurgery device.
The minilaparoscopic cannula is inserted in the lower-abdominal area through a single 1-mm stab incision, and one or two instruments can be placed as needed. Tissues can be removed vaginally once dissection is completed, and the vaginal cuff can be closed laparoscopically or vaginally. The edges of the minilaparoscopic cannula are approximated together and held with surgical glue or a sterile skin-closure strip. There is no need to close the fascia.4
The percutaneous system opens new windows for minimally invasive surgery. It can be moved and used in several locations throughout a surgical procedure such that we can achieve more patient-specific “incisional mapping,” as I’m now calling it, rather than uniformly utilizing standard trocar placement sites.
Even without use of this particular innovation, the use of smaller instruments is proving both feasible and advantageous. A study that randomized 75 women scheduled for a hysterectomy to traditional laparoscopy (with a 5- to 10-mm port size) or minilaparoscopy (with a 3-mm port size) found no statistically significant differences in blood loss, hemoglobin drop, pain scores, or analgesic use. The authors concluded that the smaller port sizes did not affect the ability to perform the procedure. Moreover, they noted, the minilaparoscopy group had consistently smaller scars and better cosmesis.5
Another retrospective study of perioperative outcomes with standard laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic, and laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy found that postoperative pain control and the need for analgesic medication was significantly less with minilaparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) hysterectomy, compared with traditional laparoscopy. Pain and medication in patients undergoing minilaparoscopy was reduced by more than 50%, compared with the traditional laparoscopy group, which suggests less operative trauma.6
In my practice, postoperative analgesia is simply intranasal ketorolac tromethamine (Sprix) and/or long-acting tramadol (Conzip); opioids have been eliminated in all minilaparoscopic procedures. We have had no complications, including no trocar-site bleeding, nerve entrapments, trocar-site herniations, or infections. Not every patient is a candidate for consideration of a minilaparoscopic hysterectomy, of course. The patient who has extensive adhesions from multiple previous surgeries or a large uterus with fibroids, for instance, should be treated with traditional laparoscopy regardless of her concerns regarding cosmesis.
No two surgeons are alike; each has his/her own ideas, skill sets, and approaches. Minilaparoscopy may not be for everyone, but given the number of durable miniature instruments now available, it’s an approach to consider integrating into a variety of gynecologic procedures.
For a right salpingo-oophorectomy, for instance, a 3-mm trocar placed at 12 o’clock through the umbilicus can accommodate a 3-mm scope with a high-definition camera, and an 11-mm trocar placed at 6 o’clock can house an energy device. In the right and left lower quadrants, two additional 3-mm trocars can be placed – one to accommodate a grasping instrument and the other to house the scope after the fallopian tube has been transected. A specimen bag can be passed through the 11-mm trocar in the umbilicus for removal of the ovary and tube. With the umbilicus hiding the largest of scars, the procedure is less invasive with better cosmetic results.
Dr. McCarus disclosed that he is a consultant for Ethicon.
References
1. Surg Technol Int. 2015 Nov;27:19-30.
2. Surg Technol Int. 2014 Nov;25:150-6.
3. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Sep-Oct;18(5):640-3.
4. Surg Technol Int 2013 Sep;23:129-32.
5. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):455-61.
6. Surg Endosc. 2012 Dec;26(12):3592-6.
Minimally invasive surgeons have been intrigued for more than 2 decades by the clinical aspects and benefits of minilaparoscopy. Miniature instruments (2-3.5 mm) were introduced starting in the late 1980s, and through the 1990s minilaparoscopic procedures were performed across multiple specialties. However, the instrumentation available at the time had limited durability and functionality (for example, a lack of electrosurgical capability), and clinical experience and resulting data were sparse. The minilaparoscopic approach failed to gain momentum and was never widely adopted.
In the past 5-10 years, with new innovations in technology and improved instrumentation, minilaparoscopy is undergoing a renaissance in surgical circles. Medical device companies have developed numerous electrosurgical and other advanced energy options as well as a variety of needle holders, graspers, and other instruments – all with diameters of 3.5 mm or less and with significantly more durability than the earlier generation of mini-instruments. While surgeons oftentimes still use larger telescopes for better visualization, 2- to 3.5-mm telescopes are available in various lengths and angles, and optic quality is continually improving.
The minilaparoscopic approach is more similar to conventional laparoscopy than laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, which has not met early expectations. It is a more logical next step in the evolution of minimally invasive surgery and its goals of further reducing surgical trauma and improving cosmesis. I am performing hysterectomies in which I place two 5-mm nonbladed trocars through incisions inside the umbilicus and a minilaparoscopic percutaneous cannula below the bikini line; it is a “hybrid” procedure, in essence, that incorporates the use of mini-instrumentation.
In addition to diagnostic laparoscopy, I also use minilaparoscopy for some of my patients who need ovarian cystectomy, oophorectomy, appendectomy, treatment of early-stage endometriosis or adhesiolysis. Throughout the world and across multiple specialties, it is being adopted for a wide range of adult and pediatric procedures, from abdominopelvic adhesions and inguinal hernia repair to cholecystectomy, and even to enhance diagnosis in the ED or ICU.1
The importance of surgical scars
The resurgence of interest in minilaparoscopy has been driven largely by its clinical advantages. From a clinical standpoint, less intrusion through the abdominal wall with the use of smaller instruments and fewer insertion points generally means less surgical trauma, and less analgesic medication and postoperative pain, for instance, as well as fewer vascular injuries and a more minimal risk of adhesions. Scar cosmesis also has been viewed as an advantage, just as it was when the abdominal hysterectomy was being replaced by laparoscopic hysterectomy starting in 1989. Still, for me, the clinical aspects have long been at the forefront.
My interest in providing my patients the very best cosmetic results changed after we surveyed patients who were scheduled for a hysterectomy in my practice over the span of 1 year. All patients seen during that time (from November 2012 to November 2013) were asked to complete a questionnaire on their knowledge of hysterectomy incisional scars, their perceptions, and their desires. Almost all of the 200 women who completed the survey – 93% – indicated that cosmetic issues such as scars are important to them (“slightly,” “moderately,” “quite,” or “extremely” important), and of these, 24% chose “extremely important.”
Asked how they feel about the appearance of their scars from prior abdominal surgery, 58% indicated the appearance bothered them to some extent, and 11% said they were “extremely” bothered. Almost all of the 200 patients – 92% – said they would be interested in a surgery that would leave no scars, and 45% said they were “extremely” interested.2
The findings juxtaposed the clinical benefits of more minimally invasive surgery – what had been foremost on my mind – with patients’ attention to and concern about scars. The study demonstrated that patient preferences are just as compelling, if not more, than what the surgeon wants. It showed, moreover, how important it is to discuss hysterectomy incision options – and patient preferences regarding incision location, size, and number – prior to surgery.
When asked about their familiarity with the locations of skin incisions in different hysterectomy procedures (abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, robotic, and mini), between 25% and 56% indicated they were not at all familiar with them. Familiarity was greatest with incisions in traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Yet patients want to have that knowledge: Almost all of the survey participants – 93% – indicated it is important to discuss the location, number, and size of incisions prior to surgery, and 59% said it is “extremely” important.
Patients also were asked to rank a short list of incision locations (above or below the belly button, and above or below the bikini line) from the least desirable to most desirable, and the results suggest just how different personal preferences can be. The most-desirable incision location was below the bikini line for 68% of patients, followed by above the belly button for 16%. The least-desirable location was above the belly button for 69%, followed by below the bikini line for 15%. Asked whether it is cosmetically superior for one’s incisions to be low (below the bikini line), 86% said they agreed.
Other research has similarly shown that cosmesis is important for women undergoing gynecologic surgery. For instance, women in another single-practice study were more likely to prefer single-site and traditional laparoscopic incisions over robotic ones when they were shown photos of an abdomen marked up with the incision lengths and locations typical for each of these three approaches.3 And notably, there has been research looking at the psychological impact of incisional scars specifically in patients who are morbidly obese.
While we may not be accustomed to discussing incisions and scars, it behooves us as surgeons to consider initiating a conversation about incisions with all our patients – regardless of their body mass index and prior surgical history – during the preoperative evaluation.
My hysterectomy approach
I have utilized one of the most recent developments in minilaparoscopy instrumentation – the MiniLap percutaneous surgical system (Teleflex) – to develop a mini technique for hysterectomy I’ve trademarked as the Cosmetic Hysterectomy. The percutaneous system has an outer diameter of 2.3 mm, integrated needle tips that facilitate insertion without a trocar, and a selection of integrated graspers (e.g., a miniature clutch or alligator) that open up to 12.5 mm and can be advanced and retracted through the cannula. The graspers can be locked onto the tissue, and the system itself can be stabilized extracorporeally so that it can be hands free.
For the hysterectomy, I make two 5-mm vertical incisions within the umbilicus – one for a nonbladed 5-mm trocar at 12 o’clock and the other for a second nonbladed 5-mm trocar at 6 o’clock, penetrating the fascia. The trocars house a 30-degree extra-long laparoscope with camera attached, and an advanced bipolar electrosurgery device.
The minilaparoscopic cannula is inserted in the lower-abdominal area through a single 1-mm stab incision, and one or two instruments can be placed as needed. Tissues can be removed vaginally once dissection is completed, and the vaginal cuff can be closed laparoscopically or vaginally. The edges of the minilaparoscopic cannula are approximated together and held with surgical glue or a sterile skin-closure strip. There is no need to close the fascia.4
The percutaneous system opens new windows for minimally invasive surgery. It can be moved and used in several locations throughout a surgical procedure such that we can achieve more patient-specific “incisional mapping,” as I’m now calling it, rather than uniformly utilizing standard trocar placement sites.
Even without use of this particular innovation, the use of smaller instruments is proving both feasible and advantageous. A study that randomized 75 women scheduled for a hysterectomy to traditional laparoscopy (with a 5- to 10-mm port size) or minilaparoscopy (with a 3-mm port size) found no statistically significant differences in blood loss, hemoglobin drop, pain scores, or analgesic use. The authors concluded that the smaller port sizes did not affect the ability to perform the procedure. Moreover, they noted, the minilaparoscopy group had consistently smaller scars and better cosmesis.5
Another retrospective study of perioperative outcomes with standard laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic, and laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy found that postoperative pain control and the need for analgesic medication was significantly less with minilaparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) hysterectomy, compared with traditional laparoscopy. Pain and medication in patients undergoing minilaparoscopy was reduced by more than 50%, compared with the traditional laparoscopy group, which suggests less operative trauma.6
In my practice, postoperative analgesia is simply intranasal ketorolac tromethamine (Sprix) and/or long-acting tramadol (Conzip); opioids have been eliminated in all minilaparoscopic procedures. We have had no complications, including no trocar-site bleeding, nerve entrapments, trocar-site herniations, or infections. Not every patient is a candidate for consideration of a minilaparoscopic hysterectomy, of course. The patient who has extensive adhesions from multiple previous surgeries or a large uterus with fibroids, for instance, should be treated with traditional laparoscopy regardless of her concerns regarding cosmesis.
No two surgeons are alike; each has his/her own ideas, skill sets, and approaches. Minilaparoscopy may not be for everyone, but given the number of durable miniature instruments now available, it’s an approach to consider integrating into a variety of gynecologic procedures.
For a right salpingo-oophorectomy, for instance, a 3-mm trocar placed at 12 o’clock through the umbilicus can accommodate a 3-mm scope with a high-definition camera, and an 11-mm trocar placed at 6 o’clock can house an energy device. In the right and left lower quadrants, two additional 3-mm trocars can be placed – one to accommodate a grasping instrument and the other to house the scope after the fallopian tube has been transected. A specimen bag can be passed through the 11-mm trocar in the umbilicus for removal of the ovary and tube. With the umbilicus hiding the largest of scars, the procedure is less invasive with better cosmetic results.
Dr. McCarus disclosed that he is a consultant for Ethicon.
References
1. Surg Technol Int. 2015 Nov;27:19-30.
2. Surg Technol Int. 2014 Nov;25:150-6.
3. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Sep-Oct;18(5):640-3.
4. Surg Technol Int 2013 Sep;23:129-32.
5. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):455-61.
6. Surg Endosc. 2012 Dec;26(12):3592-6.
Minimally invasive surgeons have been intrigued for more than 2 decades by the clinical aspects and benefits of minilaparoscopy. Miniature instruments (2-3.5 mm) were introduced starting in the late 1980s, and through the 1990s minilaparoscopic procedures were performed across multiple specialties. However, the instrumentation available at the time had limited durability and functionality (for example, a lack of electrosurgical capability), and clinical experience and resulting data were sparse. The minilaparoscopic approach failed to gain momentum and was never widely adopted.
In the past 5-10 years, with new innovations in technology and improved instrumentation, minilaparoscopy is undergoing a renaissance in surgical circles. Medical device companies have developed numerous electrosurgical and other advanced energy options as well as a variety of needle holders, graspers, and other instruments – all with diameters of 3.5 mm or less and with significantly more durability than the earlier generation of mini-instruments. While surgeons oftentimes still use larger telescopes for better visualization, 2- to 3.5-mm telescopes are available in various lengths and angles, and optic quality is continually improving.
The minilaparoscopic approach is more similar to conventional laparoscopy than laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, which has not met early expectations. It is a more logical next step in the evolution of minimally invasive surgery and its goals of further reducing surgical trauma and improving cosmesis. I am performing hysterectomies in which I place two 5-mm nonbladed trocars through incisions inside the umbilicus and a minilaparoscopic percutaneous cannula below the bikini line; it is a “hybrid” procedure, in essence, that incorporates the use of mini-instrumentation.
In addition to diagnostic laparoscopy, I also use minilaparoscopy for some of my patients who need ovarian cystectomy, oophorectomy, appendectomy, treatment of early-stage endometriosis or adhesiolysis. Throughout the world and across multiple specialties, it is being adopted for a wide range of adult and pediatric procedures, from abdominopelvic adhesions and inguinal hernia repair to cholecystectomy, and even to enhance diagnosis in the ED or ICU.1
The importance of surgical scars
The resurgence of interest in minilaparoscopy has been driven largely by its clinical advantages. From a clinical standpoint, less intrusion through the abdominal wall with the use of smaller instruments and fewer insertion points generally means less surgical trauma, and less analgesic medication and postoperative pain, for instance, as well as fewer vascular injuries and a more minimal risk of adhesions. Scar cosmesis also has been viewed as an advantage, just as it was when the abdominal hysterectomy was being replaced by laparoscopic hysterectomy starting in 1989. Still, for me, the clinical aspects have long been at the forefront.
My interest in providing my patients the very best cosmetic results changed after we surveyed patients who were scheduled for a hysterectomy in my practice over the span of 1 year. All patients seen during that time (from November 2012 to November 2013) were asked to complete a questionnaire on their knowledge of hysterectomy incisional scars, their perceptions, and their desires. Almost all of the 200 women who completed the survey – 93% – indicated that cosmetic issues such as scars are important to them (“slightly,” “moderately,” “quite,” or “extremely” important), and of these, 24% chose “extremely important.”
Asked how they feel about the appearance of their scars from prior abdominal surgery, 58% indicated the appearance bothered them to some extent, and 11% said they were “extremely” bothered. Almost all of the 200 patients – 92% – said they would be interested in a surgery that would leave no scars, and 45% said they were “extremely” interested.2
The findings juxtaposed the clinical benefits of more minimally invasive surgery – what had been foremost on my mind – with patients’ attention to and concern about scars. The study demonstrated that patient preferences are just as compelling, if not more, than what the surgeon wants. It showed, moreover, how important it is to discuss hysterectomy incision options – and patient preferences regarding incision location, size, and number – prior to surgery.
When asked about their familiarity with the locations of skin incisions in different hysterectomy procedures (abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, robotic, and mini), between 25% and 56% indicated they were not at all familiar with them. Familiarity was greatest with incisions in traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Yet patients want to have that knowledge: Almost all of the survey participants – 93% – indicated it is important to discuss the location, number, and size of incisions prior to surgery, and 59% said it is “extremely” important.
Patients also were asked to rank a short list of incision locations (above or below the belly button, and above or below the bikini line) from the least desirable to most desirable, and the results suggest just how different personal preferences can be. The most-desirable incision location was below the bikini line for 68% of patients, followed by above the belly button for 16%. The least-desirable location was above the belly button for 69%, followed by below the bikini line for 15%. Asked whether it is cosmetically superior for one’s incisions to be low (below the bikini line), 86% said they agreed.
Other research has similarly shown that cosmesis is important for women undergoing gynecologic surgery. For instance, women in another single-practice study were more likely to prefer single-site and traditional laparoscopic incisions over robotic ones when they were shown photos of an abdomen marked up with the incision lengths and locations typical for each of these three approaches.3 And notably, there has been research looking at the psychological impact of incisional scars specifically in patients who are morbidly obese.
While we may not be accustomed to discussing incisions and scars, it behooves us as surgeons to consider initiating a conversation about incisions with all our patients – regardless of their body mass index and prior surgical history – during the preoperative evaluation.
My hysterectomy approach
I have utilized one of the most recent developments in minilaparoscopy instrumentation – the MiniLap percutaneous surgical system (Teleflex) – to develop a mini technique for hysterectomy I’ve trademarked as the Cosmetic Hysterectomy. The percutaneous system has an outer diameter of 2.3 mm, integrated needle tips that facilitate insertion without a trocar, and a selection of integrated graspers (e.g., a miniature clutch or alligator) that open up to 12.5 mm and can be advanced and retracted through the cannula. The graspers can be locked onto the tissue, and the system itself can be stabilized extracorporeally so that it can be hands free.
For the hysterectomy, I make two 5-mm vertical incisions within the umbilicus – one for a nonbladed 5-mm trocar at 12 o’clock and the other for a second nonbladed 5-mm trocar at 6 o’clock, penetrating the fascia. The trocars house a 30-degree extra-long laparoscope with camera attached, and an advanced bipolar electrosurgery device.
The minilaparoscopic cannula is inserted in the lower-abdominal area through a single 1-mm stab incision, and one or two instruments can be placed as needed. Tissues can be removed vaginally once dissection is completed, and the vaginal cuff can be closed laparoscopically or vaginally. The edges of the minilaparoscopic cannula are approximated together and held with surgical glue or a sterile skin-closure strip. There is no need to close the fascia.4
The percutaneous system opens new windows for minimally invasive surgery. It can be moved and used in several locations throughout a surgical procedure such that we can achieve more patient-specific “incisional mapping,” as I’m now calling it, rather than uniformly utilizing standard trocar placement sites.
Even without use of this particular innovation, the use of smaller instruments is proving both feasible and advantageous. A study that randomized 75 women scheduled for a hysterectomy to traditional laparoscopy (with a 5- to 10-mm port size) or minilaparoscopy (with a 3-mm port size) found no statistically significant differences in blood loss, hemoglobin drop, pain scores, or analgesic use. The authors concluded that the smaller port sizes did not affect the ability to perform the procedure. Moreover, they noted, the minilaparoscopy group had consistently smaller scars and better cosmesis.5
Another retrospective study of perioperative outcomes with standard laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic, and laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy found that postoperative pain control and the need for analgesic medication was significantly less with minilaparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) hysterectomy, compared with traditional laparoscopy. Pain and medication in patients undergoing minilaparoscopy was reduced by more than 50%, compared with the traditional laparoscopy group, which suggests less operative trauma.6
In my practice, postoperative analgesia is simply intranasal ketorolac tromethamine (Sprix) and/or long-acting tramadol (Conzip); opioids have been eliminated in all minilaparoscopic procedures. We have had no complications, including no trocar-site bleeding, nerve entrapments, trocar-site herniations, or infections. Not every patient is a candidate for consideration of a minilaparoscopic hysterectomy, of course. The patient who has extensive adhesions from multiple previous surgeries or a large uterus with fibroids, for instance, should be treated with traditional laparoscopy regardless of her concerns regarding cosmesis.
No two surgeons are alike; each has his/her own ideas, skill sets, and approaches. Minilaparoscopy may not be for everyone, but given the number of durable miniature instruments now available, it’s an approach to consider integrating into a variety of gynecologic procedures.
For a right salpingo-oophorectomy, for instance, a 3-mm trocar placed at 12 o’clock through the umbilicus can accommodate a 3-mm scope with a high-definition camera, and an 11-mm trocar placed at 6 o’clock can house an energy device. In the right and left lower quadrants, two additional 3-mm trocars can be placed – one to accommodate a grasping instrument and the other to house the scope after the fallopian tube has been transected. A specimen bag can be passed through the 11-mm trocar in the umbilicus for removal of the ovary and tube. With the umbilicus hiding the largest of scars, the procedure is less invasive with better cosmetic results.
Dr. McCarus disclosed that he is a consultant for Ethicon.
References
1. Surg Technol Int. 2015 Nov;27:19-30.
2. Surg Technol Int. 2014 Nov;25:150-6.
3. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Sep-Oct;18(5):640-3.
4. Surg Technol Int 2013 Sep;23:129-32.
5. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):455-61.
6. Surg Endosc. 2012 Dec;26(12):3592-6.
Minilaparoscopy is a relevant surgical technique
With the wax and wane in the popularity of single-port surgery and with the advent of improved instrumentation, minilaparoscopy would appear to be the next long-lasting surgical technique to enhance postsurgical cosmetic appearance. For this reason, it is surprising that the use of minilaparoscopy has not been acknowledged and evaluated as a viable option more often in general surgery and urology. This, despite the fact that the use of this technique in hysterectomy was described nearly 20 years ago.1
Our minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) team has utilized minilaparoscopy for diagnostic laparoscopy, lysis of adhesions, treatment of stage I, II, and occasionally stage III endometriosis, ovarian cystectomy, ureterolysis, presacral neurectomy, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy – as has our guest author Steven McCarus, MD. When performing hysterectomy via minilaparoscopy, our team closes the vaginal cuff laparoscopically, placing the suture transvaginally.
By removing the fibroid via a colpotomy incision, the Italian MIGS surgeon Fabio Ghezzi, MD, is able to perform myomectomy and hysterectomy routinely via minilaparoscopy.2 Articles have been published regarding the feasibility of performing minilaparoscopic surgery for both the treatment of benign adnexal mases3 and endometriosis.4
Dr. McCarus presents compelling evidence regarding the cosmetic advantage of minilaparoscopy, but the reported impact on pain has been variable: As Alyssa Small Layne et al. states, “Some studies associate minilaparoscopy with decreased pain, whereas others did not find a difference.”5 In part, this is attributable to the fact that no matter what technique is performed, the pathology must be excised. However, it is my belief that with improvements in instrumentation – as noted by Dr. McCarus and our collected added experience – the postoperative pain profile for the patient undergoing minilaparoscopy will change dramatically.
For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Dr. McCarus, who is the chief of gynecological surgery at Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration. With over 25 years of experience, Dr. McCarus is nationally known as a leader in the practice of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.
It is a pleasure to welcome Dr. McCarus to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class.
References
1. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1999 Feb;6(1):97-100.
2. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):455-61.
3. J Clin Med Res. 2017 Jul;9(7):613-7.
4. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2013 Aug;2(3):85-8.
5. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;28(4):255-60.
With the wax and wane in the popularity of single-port surgery and with the advent of improved instrumentation, minilaparoscopy would appear to be the next long-lasting surgical technique to enhance postsurgical cosmetic appearance. For this reason, it is surprising that the use of minilaparoscopy has not been acknowledged and evaluated as a viable option more often in general surgery and urology. This, despite the fact that the use of this technique in hysterectomy was described nearly 20 years ago.1
Our minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) team has utilized minilaparoscopy for diagnostic laparoscopy, lysis of adhesions, treatment of stage I, II, and occasionally stage III endometriosis, ovarian cystectomy, ureterolysis, presacral neurectomy, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy – as has our guest author Steven McCarus, MD. When performing hysterectomy via minilaparoscopy, our team closes the vaginal cuff laparoscopically, placing the suture transvaginally.
By removing the fibroid via a colpotomy incision, the Italian MIGS surgeon Fabio Ghezzi, MD, is able to perform myomectomy and hysterectomy routinely via minilaparoscopy.2 Articles have been published regarding the feasibility of performing minilaparoscopic surgery for both the treatment of benign adnexal mases3 and endometriosis.4
Dr. McCarus presents compelling evidence regarding the cosmetic advantage of minilaparoscopy, but the reported impact on pain has been variable: As Alyssa Small Layne et al. states, “Some studies associate minilaparoscopy with decreased pain, whereas others did not find a difference.”5 In part, this is attributable to the fact that no matter what technique is performed, the pathology must be excised. However, it is my belief that with improvements in instrumentation – as noted by Dr. McCarus and our collected added experience – the postoperative pain profile for the patient undergoing minilaparoscopy will change dramatically.
For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Dr. McCarus, who is the chief of gynecological surgery at Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration. With over 25 years of experience, Dr. McCarus is nationally known as a leader in the practice of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.
It is a pleasure to welcome Dr. McCarus to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class.
References
1. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1999 Feb;6(1):97-100.
2. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):455-61.
3. J Clin Med Res. 2017 Jul;9(7):613-7.
4. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2013 Aug;2(3):85-8.
5. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;28(4):255-60.
With the wax and wane in the popularity of single-port surgery and with the advent of improved instrumentation, minilaparoscopy would appear to be the next long-lasting surgical technique to enhance postsurgical cosmetic appearance. For this reason, it is surprising that the use of minilaparoscopy has not been acknowledged and evaluated as a viable option more often in general surgery and urology. This, despite the fact that the use of this technique in hysterectomy was described nearly 20 years ago.1
Our minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) team has utilized minilaparoscopy for diagnostic laparoscopy, lysis of adhesions, treatment of stage I, II, and occasionally stage III endometriosis, ovarian cystectomy, ureterolysis, presacral neurectomy, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy – as has our guest author Steven McCarus, MD. When performing hysterectomy via minilaparoscopy, our team closes the vaginal cuff laparoscopically, placing the suture transvaginally.
By removing the fibroid via a colpotomy incision, the Italian MIGS surgeon Fabio Ghezzi, MD, is able to perform myomectomy and hysterectomy routinely via minilaparoscopy.2 Articles have been published regarding the feasibility of performing minilaparoscopic surgery for both the treatment of benign adnexal mases3 and endometriosis.4
Dr. McCarus presents compelling evidence regarding the cosmetic advantage of minilaparoscopy, but the reported impact on pain has been variable: As Alyssa Small Layne et al. states, “Some studies associate minilaparoscopy with decreased pain, whereas others did not find a difference.”5 In part, this is attributable to the fact that no matter what technique is performed, the pathology must be excised. However, it is my belief that with improvements in instrumentation – as noted by Dr. McCarus and our collected added experience – the postoperative pain profile for the patient undergoing minilaparoscopy will change dramatically.
For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Dr. McCarus, who is the chief of gynecological surgery at Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration. With over 25 years of experience, Dr. McCarus is nationally known as a leader in the practice of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.
It is a pleasure to welcome Dr. McCarus to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class.
References
1. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1999 Feb;6(1):97-100.
2. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):455-61.
3. J Clin Med Res. 2017 Jul;9(7):613-7.
4. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2013 Aug;2(3):85-8.
5. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;28(4):255-60.
Full disclosure
I have nothing to disclose.
That is the first line on my second slide in just about every talk I give. I have no financial conflicts of interest. I no longer accept meals from pharmaceutical companies, I no longer conduct pharmaceutical company sponsored research, and I no longer give talks that include honoraria from pharmaceutical companies. I turn down payments from pharmaceutical companies when I participate in drug-monitoring safety boards and advisory committees. I do not have a financial conflict of interest.
Or do I?
In preparing to write this essay, I searched the Open Payments website (www.cms.gov/OpenPayments/index.html) for my name. Open Payments is the product of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act passed in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act. The website went live in September 2014 with the intention of making public all payments made to physicians from device and drug makers. I was happy to confirm that I have received no “General Payments,” which are payments for meals, travel, honoraria, consulting, and the like. However, I was surprised to learn that I did receive “Associated Research” payments. According to the website, an Associated Research payment is “funding for a research project or study where the physician is named as a principal investigator.”
I still have a few trials open under my name, but none have accrued a patient in more than 7 years. Nonetheless, I am on record, and publicly so, for accepting an Associated payment for research to the tune of $1,308,360.06.
Upon learning this, my thoughts turned to the New York Times. The Times recently published an expose in cooperation with ProPublica. In it, a prominent cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering was accused of repeatedly failing to disclose his substantial financial conflicts of interest. The payments creating the conflict were listed on the Open Payments website. Since financial disclosure is almost always required for a manuscript listed in PubMed, a simple comparison of two public websites provided the journalists with nearly all the information they needed to conclude malfeasance in disclosure.
In response, the accused admitted the failure to disclose, but attributed it to an unintentional error. In the frenzy that followed, a man of towering stature, a paragon of cancer research, submitted his resignation. The sequence of events was tragic. Had the payments been for research instead of services rendered would the consequences have been the same?
Most of us believe corporate payments for research are less likely to influence our prescribing and consulting habits than are general payments for entertainment and speaking engagements. I remember receiving my first research grant from the now defunct pharma company Immunex. It was for $10,000 – a paltry sum – but enough for me to set up a clinical trial using Immunex’s drugs. I was flattered, indebted, and conflicted from that point forward. Funded research propels our careers forward. Thinking research payments bias our decision making less than direct payments is naive. Money corrupts, and that is why research dollars need to be disclosed whenever we discuss research at the podium or in print.
With appropriate indignation, I explored the Open Payments website to learn more of my hitherto unknown payment. It was attached to a multicenter, randomized clinical trial for which I served as local principal investigator. The payment was made in January 2017 and our research team cannot verify such a payment was ever received. According to the website, the payment was not disputed. I sought to dispute it.
Our friends at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services do not make filing a dispute easy. I first had to register with my home address and create a new password that, of course, needs to be changed every 60 days. I duly registered and logged into the website as instructed. I followed instructions and filled in data fields for about an additional 10 pages before being informed that I needed to logout, then log back in, to access the Open Payments application. When I did that, I was greeted with instructions to register in the Open Payments system. I then realized that all I had done to that point was register with the CMS.gov portal, not Open Payments. In for a dime, in for a dollar, I registered with Open Payments.
I almost gave up when they asked me to provide a Physician Taxonomy Code. It took me a long time to find it. For those interested, the code for Hematology is 207RH0000X. With that code entered in the right box, I was only two pages away from being registered and ready to open the dispute. Failure hit me like a lake effect snow storm. Despite my diligence, I was not “vetted” and could not file a dispute. I must have done something wrong and cannot seem to investigate the payment further, but I’m sure the New York Times could.
Now, I don’t know if I have anything to disclose or not. I do know that I have to investigate my payment the best I can, that I have to disclose it if it is real, and that I have to check Open Payments every so often to make sure I am not surprised by an investigative journalist’s report in the future. Add these to the pantheon of onerous requirements for a successful academic career.
Many wear their entanglements as a badge of honor on slides highlighting a long list of conflicts. One speaker joked that she had so many conflicts that she had no conflicts. Clearly, much like alarm fatigue, the constant display of financial conflict of interest disclosures rarely raises red flags in an audience of peers. To an audience of interested lay persons, though, those conflicts may be very important and relevant.
It is our duty to accurately account for and report them no matter the difficulty in doing so. Failure to do so can carry tragic consequences.
Dr. Kalaycio is editor in chief of Hematology News. He chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Contact him at [email protected].
I have nothing to disclose.
That is the first line on my second slide in just about every talk I give. I have no financial conflicts of interest. I no longer accept meals from pharmaceutical companies, I no longer conduct pharmaceutical company sponsored research, and I no longer give talks that include honoraria from pharmaceutical companies. I turn down payments from pharmaceutical companies when I participate in drug-monitoring safety boards and advisory committees. I do not have a financial conflict of interest.
Or do I?
In preparing to write this essay, I searched the Open Payments website (www.cms.gov/OpenPayments/index.html) for my name. Open Payments is the product of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act passed in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act. The website went live in September 2014 with the intention of making public all payments made to physicians from device and drug makers. I was happy to confirm that I have received no “General Payments,” which are payments for meals, travel, honoraria, consulting, and the like. However, I was surprised to learn that I did receive “Associated Research” payments. According to the website, an Associated Research payment is “funding for a research project or study where the physician is named as a principal investigator.”
I still have a few trials open under my name, but none have accrued a patient in more than 7 years. Nonetheless, I am on record, and publicly so, for accepting an Associated payment for research to the tune of $1,308,360.06.
Upon learning this, my thoughts turned to the New York Times. The Times recently published an expose in cooperation with ProPublica. In it, a prominent cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering was accused of repeatedly failing to disclose his substantial financial conflicts of interest. The payments creating the conflict were listed on the Open Payments website. Since financial disclosure is almost always required for a manuscript listed in PubMed, a simple comparison of two public websites provided the journalists with nearly all the information they needed to conclude malfeasance in disclosure.
In response, the accused admitted the failure to disclose, but attributed it to an unintentional error. In the frenzy that followed, a man of towering stature, a paragon of cancer research, submitted his resignation. The sequence of events was tragic. Had the payments been for research instead of services rendered would the consequences have been the same?
Most of us believe corporate payments for research are less likely to influence our prescribing and consulting habits than are general payments for entertainment and speaking engagements. I remember receiving my first research grant from the now defunct pharma company Immunex. It was for $10,000 – a paltry sum – but enough for me to set up a clinical trial using Immunex’s drugs. I was flattered, indebted, and conflicted from that point forward. Funded research propels our careers forward. Thinking research payments bias our decision making less than direct payments is naive. Money corrupts, and that is why research dollars need to be disclosed whenever we discuss research at the podium or in print.
With appropriate indignation, I explored the Open Payments website to learn more of my hitherto unknown payment. It was attached to a multicenter, randomized clinical trial for which I served as local principal investigator. The payment was made in January 2017 and our research team cannot verify such a payment was ever received. According to the website, the payment was not disputed. I sought to dispute it.
Our friends at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services do not make filing a dispute easy. I first had to register with my home address and create a new password that, of course, needs to be changed every 60 days. I duly registered and logged into the website as instructed. I followed instructions and filled in data fields for about an additional 10 pages before being informed that I needed to logout, then log back in, to access the Open Payments application. When I did that, I was greeted with instructions to register in the Open Payments system. I then realized that all I had done to that point was register with the CMS.gov portal, not Open Payments. In for a dime, in for a dollar, I registered with Open Payments.
I almost gave up when they asked me to provide a Physician Taxonomy Code. It took me a long time to find it. For those interested, the code for Hematology is 207RH0000X. With that code entered in the right box, I was only two pages away from being registered and ready to open the dispute. Failure hit me like a lake effect snow storm. Despite my diligence, I was not “vetted” and could not file a dispute. I must have done something wrong and cannot seem to investigate the payment further, but I’m sure the New York Times could.
Now, I don’t know if I have anything to disclose or not. I do know that I have to investigate my payment the best I can, that I have to disclose it if it is real, and that I have to check Open Payments every so often to make sure I am not surprised by an investigative journalist’s report in the future. Add these to the pantheon of onerous requirements for a successful academic career.
Many wear their entanglements as a badge of honor on slides highlighting a long list of conflicts. One speaker joked that she had so many conflicts that she had no conflicts. Clearly, much like alarm fatigue, the constant display of financial conflict of interest disclosures rarely raises red flags in an audience of peers. To an audience of interested lay persons, though, those conflicts may be very important and relevant.
It is our duty to accurately account for and report them no matter the difficulty in doing so. Failure to do so can carry tragic consequences.
Dr. Kalaycio is editor in chief of Hematology News. He chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Contact him at [email protected].
I have nothing to disclose.
That is the first line on my second slide in just about every talk I give. I have no financial conflicts of interest. I no longer accept meals from pharmaceutical companies, I no longer conduct pharmaceutical company sponsored research, and I no longer give talks that include honoraria from pharmaceutical companies. I turn down payments from pharmaceutical companies when I participate in drug-monitoring safety boards and advisory committees. I do not have a financial conflict of interest.
Or do I?
In preparing to write this essay, I searched the Open Payments website (www.cms.gov/OpenPayments/index.html) for my name. Open Payments is the product of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act passed in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act. The website went live in September 2014 with the intention of making public all payments made to physicians from device and drug makers. I was happy to confirm that I have received no “General Payments,” which are payments for meals, travel, honoraria, consulting, and the like. However, I was surprised to learn that I did receive “Associated Research” payments. According to the website, an Associated Research payment is “funding for a research project or study where the physician is named as a principal investigator.”
I still have a few trials open under my name, but none have accrued a patient in more than 7 years. Nonetheless, I am on record, and publicly so, for accepting an Associated payment for research to the tune of $1,308,360.06.
Upon learning this, my thoughts turned to the New York Times. The Times recently published an expose in cooperation with ProPublica. In it, a prominent cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering was accused of repeatedly failing to disclose his substantial financial conflicts of interest. The payments creating the conflict were listed on the Open Payments website. Since financial disclosure is almost always required for a manuscript listed in PubMed, a simple comparison of two public websites provided the journalists with nearly all the information they needed to conclude malfeasance in disclosure.
In response, the accused admitted the failure to disclose, but attributed it to an unintentional error. In the frenzy that followed, a man of towering stature, a paragon of cancer research, submitted his resignation. The sequence of events was tragic. Had the payments been for research instead of services rendered would the consequences have been the same?
Most of us believe corporate payments for research are less likely to influence our prescribing and consulting habits than are general payments for entertainment and speaking engagements. I remember receiving my first research grant from the now defunct pharma company Immunex. It was for $10,000 – a paltry sum – but enough for me to set up a clinical trial using Immunex’s drugs. I was flattered, indebted, and conflicted from that point forward. Funded research propels our careers forward. Thinking research payments bias our decision making less than direct payments is naive. Money corrupts, and that is why research dollars need to be disclosed whenever we discuss research at the podium or in print.
With appropriate indignation, I explored the Open Payments website to learn more of my hitherto unknown payment. It was attached to a multicenter, randomized clinical trial for which I served as local principal investigator. The payment was made in January 2017 and our research team cannot verify such a payment was ever received. According to the website, the payment was not disputed. I sought to dispute it.
Our friends at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services do not make filing a dispute easy. I first had to register with my home address and create a new password that, of course, needs to be changed every 60 days. I duly registered and logged into the website as instructed. I followed instructions and filled in data fields for about an additional 10 pages before being informed that I needed to logout, then log back in, to access the Open Payments application. When I did that, I was greeted with instructions to register in the Open Payments system. I then realized that all I had done to that point was register with the CMS.gov portal, not Open Payments. In for a dime, in for a dollar, I registered with Open Payments.
I almost gave up when they asked me to provide a Physician Taxonomy Code. It took me a long time to find it. For those interested, the code for Hematology is 207RH0000X. With that code entered in the right box, I was only two pages away from being registered and ready to open the dispute. Failure hit me like a lake effect snow storm. Despite my diligence, I was not “vetted” and could not file a dispute. I must have done something wrong and cannot seem to investigate the payment further, but I’m sure the New York Times could.
Now, I don’t know if I have anything to disclose or not. I do know that I have to investigate my payment the best I can, that I have to disclose it if it is real, and that I have to check Open Payments every so often to make sure I am not surprised by an investigative journalist’s report in the future. Add these to the pantheon of onerous requirements for a successful academic career.
Many wear their entanglements as a badge of honor on slides highlighting a long list of conflicts. One speaker joked that she had so many conflicts that she had no conflicts. Clearly, much like alarm fatigue, the constant display of financial conflict of interest disclosures rarely raises red flags in an audience of peers. To an audience of interested lay persons, though, those conflicts may be very important and relevant.
It is our duty to accurately account for and report them no matter the difficulty in doing so. Failure to do so can carry tragic consequences.
Dr. Kalaycio is editor in chief of Hematology News. He chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Contact him at [email protected].
White coats and provider attire: Does it matter to patients?
What is appropriate “ward garb”?
The question of appropriate ward garb is a problem for the ages. Compared with photo stills and films from the 1960s, the doctors of today appear like vagabonds. No ties, no lab coats, and scrub tops have become the norm for a number (a majority?) of hospital-based docs – and even more so on the surgical wards and in the ER.
Past studies have addressed patient preferences for provider dress, but none like the results of a recent survey.
From the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, comes a physician attire survey of a convenience sample of 4,000 patients at 10 U.S. academic medical centers. It included both inpatients and outpatients, and used the design of many previous studies, showing patients the same doctor dressed seven different ways. After viewing the photographs, the patients received surveys as to their preference of physician based on attire, as well as being asked to rate the physician in the areas of knowledge, trust, care, approachability, and comfort.
You can see the domains: casual, scrubs, and formal, each with and without a lab coat. The seventh category is business attire (future C-suite wannabes – you know who you are).
Over half of the participants indicated that how a physician dresses was important to them, with more than one in three stating that this influenced how happy they were with care received. Overall, respondents indicated that formal attire with white coats was the most preferred form of physician dress.
I found the discussion in the study worthwhile, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s outline. They went to great lengths to design a nonbiased questionnaire and used a consistent approach to shooting their photos. They also discussed lab coats, long sleeves, and hygiene.
But what to draw from the findings? Does patient satisfaction matter or just clinical outcomes? Is patient happiness a means to an end or an end unto itself? Can I even get you exercised about a score of 6 versus 8 (a 25% difference)? For instance, imagine the worst-dressed doc – say shorts and flip-flops. Is that a 5.8 or a 2.3? The anchor matters, and it helps to put the ratings in context.
Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
Dr. Flansbaum works for Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., in both the divisions of hospital medicine and population health. He is a founding member of the Society of Hospital Medicine and served as a board member and officer.
Also in The Hospital Leader
•Hospitalists Can Improve Patient Trust…in Their Colleagues by Chris Moriates, MD, SFHM
•Treatment of Type II MIs by Brad Flansbaum, MD, MPH, MHM
•The $64,000 Question: How Can Hospitalists Improve Their HCAHPS Scores? by Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM
What is appropriate “ward garb”?
What is appropriate “ward garb”?
The question of appropriate ward garb is a problem for the ages. Compared with photo stills and films from the 1960s, the doctors of today appear like vagabonds. No ties, no lab coats, and scrub tops have become the norm for a number (a majority?) of hospital-based docs – and even more so on the surgical wards and in the ER.
Past studies have addressed patient preferences for provider dress, but none like the results of a recent survey.
From the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, comes a physician attire survey of a convenience sample of 4,000 patients at 10 U.S. academic medical centers. It included both inpatients and outpatients, and used the design of many previous studies, showing patients the same doctor dressed seven different ways. After viewing the photographs, the patients received surveys as to their preference of physician based on attire, as well as being asked to rate the physician in the areas of knowledge, trust, care, approachability, and comfort.
You can see the domains: casual, scrubs, and formal, each with and without a lab coat. The seventh category is business attire (future C-suite wannabes – you know who you are).
Over half of the participants indicated that how a physician dresses was important to them, with more than one in three stating that this influenced how happy they were with care received. Overall, respondents indicated that formal attire with white coats was the most preferred form of physician dress.
I found the discussion in the study worthwhile, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s outline. They went to great lengths to design a nonbiased questionnaire and used a consistent approach to shooting their photos. They also discussed lab coats, long sleeves, and hygiene.
But what to draw from the findings? Does patient satisfaction matter or just clinical outcomes? Is patient happiness a means to an end or an end unto itself? Can I even get you exercised about a score of 6 versus 8 (a 25% difference)? For instance, imagine the worst-dressed doc – say shorts and flip-flops. Is that a 5.8 or a 2.3? The anchor matters, and it helps to put the ratings in context.
Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
Dr. Flansbaum works for Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., in both the divisions of hospital medicine and population health. He is a founding member of the Society of Hospital Medicine and served as a board member and officer.
Also in The Hospital Leader
•Hospitalists Can Improve Patient Trust…in Their Colleagues by Chris Moriates, MD, SFHM
•Treatment of Type II MIs by Brad Flansbaum, MD, MPH, MHM
•The $64,000 Question: How Can Hospitalists Improve Their HCAHPS Scores? by Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM
The question of appropriate ward garb is a problem for the ages. Compared with photo stills and films from the 1960s, the doctors of today appear like vagabonds. No ties, no lab coats, and scrub tops have become the norm for a number (a majority?) of hospital-based docs – and even more so on the surgical wards and in the ER.
Past studies have addressed patient preferences for provider dress, but none like the results of a recent survey.
From the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, comes a physician attire survey of a convenience sample of 4,000 patients at 10 U.S. academic medical centers. It included both inpatients and outpatients, and used the design of many previous studies, showing patients the same doctor dressed seven different ways. After viewing the photographs, the patients received surveys as to their preference of physician based on attire, as well as being asked to rate the physician in the areas of knowledge, trust, care, approachability, and comfort.
You can see the domains: casual, scrubs, and formal, each with and without a lab coat. The seventh category is business attire (future C-suite wannabes – you know who you are).
Over half of the participants indicated that how a physician dresses was important to them, with more than one in three stating that this influenced how happy they were with care received. Overall, respondents indicated that formal attire with white coats was the most preferred form of physician dress.
I found the discussion in the study worthwhile, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s outline. They went to great lengths to design a nonbiased questionnaire and used a consistent approach to shooting their photos. They also discussed lab coats, long sleeves, and hygiene.
But what to draw from the findings? Does patient satisfaction matter or just clinical outcomes? Is patient happiness a means to an end or an end unto itself? Can I even get you exercised about a score of 6 versus 8 (a 25% difference)? For instance, imagine the worst-dressed doc – say shorts and flip-flops. Is that a 5.8 or a 2.3? The anchor matters, and it helps to put the ratings in context.
Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
Dr. Flansbaum works for Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., in both the divisions of hospital medicine and population health. He is a founding member of the Society of Hospital Medicine and served as a board member and officer.
Also in The Hospital Leader
•Hospitalists Can Improve Patient Trust…in Their Colleagues by Chris Moriates, MD, SFHM
•Treatment of Type II MIs by Brad Flansbaum, MD, MPH, MHM
•The $64,000 Question: How Can Hospitalists Improve Their HCAHPS Scores? by Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM
Inpatient vs. outpatient addiction treatment: Which is best?
In the course of my general psychiatry practice, there are times when I am unable to manage a patient’s substance abuse issues, and I have referred patients to a higher level of care – often to an intensive outpatient program (IOP) that meets for 3 hours a day, or to an inpatient rehabilitation, usually for 28 days. I’m not always sure who can be managed in which setting, and I usually honor the patient’s wishes. If the patient is motivated, has a support system in place, and is concerned that his job will be in jeopardy if he takes time off work, then I refer to Kolmac Outpatient Recovery Centers, a local outpatient treatment center that gives patients the option of attending in the mornings or evenings and allows most people to continue working. If I think I may have only a single shot at getting a patient engaged in care, and the patient is willing to go to an inpatient setting, I refer to a residential treatment facility. It has occurred to me that this is not a very scientific way of making a treatment decision.
George Kolodner, MD, is the chief clinical officer of Kolmac. He has been a member of the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s (ASAM) treatment criteria committee. When I spoke with Dr. Kolodner, he noted: “Discussions between third-party payers and treatment programs about what is the appropriate level of care for a particular individual have been adversarial. ASAM has spent many years developing the ASAM Criteria, a document that attempts to mediate these disagreements by developing objective criteria for where people ought to be treated. Because it is so comprehensive and the variables are so many, it can be difficult to use. A computerized version, called ‘Continuum,’ has been developed to make the criteria more user-friendly.”
“My 45-year experience,” Dr. Kolodner continued, “is that detoxification and rehabilitation can usually be done successfully on an outpatient basis if an appropriate facility is available and the patient has both a supportive living environment and can get to the treatment. Hospitalization and residential rehabilitation is an essential level of care when those conditions do not exist or when outpatient treatment proves to be insufficient.”
One problem with comparing the success of IOPs to inpatient programs is that these settings differ widely in which services they offer to patients.
“There’s no standardization,” Dr. Kolodner said. “The services may be watered down, they may not have a medical staff or a psychiatrist, and people get sucked into inappropriate treatments. When it comes to both IOPs and inpatient facilities, there is no uniformity, and right now it’s caveat emptor.”
Marc Fishman, MD, is medical director of Maryland Treatment Centers/Mountain Manor Treatment Center, a coeditor of the ASAM Criteria, and, with Dr. Kolodner, a member of ASAM’s treatment criteria committee. He, too, talked about the absence of standardization across treatment settings.
“Bed-based and non–bed-based care exist in many flavors and subflavors. You have to remember,” Dr. Fishman said, “this is a marathon, not a sprint, and one of the most important goals of bed-based care is that it serves as a stepping stone for outpatient treatment.”
Dr. Fishman talked about a list of criteria he uses to decide whether someone can be treated as an outpatient. “First, someone has to be able to access outpatient treatment; it may not be available. Can they get back and forth? How chaotic are their lives? Is there support at home, or is it a toxic environment in which others are using? Are they likely to keep using and drop out? What is the patient’s level of motivation? If a person is very ambivalent, you may need a high-intensity motivational milieu. Are their psychiatric symptoms severe enough to require 24-hour monitoring and supervision? Most detoxification we can do on an outpatient basis, but some complex multisubstance withdrawal may need more monitoring.
“Also, we have an increasing armamentarium of medications to promote abstinence, and sometimes it makes sense to start them in higher-level treatment settings; for example long-acting injectable naltrexone (Vivitrol) needs a 10-day postdetox opioid-free washout before it can be started.”
Dr. Fishman was careful to note that imminent danger is usually not a reason to use an inpatient rehab setting. “When you’re talking about safety issues, then people usually need a hospital. Most rehabs are not equipped to deal with dangerous patients.”
In choosing from the different treatment options, the first question should be to ask which forms of treatment are available with high-quality care. Can the patient access an outpatient center, will he be able to get to treatment, and will he be able to remain sober between visits? Will he be offered a full range of treatment options in that setting? Can substance withdrawal be managed safely? If the patient fails at outpatient care, will he be willing to consider inpatient treatment as a next step? What is the risk associated with relapse in a setting that allows for access to substances between sessions? Is the patient someone who is at high risk for a fatal overdose, or at high risk for endangering others, for example, someone who has been revived from overdoses or has driven while inebriated? Would this patient benefit from more intensive psychotherapeutic care? And the question that always haunts me: If there is a bad outcome, will I regret that I did not recommend more?”
Often, I’m left with the idea that it would be nice if we were all given crystal balls at the end of training. In hindsight, if a patient does well, the treatment that was offered was enough, and perhaps even too much in terms of cost. If a patient does not do well, we may be left to ask if he would have been better off if we had recommended a higher level of care, assuming that care could be financed and accessed, and that the patient complied with the treatment recommendations.
Both experts agree that treatment is often effective, and the news here is good. But treatment only works if a patient actually follows through on it, so the best treatment is often the one the patient is willing to accept.
Dr. Miller is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
In the course of my general psychiatry practice, there are times when I am unable to manage a patient’s substance abuse issues, and I have referred patients to a higher level of care – often to an intensive outpatient program (IOP) that meets for 3 hours a day, or to an inpatient rehabilitation, usually for 28 days. I’m not always sure who can be managed in which setting, and I usually honor the patient’s wishes. If the patient is motivated, has a support system in place, and is concerned that his job will be in jeopardy if he takes time off work, then I refer to Kolmac Outpatient Recovery Centers, a local outpatient treatment center that gives patients the option of attending in the mornings or evenings and allows most people to continue working. If I think I may have only a single shot at getting a patient engaged in care, and the patient is willing to go to an inpatient setting, I refer to a residential treatment facility. It has occurred to me that this is not a very scientific way of making a treatment decision.
George Kolodner, MD, is the chief clinical officer of Kolmac. He has been a member of the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s (ASAM) treatment criteria committee. When I spoke with Dr. Kolodner, he noted: “Discussions between third-party payers and treatment programs about what is the appropriate level of care for a particular individual have been adversarial. ASAM has spent many years developing the ASAM Criteria, a document that attempts to mediate these disagreements by developing objective criteria for where people ought to be treated. Because it is so comprehensive and the variables are so many, it can be difficult to use. A computerized version, called ‘Continuum,’ has been developed to make the criteria more user-friendly.”
“My 45-year experience,” Dr. Kolodner continued, “is that detoxification and rehabilitation can usually be done successfully on an outpatient basis if an appropriate facility is available and the patient has both a supportive living environment and can get to the treatment. Hospitalization and residential rehabilitation is an essential level of care when those conditions do not exist or when outpatient treatment proves to be insufficient.”
One problem with comparing the success of IOPs to inpatient programs is that these settings differ widely in which services they offer to patients.
“There’s no standardization,” Dr. Kolodner said. “The services may be watered down, they may not have a medical staff or a psychiatrist, and people get sucked into inappropriate treatments. When it comes to both IOPs and inpatient facilities, there is no uniformity, and right now it’s caveat emptor.”
Marc Fishman, MD, is medical director of Maryland Treatment Centers/Mountain Manor Treatment Center, a coeditor of the ASAM Criteria, and, with Dr. Kolodner, a member of ASAM’s treatment criteria committee. He, too, talked about the absence of standardization across treatment settings.
“Bed-based and non–bed-based care exist in many flavors and subflavors. You have to remember,” Dr. Fishman said, “this is a marathon, not a sprint, and one of the most important goals of bed-based care is that it serves as a stepping stone for outpatient treatment.”
Dr. Fishman talked about a list of criteria he uses to decide whether someone can be treated as an outpatient. “First, someone has to be able to access outpatient treatment; it may not be available. Can they get back and forth? How chaotic are their lives? Is there support at home, or is it a toxic environment in which others are using? Are they likely to keep using and drop out? What is the patient’s level of motivation? If a person is very ambivalent, you may need a high-intensity motivational milieu. Are their psychiatric symptoms severe enough to require 24-hour monitoring and supervision? Most detoxification we can do on an outpatient basis, but some complex multisubstance withdrawal may need more monitoring.
“Also, we have an increasing armamentarium of medications to promote abstinence, and sometimes it makes sense to start them in higher-level treatment settings; for example long-acting injectable naltrexone (Vivitrol) needs a 10-day postdetox opioid-free washout before it can be started.”
Dr. Fishman was careful to note that imminent danger is usually not a reason to use an inpatient rehab setting. “When you’re talking about safety issues, then people usually need a hospital. Most rehabs are not equipped to deal with dangerous patients.”
In choosing from the different treatment options, the first question should be to ask which forms of treatment are available with high-quality care. Can the patient access an outpatient center, will he be able to get to treatment, and will he be able to remain sober between visits? Will he be offered a full range of treatment options in that setting? Can substance withdrawal be managed safely? If the patient fails at outpatient care, will he be willing to consider inpatient treatment as a next step? What is the risk associated with relapse in a setting that allows for access to substances between sessions? Is the patient someone who is at high risk for a fatal overdose, or at high risk for endangering others, for example, someone who has been revived from overdoses or has driven while inebriated? Would this patient benefit from more intensive psychotherapeutic care? And the question that always haunts me: If there is a bad outcome, will I regret that I did not recommend more?”
Often, I’m left with the idea that it would be nice if we were all given crystal balls at the end of training. In hindsight, if a patient does well, the treatment that was offered was enough, and perhaps even too much in terms of cost. If a patient does not do well, we may be left to ask if he would have been better off if we had recommended a higher level of care, assuming that care could be financed and accessed, and that the patient complied with the treatment recommendations.
Both experts agree that treatment is often effective, and the news here is good. But treatment only works if a patient actually follows through on it, so the best treatment is often the one the patient is willing to accept.
Dr. Miller is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
In the course of my general psychiatry practice, there are times when I am unable to manage a patient’s substance abuse issues, and I have referred patients to a higher level of care – often to an intensive outpatient program (IOP) that meets for 3 hours a day, or to an inpatient rehabilitation, usually for 28 days. I’m not always sure who can be managed in which setting, and I usually honor the patient’s wishes. If the patient is motivated, has a support system in place, and is concerned that his job will be in jeopardy if he takes time off work, then I refer to Kolmac Outpatient Recovery Centers, a local outpatient treatment center that gives patients the option of attending in the mornings or evenings and allows most people to continue working. If I think I may have only a single shot at getting a patient engaged in care, and the patient is willing to go to an inpatient setting, I refer to a residential treatment facility. It has occurred to me that this is not a very scientific way of making a treatment decision.
George Kolodner, MD, is the chief clinical officer of Kolmac. He has been a member of the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s (ASAM) treatment criteria committee. When I spoke with Dr. Kolodner, he noted: “Discussions between third-party payers and treatment programs about what is the appropriate level of care for a particular individual have been adversarial. ASAM has spent many years developing the ASAM Criteria, a document that attempts to mediate these disagreements by developing objective criteria for where people ought to be treated. Because it is so comprehensive and the variables are so many, it can be difficult to use. A computerized version, called ‘Continuum,’ has been developed to make the criteria more user-friendly.”
“My 45-year experience,” Dr. Kolodner continued, “is that detoxification and rehabilitation can usually be done successfully on an outpatient basis if an appropriate facility is available and the patient has both a supportive living environment and can get to the treatment. Hospitalization and residential rehabilitation is an essential level of care when those conditions do not exist or when outpatient treatment proves to be insufficient.”
One problem with comparing the success of IOPs to inpatient programs is that these settings differ widely in which services they offer to patients.
“There’s no standardization,” Dr. Kolodner said. “The services may be watered down, they may not have a medical staff or a psychiatrist, and people get sucked into inappropriate treatments. When it comes to both IOPs and inpatient facilities, there is no uniformity, and right now it’s caveat emptor.”
Marc Fishman, MD, is medical director of Maryland Treatment Centers/Mountain Manor Treatment Center, a coeditor of the ASAM Criteria, and, with Dr. Kolodner, a member of ASAM’s treatment criteria committee. He, too, talked about the absence of standardization across treatment settings.
“Bed-based and non–bed-based care exist in many flavors and subflavors. You have to remember,” Dr. Fishman said, “this is a marathon, not a sprint, and one of the most important goals of bed-based care is that it serves as a stepping stone for outpatient treatment.”
Dr. Fishman talked about a list of criteria he uses to decide whether someone can be treated as an outpatient. “First, someone has to be able to access outpatient treatment; it may not be available. Can they get back and forth? How chaotic are their lives? Is there support at home, or is it a toxic environment in which others are using? Are they likely to keep using and drop out? What is the patient’s level of motivation? If a person is very ambivalent, you may need a high-intensity motivational milieu. Are their psychiatric symptoms severe enough to require 24-hour monitoring and supervision? Most detoxification we can do on an outpatient basis, but some complex multisubstance withdrawal may need more monitoring.
“Also, we have an increasing armamentarium of medications to promote abstinence, and sometimes it makes sense to start them in higher-level treatment settings; for example long-acting injectable naltrexone (Vivitrol) needs a 10-day postdetox opioid-free washout before it can be started.”
Dr. Fishman was careful to note that imminent danger is usually not a reason to use an inpatient rehab setting. “When you’re talking about safety issues, then people usually need a hospital. Most rehabs are not equipped to deal with dangerous patients.”
In choosing from the different treatment options, the first question should be to ask which forms of treatment are available with high-quality care. Can the patient access an outpatient center, will he be able to get to treatment, and will he be able to remain sober between visits? Will he be offered a full range of treatment options in that setting? Can substance withdrawal be managed safely? If the patient fails at outpatient care, will he be willing to consider inpatient treatment as a next step? What is the risk associated with relapse in a setting that allows for access to substances between sessions? Is the patient someone who is at high risk for a fatal overdose, or at high risk for endangering others, for example, someone who has been revived from overdoses or has driven while inebriated? Would this patient benefit from more intensive psychotherapeutic care? And the question that always haunts me: If there is a bad outcome, will I regret that I did not recommend more?”
Often, I’m left with the idea that it would be nice if we were all given crystal balls at the end of training. In hindsight, if a patient does well, the treatment that was offered was enough, and perhaps even too much in terms of cost. If a patient does not do well, we may be left to ask if he would have been better off if we had recommended a higher level of care, assuming that care could be financed and accessed, and that the patient complied with the treatment recommendations.
Both experts agree that treatment is often effective, and the news here is good. But treatment only works if a patient actually follows through on it, so the best treatment is often the one the patient is willing to accept.
Dr. Miller is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
Slowing down
This past Labor Day weekend, I did something radical. I slowed down. Way down. My wife slowed down with me, which helped. We spent the weekend close to home walking, talking, reading, contemplating, planning, assessing, doing puzzles and crosswords, and imbibing a craft beer or two, slowly, of course. Why? Because of Adam Grant, PhD, the organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia. I had recently reread his 2016 book I’m a big fan; he’s one of those professors who makes you fervently wish you were a student again, someone who will provoke you and challenge your way of thinking.
Dr. Grant’s basic premise, which he has proved through research, is that procrastination boosts productivity. Here’s how: Let’s say you’re facing a challenge or difficult task. He says to start working on it immediately, then take some time away for reflection. This “quick to start and slow to finish” method allows your brain to continually percolate on the problem. An incomplete task stays partially active in your brain. When you come back to it you often see it with fresh eyes. You will experience your highest productivity when you are toggling between these two modes.
This makes sense, and Dr. Grant cites numerous examples from Leonardo da Vinci to the founders of Warby-Parker, as examples of success. But how can it benefit physicians? Many of us are “precrastinators,” people who tend to complete or at least begin tasks as soon as possible, even when it’s unnecessary or not urgent. Unlike some jobs in which it’s easier to take a break from a project and return to it with more creative solutions, we often are racing against a clock to see more patients, read more slides, answer more emails, and make more phone calls. We are perpetually frenetic, which is not conducive to original thinking.
If this sounds like you, then you are likely to benefit from deliberate procrastination. Here are a few ways to slow down:
- Put it on your calendar. Yes, I see the irony, but it works. Start by scheduling one hour a week where you are to accomplish nothing. You can fill this time with whatever your mind wants to do at that moment.
- When faced with a diagnostic dilemma or treatment failure, resist the urge to solve that problem in that moment. Save that note for later, tell the patient you will call him back or bring him back for a visit later. Even if you’re not actively working on it, it will incubate somewhere in your brain, allowing more divergent thought processes to take over. It’s a little like trying to solve a crossword that seems impossible in the moment and then answers suddenly appear without effort.
- Take up a hobby: Play the guitar, learn to make pasta, climb a big rock. When you are fully engaged in such pursuits it requires complete mental focus. When you revisit the difficult problem you’re working on, you will likely see it from different perspectives.
- Meditate: Meditation requires our brains and bodies to slow down. It can help reduce self-doubt and criticism which stifle problem solving.
- Watch Slow TV. Slow TV is a Scandinavian phenomenon where you sit and watch meditative video such as a 7-hour train cam from Bergen, Norway, to Oslo. There’s no dialogue, no plot, no commercials. It’s just 7 hours of track and train and is weirdly comforting.
If you want to learn more, then when you get a chance, Google “slow living” and explore. Of course, some of you precrastinators probably have already started before finishing this column.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
This past Labor Day weekend, I did something radical. I slowed down. Way down. My wife slowed down with me, which helped. We spent the weekend close to home walking, talking, reading, contemplating, planning, assessing, doing puzzles and crosswords, and imbibing a craft beer or two, slowly, of course. Why? Because of Adam Grant, PhD, the organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia. I had recently reread his 2016 book I’m a big fan; he’s one of those professors who makes you fervently wish you were a student again, someone who will provoke you and challenge your way of thinking.
Dr. Grant’s basic premise, which he has proved through research, is that procrastination boosts productivity. Here’s how: Let’s say you’re facing a challenge or difficult task. He says to start working on it immediately, then take some time away for reflection. This “quick to start and slow to finish” method allows your brain to continually percolate on the problem. An incomplete task stays partially active in your brain. When you come back to it you often see it with fresh eyes. You will experience your highest productivity when you are toggling between these two modes.
This makes sense, and Dr. Grant cites numerous examples from Leonardo da Vinci to the founders of Warby-Parker, as examples of success. But how can it benefit physicians? Many of us are “precrastinators,” people who tend to complete or at least begin tasks as soon as possible, even when it’s unnecessary or not urgent. Unlike some jobs in which it’s easier to take a break from a project and return to it with more creative solutions, we often are racing against a clock to see more patients, read more slides, answer more emails, and make more phone calls. We are perpetually frenetic, which is not conducive to original thinking.
If this sounds like you, then you are likely to benefit from deliberate procrastination. Here are a few ways to slow down:
- Put it on your calendar. Yes, I see the irony, but it works. Start by scheduling one hour a week where you are to accomplish nothing. You can fill this time with whatever your mind wants to do at that moment.
- When faced with a diagnostic dilemma or treatment failure, resist the urge to solve that problem in that moment. Save that note for later, tell the patient you will call him back or bring him back for a visit later. Even if you’re not actively working on it, it will incubate somewhere in your brain, allowing more divergent thought processes to take over. It’s a little like trying to solve a crossword that seems impossible in the moment and then answers suddenly appear without effort.
- Take up a hobby: Play the guitar, learn to make pasta, climb a big rock. When you are fully engaged in such pursuits it requires complete mental focus. When you revisit the difficult problem you’re working on, you will likely see it from different perspectives.
- Meditate: Meditation requires our brains and bodies to slow down. It can help reduce self-doubt and criticism which stifle problem solving.
- Watch Slow TV. Slow TV is a Scandinavian phenomenon where you sit and watch meditative video such as a 7-hour train cam from Bergen, Norway, to Oslo. There’s no dialogue, no plot, no commercials. It’s just 7 hours of track and train and is weirdly comforting.
If you want to learn more, then when you get a chance, Google “slow living” and explore. Of course, some of you precrastinators probably have already started before finishing this column.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
This past Labor Day weekend, I did something radical. I slowed down. Way down. My wife slowed down with me, which helped. We spent the weekend close to home walking, talking, reading, contemplating, planning, assessing, doing puzzles and crosswords, and imbibing a craft beer or two, slowly, of course. Why? Because of Adam Grant, PhD, the organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia. I had recently reread his 2016 book I’m a big fan; he’s one of those professors who makes you fervently wish you were a student again, someone who will provoke you and challenge your way of thinking.
Dr. Grant’s basic premise, which he has proved through research, is that procrastination boosts productivity. Here’s how: Let’s say you’re facing a challenge or difficult task. He says to start working on it immediately, then take some time away for reflection. This “quick to start and slow to finish” method allows your brain to continually percolate on the problem. An incomplete task stays partially active in your brain. When you come back to it you often see it with fresh eyes. You will experience your highest productivity when you are toggling between these two modes.
This makes sense, and Dr. Grant cites numerous examples from Leonardo da Vinci to the founders of Warby-Parker, as examples of success. But how can it benefit physicians? Many of us are “precrastinators,” people who tend to complete or at least begin tasks as soon as possible, even when it’s unnecessary or not urgent. Unlike some jobs in which it’s easier to take a break from a project and return to it with more creative solutions, we often are racing against a clock to see more patients, read more slides, answer more emails, and make more phone calls. We are perpetually frenetic, which is not conducive to original thinking.
If this sounds like you, then you are likely to benefit from deliberate procrastination. Here are a few ways to slow down:
- Put it on your calendar. Yes, I see the irony, but it works. Start by scheduling one hour a week where you are to accomplish nothing. You can fill this time with whatever your mind wants to do at that moment.
- When faced with a diagnostic dilemma or treatment failure, resist the urge to solve that problem in that moment. Save that note for later, tell the patient you will call him back or bring him back for a visit later. Even if you’re not actively working on it, it will incubate somewhere in your brain, allowing more divergent thought processes to take over. It’s a little like trying to solve a crossword that seems impossible in the moment and then answers suddenly appear without effort.
- Take up a hobby: Play the guitar, learn to make pasta, climb a big rock. When you are fully engaged in such pursuits it requires complete mental focus. When you revisit the difficult problem you’re working on, you will likely see it from different perspectives.
- Meditate: Meditation requires our brains and bodies to slow down. It can help reduce self-doubt and criticism which stifle problem solving.
- Watch Slow TV. Slow TV is a Scandinavian phenomenon where you sit and watch meditative video such as a 7-hour train cam from Bergen, Norway, to Oslo. There’s no dialogue, no plot, no commercials. It’s just 7 hours of track and train and is weirdly comforting.
If you want to learn more, then when you get a chance, Google “slow living” and explore. Of course, some of you precrastinators probably have already started before finishing this column.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
October 2018
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can affect individuals regardless of age, race, or sex, but ACD accounts for 20% of all contact dermatitis reactions. ACD results in an inflammatory reaction in those who have been previously sensitized to an allergen. This type of delayed hypersensitivity reaction is known as cell-mediated hypersensitivity. Generally, no reaction is elicited upon the first exposure to the allergen. In fact, it may take years of exposure to allergens for someone to develop an allergic contact dermatitis.
Once sensitized, epidermal antigen-presenting cells (APCs) called Langerhans cells process the allergen and present it in a complex on the surface of the cell to a CD4+ T cell. Subsequently, inflammatory cytokines and mediators are released, resulting in an allergic cutaneous (eczematous) reaction. Lesions may appear to be vesicular or bullous. Occasionally, a generalized eruption may occur. With repeated exposure, reactions may be acute or chronic.
Common causes of allergic contact dermatitis include toxicodendron plants (poison ivy, oak, and sumac; cashew nut tree; and mango), metals (nickel and gold), topical antibiotics (neomycin and bacitracin), fragrance and Balsam of Peru, deodorant, preservatives (formaldehyde), and rubber (elastic and gloves).
Patch testing is the standard means of detecting which allergen is causing the sensitization in an individual. The Thin-Layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous (TRUE) test or individually prepared aluminum (Finn) chambers containing the most common allergens are applied to the patient’s upper back. The patches are removed after 48 hours and read, and then reevaluated at day 4 or 5. Positive reactions appear as eczematous or vesicular papules or plaques.
Treatment includes avoidance of the allergens. Topical corticosteroid creams are helpful. For severe or generalized reactions, oral prednisone may be used. It is important to note that patient may be allergic to topical steroids. Patch testing can be performed to elucidate such allergens.
In contrast, 80% of contact dermatitis reactions are irritant, not allergic. Irritant contact dermatitis results is a local inflammatory reaction in people who have come into contact with a substance. Previous sensitization is not required. The reaction usually occurs immediately after exposure. Common causes include alkalis (detergents, soaps), acids (often found as an industrial work exposure), metals, solvents (occupational dermatitis), hydrocarbons, and chlorinated compounds.
This case and photo were 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 edermatologynews.com. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can affect individuals regardless of age, race, or sex, but ACD accounts for 20% of all contact dermatitis reactions. ACD results in an inflammatory reaction in those who have been previously sensitized to an allergen. This type of delayed hypersensitivity reaction is known as cell-mediated hypersensitivity. Generally, no reaction is elicited upon the first exposure to the allergen. In fact, it may take years of exposure to allergens for someone to develop an allergic contact dermatitis.
Once sensitized, epidermal antigen-presenting cells (APCs) called Langerhans cells process the allergen and present it in a complex on the surface of the cell to a CD4+ T cell. Subsequently, inflammatory cytokines and mediators are released, resulting in an allergic cutaneous (eczematous) reaction. Lesions may appear to be vesicular or bullous. Occasionally, a generalized eruption may occur. With repeated exposure, reactions may be acute or chronic.
Common causes of allergic contact dermatitis include toxicodendron plants (poison ivy, oak, and sumac; cashew nut tree; and mango), metals (nickel and gold), topical antibiotics (neomycin and bacitracin), fragrance and Balsam of Peru, deodorant, preservatives (formaldehyde), and rubber (elastic and gloves).
Patch testing is the standard means of detecting which allergen is causing the sensitization in an individual. The Thin-Layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous (TRUE) test or individually prepared aluminum (Finn) chambers containing the most common allergens are applied to the patient’s upper back. The patches are removed after 48 hours and read, and then reevaluated at day 4 or 5. Positive reactions appear as eczematous or vesicular papules or plaques.
Treatment includes avoidance of the allergens. Topical corticosteroid creams are helpful. For severe or generalized reactions, oral prednisone may be used. It is important to note that patient may be allergic to topical steroids. Patch testing can be performed to elucidate such allergens.
In contrast, 80% of contact dermatitis reactions are irritant, not allergic. Irritant contact dermatitis results is a local inflammatory reaction in people who have come into contact with a substance. Previous sensitization is not required. The reaction usually occurs immediately after exposure. Common causes include alkalis (detergents, soaps), acids (often found as an industrial work exposure), metals, solvents (occupational dermatitis), hydrocarbons, and chlorinated compounds.
This case and photo were 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 edermatologynews.com. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can affect individuals regardless of age, race, or sex, but ACD accounts for 20% of all contact dermatitis reactions. ACD results in an inflammatory reaction in those who have been previously sensitized to an allergen. This type of delayed hypersensitivity reaction is known as cell-mediated hypersensitivity. Generally, no reaction is elicited upon the first exposure to the allergen. In fact, it may take years of exposure to allergens for someone to develop an allergic contact dermatitis.
Once sensitized, epidermal antigen-presenting cells (APCs) called Langerhans cells process the allergen and present it in a complex on the surface of the cell to a CD4+ T cell. Subsequently, inflammatory cytokines and mediators are released, resulting in an allergic cutaneous (eczematous) reaction. Lesions may appear to be vesicular or bullous. Occasionally, a generalized eruption may occur. With repeated exposure, reactions may be acute or chronic.
Common causes of allergic contact dermatitis include toxicodendron plants (poison ivy, oak, and sumac; cashew nut tree; and mango), metals (nickel and gold), topical antibiotics (neomycin and bacitracin), fragrance and Balsam of Peru, deodorant, preservatives (formaldehyde), and rubber (elastic and gloves).
Patch testing is the standard means of detecting which allergen is causing the sensitization in an individual. The Thin-Layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous (TRUE) test or individually prepared aluminum (Finn) chambers containing the most common allergens are applied to the patient’s upper back. The patches are removed after 48 hours and read, and then reevaluated at day 4 or 5. Positive reactions appear as eczematous or vesicular papules or plaques.
Treatment includes avoidance of the allergens. Topical corticosteroid creams are helpful. For severe or generalized reactions, oral prednisone may be used. It is important to note that patient may be allergic to topical steroids. Patch testing can be performed to elucidate such allergens.
In contrast, 80% of contact dermatitis reactions are irritant, not allergic. Irritant contact dermatitis results is a local inflammatory reaction in people who have come into contact with a substance. Previous sensitization is not required. The reaction usually occurs immediately after exposure. Common causes include alkalis (detergents, soaps), acids (often found as an industrial work exposure), metals, solvents (occupational dermatitis), hydrocarbons, and chlorinated compounds.
This case and photo were 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 edermatologynews.com. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
A 30-year-old female presented with 2 days of intensely pruritic erythematous papules and vesicles on her bilateral arms and hands. The lesions began appearing 1 day after a camping trip. Her neck, chest, and upper back were clear.
Don’t forget about OSHA
With the bewildering array of new bureaucracies that private practices are now forced to contend with, it is easy to forget about the older ones – especially the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).
with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.
For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain site, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s Web site or order it at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.
Next, how old is your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology.
You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at your decision and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.
Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” (My favorite in that category is liquid nitrogen; it’s hard to envision anything less hazardous, since it evaporates instantly if spilled, and cannot injure skin, or anything else, without purposeful, sustained exposure – and is great, incidentally, for extinguishing small fires.) For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.
Check out your building’s exits. Everyone must be able to evacuate your office quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.
Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.
You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.
Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.
Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.
It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.
How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections, as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
With the bewildering array of new bureaucracies that private practices are now forced to contend with, it is easy to forget about the older ones – especially the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).
with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.
For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain site, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s Web site or order it at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.
Next, how old is your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology.
You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at your decision and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.
Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” (My favorite in that category is liquid nitrogen; it’s hard to envision anything less hazardous, since it evaporates instantly if spilled, and cannot injure skin, or anything else, without purposeful, sustained exposure – and is great, incidentally, for extinguishing small fires.) For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.
Check out your building’s exits. Everyone must be able to evacuate your office quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.
Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.
You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.
Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.
Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.
It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.
How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections, as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
With the bewildering array of new bureaucracies that private practices are now forced to contend with, it is easy to forget about the older ones – especially the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).
with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.
For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain site, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s Web site or order it at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.
Next, how old is your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology.
You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at your decision and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.
Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” (My favorite in that category is liquid nitrogen; it’s hard to envision anything less hazardous, since it evaporates instantly if spilled, and cannot injure skin, or anything else, without purposeful, sustained exposure – and is great, incidentally, for extinguishing small fires.) For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.
Check out your building’s exits. Everyone must be able to evacuate your office quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.
Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.
You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.
Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.
Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.
It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.
How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections, as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
No-shows: Trying to predict and reduce the unpredictable
Why do patients no-show?
The reasons are, obviously, widely variable among patients and circumstances. Some are more understandable than others, but all of them add up to an empty chair across the desk and loss of income for that time slot.
A recent study in Neurology: Clinical Practice looked into this question. Interestingly, it found that people with certain chronic diseases, such as medication-overuse headaches, chronic daily headaches, and seizures, were among those with the highest no-show rates.
These are all conditions that require medication fine tuning, but this can be difficult without the patient coming in. There’s only so much that can be done on the phone, and in this business a direct face-to-face conversation is often needed.
On the opposite side, they noted that people with degenerative disorders that have more limited treatments, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, had the highest rate of making it to the appointment, though this may be due more to caretakers than the patients themselves.
Financial issues come into play. Younger patients with chronic diseases may have more difficulty taking time off work, or may just simply not have the money for a copay. They could also be too depressed from their situation to come in. Granted, it would be nice if they’d call to let us know they weren’t coming (at my office we don’t ask questions), but many don’t bother.
All of us are affected by this problem. Seeing patients is what drives the economics of every medical practice. An empty exam room is a financial hit, and it denies another patient who needs help a chance to be seen.
Fifteen years ago, my billing company ran some numbers and found that patients on one specific insurance plan had two to three times the rate of no-shows of any of my other contracts. With a number like that, I couldn’t see a reason to stay with them, and I dropped that plan. I felt bad for the reliable patients affected, but the hard truth is that if I can’t keep my practice open, I can’t help anyone. Why this plan had so many no-shows could be from a number of factors, but the end result was the same. Regardless of the reason, it was having a negative impact on my bottom line.
We try all kinds of different ways to remind people of their appointments. My secretary makes reminder calls. Other offices send texts or emails, or have a robocall system. These can only help to a certain degree. At some point, this becomes the “you can lead a horse to water ...” adage.
There’s no real easy answer, either. At my office, we don’t overbook. It seems to be an unwritten rule that every time we gamble that someone won’t come in and then put someone else in the slot, they both show up.
Research like this is interesting, and maybe helpful at making a predictive model about no-shows. But I’m not convinced it will eventually have everyday use in a real-world practice.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Why do patients no-show?
The reasons are, obviously, widely variable among patients and circumstances. Some are more understandable than others, but all of them add up to an empty chair across the desk and loss of income for that time slot.
A recent study in Neurology: Clinical Practice looked into this question. Interestingly, it found that people with certain chronic diseases, such as medication-overuse headaches, chronic daily headaches, and seizures, were among those with the highest no-show rates.
These are all conditions that require medication fine tuning, but this can be difficult without the patient coming in. There’s only so much that can be done on the phone, and in this business a direct face-to-face conversation is often needed.
On the opposite side, they noted that people with degenerative disorders that have more limited treatments, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, had the highest rate of making it to the appointment, though this may be due more to caretakers than the patients themselves.
Financial issues come into play. Younger patients with chronic diseases may have more difficulty taking time off work, or may just simply not have the money for a copay. They could also be too depressed from their situation to come in. Granted, it would be nice if they’d call to let us know they weren’t coming (at my office we don’t ask questions), but many don’t bother.
All of us are affected by this problem. Seeing patients is what drives the economics of every medical practice. An empty exam room is a financial hit, and it denies another patient who needs help a chance to be seen.
Fifteen years ago, my billing company ran some numbers and found that patients on one specific insurance plan had two to three times the rate of no-shows of any of my other contracts. With a number like that, I couldn’t see a reason to stay with them, and I dropped that plan. I felt bad for the reliable patients affected, but the hard truth is that if I can’t keep my practice open, I can’t help anyone. Why this plan had so many no-shows could be from a number of factors, but the end result was the same. Regardless of the reason, it was having a negative impact on my bottom line.
We try all kinds of different ways to remind people of their appointments. My secretary makes reminder calls. Other offices send texts or emails, or have a robocall system. These can only help to a certain degree. At some point, this becomes the “you can lead a horse to water ...” adage.
There’s no real easy answer, either. At my office, we don’t overbook. It seems to be an unwritten rule that every time we gamble that someone won’t come in and then put someone else in the slot, they both show up.
Research like this is interesting, and maybe helpful at making a predictive model about no-shows. But I’m not convinced it will eventually have everyday use in a real-world practice.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Why do patients no-show?
The reasons are, obviously, widely variable among patients and circumstances. Some are more understandable than others, but all of them add up to an empty chair across the desk and loss of income for that time slot.
A recent study in Neurology: Clinical Practice looked into this question. Interestingly, it found that people with certain chronic diseases, such as medication-overuse headaches, chronic daily headaches, and seizures, were among those with the highest no-show rates.
These are all conditions that require medication fine tuning, but this can be difficult without the patient coming in. There’s only so much that can be done on the phone, and in this business a direct face-to-face conversation is often needed.
On the opposite side, they noted that people with degenerative disorders that have more limited treatments, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, had the highest rate of making it to the appointment, though this may be due more to caretakers than the patients themselves.
Financial issues come into play. Younger patients with chronic diseases may have more difficulty taking time off work, or may just simply not have the money for a copay. They could also be too depressed from their situation to come in. Granted, it would be nice if they’d call to let us know they weren’t coming (at my office we don’t ask questions), but many don’t bother.
All of us are affected by this problem. Seeing patients is what drives the economics of every medical practice. An empty exam room is a financial hit, and it denies another patient who needs help a chance to be seen.
Fifteen years ago, my billing company ran some numbers and found that patients on one specific insurance plan had two to three times the rate of no-shows of any of my other contracts. With a number like that, I couldn’t see a reason to stay with them, and I dropped that plan. I felt bad for the reliable patients affected, but the hard truth is that if I can’t keep my practice open, I can’t help anyone. Why this plan had so many no-shows could be from a number of factors, but the end result was the same. Regardless of the reason, it was having a negative impact on my bottom line.
We try all kinds of different ways to remind people of their appointments. My secretary makes reminder calls. Other offices send texts or emails, or have a robocall system. These can only help to a certain degree. At some point, this becomes the “you can lead a horse to water ...” adage.
There’s no real easy answer, either. At my office, we don’t overbook. It seems to be an unwritten rule that every time we gamble that someone won’t come in and then put someone else in the slot, they both show up.
Research like this is interesting, and maybe helpful at making a predictive model about no-shows. But I’m not convinced it will eventually have everyday use in a real-world practice.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Professional psychology
, the ability to figure out how to get people to accept what you’re trying to do for them.
Expertise and psychology: Every profession needs both, including our own. Over my years in practice, I’ve met people in many walks of life who develop the same combination. Here are some favorites:
1. Wedding planners
Venues, décor, dresses, floral arrangements, caterers, bands. Wedding planners must know about all of these. And that’s just the start.
Weddings make everyone a bit crazy, or more than a bit. There are parents trying not to let go, children trying to pull away (a Destination Wedding in Patagonia – perfect – none of the family can come!), cultural and taste gaps between the sides (tipplers from Tinseltown and teetotalers from Tupelo), culling the guest list (see Patagonia). Every wedding planner I’ve met could write a book, but won’t. Legal fees would be too high.
Given all this turmoil, some wedding planners might advise elopement and put themselves out of business. No fear of that happening.
2. Event planners
See Wedding Planners, only add: arbitrary and capricious bosses, incompetent implementers, acts of God, acts of man, and everything that goes wrong when there are too many moving parts. One close friend who organizes professional conventions says that every year one attendee posts this complaint on the message board: “Why is there no Diet Mountain Dew?!!!”
3. Dressmakers
Again, see Wedding Planners. Knowing how to design, create, and fit a dress demands a set of skills that earns my admiration and respect. Knowing how to deal with the people who are going to wear the dresses deserves not respect but awe. Even if I knew how to sew, I wouldn’t last a week in this business.
4. Financial planners
Every financial planner I meet describes what they do as “mostly psychology.” Of course, they need to recommend investments that suit the age, life status, and plans of their clients. That’s the easy part.
“When the market is dropping,” says Phil, “people call to scream that they’re losing their shirt. When the market is going up, they call to scream that they’re not making out as well as their friends claim they are.
“Either way, I just hold the phone far enough away from my ear to save my hearing until they’re done venting. Then I try to calm them down and assure them that investing is a long game, and over time they’ll do better staying the course we agreed on than jumping around with every market swing, up or down.”
“Do they listen?”
“Most of them. Eventually.”
4. Speakers’ booking agents
Matching clients with speakers can bring curious challenges. Celebrity speakers in particular may have unique requirements that the agents who book them must figure out and comply with. Or else.
For instance, one young man I met had to book a distinguished jurist. He needed to be picked up in a limo. The limo had to be a Bentley. And the Bentley had to be gray.
Well, excuse me.
5. Waiters
I think the favored term these days is “Servers.” Servers serve strangers. Some strangers are pleasant and courteous. Not all. Waiters mean to please, but to do that they have to put up with a lot. Always with a smile, of course.
Customers ask silly questions. (“What’s good here?”) Some don’t find the menu detailed enough. (“Can I have half of this and some of that, with the sauce on the side?”) They may find the food too hot. Or too cold. Or too spicy. Or too bland. After all that, they may tip a little. Or not.
But the server still has to ask, “Is everything satisfactory?”
6. Psychologists
Never mind.
7. Parking meter readers
Just kidding. Meter readers write parking tickets.
They know perfectly well that everyone knows exactly what they do. And they don’t care.
8. People who field complaints at call centers
Requirement: Patience, savvy, Xanax.
9. Dermatologists
You bet, in spades. I wrote a whole book on the subject. You can read it if you want to. If you disagree, don’t tell me.
I don’t need readers to disagree with me. I already have patients.
Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. Write to him at [email protected] .
, the ability to figure out how to get people to accept what you’re trying to do for them.
Expertise and psychology: Every profession needs both, including our own. Over my years in practice, I’ve met people in many walks of life who develop the same combination. Here are some favorites:
1. Wedding planners
Venues, décor, dresses, floral arrangements, caterers, bands. Wedding planners must know about all of these. And that’s just the start.
Weddings make everyone a bit crazy, or more than a bit. There are parents trying not to let go, children trying to pull away (a Destination Wedding in Patagonia – perfect – none of the family can come!), cultural and taste gaps between the sides (tipplers from Tinseltown and teetotalers from Tupelo), culling the guest list (see Patagonia). Every wedding planner I’ve met could write a book, but won’t. Legal fees would be too high.
Given all this turmoil, some wedding planners might advise elopement and put themselves out of business. No fear of that happening.
2. Event planners
See Wedding Planners, only add: arbitrary and capricious bosses, incompetent implementers, acts of God, acts of man, and everything that goes wrong when there are too many moving parts. One close friend who organizes professional conventions says that every year one attendee posts this complaint on the message board: “Why is there no Diet Mountain Dew?!!!”
3. Dressmakers
Again, see Wedding Planners. Knowing how to design, create, and fit a dress demands a set of skills that earns my admiration and respect. Knowing how to deal with the people who are going to wear the dresses deserves not respect but awe. Even if I knew how to sew, I wouldn’t last a week in this business.
4. Financial planners
Every financial planner I meet describes what they do as “mostly psychology.” Of course, they need to recommend investments that suit the age, life status, and plans of their clients. That’s the easy part.
“When the market is dropping,” says Phil, “people call to scream that they’re losing their shirt. When the market is going up, they call to scream that they’re not making out as well as their friends claim they are.
“Either way, I just hold the phone far enough away from my ear to save my hearing until they’re done venting. Then I try to calm them down and assure them that investing is a long game, and over time they’ll do better staying the course we agreed on than jumping around with every market swing, up or down.”
“Do they listen?”
“Most of them. Eventually.”
4. Speakers’ booking agents
Matching clients with speakers can bring curious challenges. Celebrity speakers in particular may have unique requirements that the agents who book them must figure out and comply with. Or else.
For instance, one young man I met had to book a distinguished jurist. He needed to be picked up in a limo. The limo had to be a Bentley. And the Bentley had to be gray.
Well, excuse me.
5. Waiters
I think the favored term these days is “Servers.” Servers serve strangers. Some strangers are pleasant and courteous. Not all. Waiters mean to please, but to do that they have to put up with a lot. Always with a smile, of course.
Customers ask silly questions. (“What’s good here?”) Some don’t find the menu detailed enough. (“Can I have half of this and some of that, with the sauce on the side?”) They may find the food too hot. Or too cold. Or too spicy. Or too bland. After all that, they may tip a little. Or not.
But the server still has to ask, “Is everything satisfactory?”
6. Psychologists
Never mind.
7. Parking meter readers
Just kidding. Meter readers write parking tickets.
They know perfectly well that everyone knows exactly what they do. And they don’t care.
8. People who field complaints at call centers
Requirement: Patience, savvy, Xanax.
9. Dermatologists
You bet, in spades. I wrote a whole book on the subject. You can read it if you want to. If you disagree, don’t tell me.
I don’t need readers to disagree with me. I already have patients.
Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. Write to him at [email protected] .
, the ability to figure out how to get people to accept what you’re trying to do for them.
Expertise and psychology: Every profession needs both, including our own. Over my years in practice, I’ve met people in many walks of life who develop the same combination. Here are some favorites:
1. Wedding planners
Venues, décor, dresses, floral arrangements, caterers, bands. Wedding planners must know about all of these. And that’s just the start.
Weddings make everyone a bit crazy, or more than a bit. There are parents trying not to let go, children trying to pull away (a Destination Wedding in Patagonia – perfect – none of the family can come!), cultural and taste gaps between the sides (tipplers from Tinseltown and teetotalers from Tupelo), culling the guest list (see Patagonia). Every wedding planner I’ve met could write a book, but won’t. Legal fees would be too high.
Given all this turmoil, some wedding planners might advise elopement and put themselves out of business. No fear of that happening.
2. Event planners
See Wedding Planners, only add: arbitrary and capricious bosses, incompetent implementers, acts of God, acts of man, and everything that goes wrong when there are too many moving parts. One close friend who organizes professional conventions says that every year one attendee posts this complaint on the message board: “Why is there no Diet Mountain Dew?!!!”
3. Dressmakers
Again, see Wedding Planners. Knowing how to design, create, and fit a dress demands a set of skills that earns my admiration and respect. Knowing how to deal with the people who are going to wear the dresses deserves not respect but awe. Even if I knew how to sew, I wouldn’t last a week in this business.
4. Financial planners
Every financial planner I meet describes what they do as “mostly psychology.” Of course, they need to recommend investments that suit the age, life status, and plans of their clients. That’s the easy part.
“When the market is dropping,” says Phil, “people call to scream that they’re losing their shirt. When the market is going up, they call to scream that they’re not making out as well as their friends claim they are.
“Either way, I just hold the phone far enough away from my ear to save my hearing until they’re done venting. Then I try to calm them down and assure them that investing is a long game, and over time they’ll do better staying the course we agreed on than jumping around with every market swing, up or down.”
“Do they listen?”
“Most of them. Eventually.”
4. Speakers’ booking agents
Matching clients with speakers can bring curious challenges. Celebrity speakers in particular may have unique requirements that the agents who book them must figure out and comply with. Or else.
For instance, one young man I met had to book a distinguished jurist. He needed to be picked up in a limo. The limo had to be a Bentley. And the Bentley had to be gray.
Well, excuse me.
5. Waiters
I think the favored term these days is “Servers.” Servers serve strangers. Some strangers are pleasant and courteous. Not all. Waiters mean to please, but to do that they have to put up with a lot. Always with a smile, of course.
Customers ask silly questions. (“What’s good here?”) Some don’t find the menu detailed enough. (“Can I have half of this and some of that, with the sauce on the side?”) They may find the food too hot. Or too cold. Or too spicy. Or too bland. After all that, they may tip a little. Or not.
But the server still has to ask, “Is everything satisfactory?”
6. Psychologists
Never mind.
7. Parking meter readers
Just kidding. Meter readers write parking tickets.
They know perfectly well that everyone knows exactly what they do. And they don’t care.
8. People who field complaints at call centers
Requirement: Patience, savvy, Xanax.
9. Dermatologists
You bet, in spades. I wrote a whole book on the subject. You can read it if you want to. If you disagree, don’t tell me.
I don’t need readers to disagree with me. I already have patients.
Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. Write to him at [email protected] .