User login
Malpractice and pain management
Question: A new patient with severe back pain sought treatment at the Ease-Your-Pain Clinic, a facility run by medical specialists. Following a history and physical, he was given a prescription for high-dose oxycodone. Shortly after filing the prescription, he became unresponsive, and toxicology studies postmortem revealed elevated blood levels.
In a wrongful death lawsuit against the doctor and clinic, which of the following statements is best?
A. A wrongful death lawsuit deals with a special type of malpractice in which criminal sanctions are likely.
B. The facts here fall within the domain of common knowledge, or res ipsa loquitur; so the case will not have to depend on an expert witness.
C. Substandard care is clearly evident from the fact that this opioid-naive patient was prescribed a much higher than usual starting dose of the drug.
D. The elevated blood levels indicate that the cause of death was an opioid overdose.
E. To prevail, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence and through expert testimony, that the defendant’s breach of duty of due care legally caused the patient’s death.
Answer: E. Criminal prosecution for homicide is quite different from a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, requiring state action with proof beyond reasonable doubt and a showing of intent. It is rare in medical malpractice cases, which require expert testimony to prove breach of duty and causation.
Choices C and D are incorrect, as the facts given are deliberately brief and vague. For example, the medical history may have revealed this patient to be a chronic user of opioid drugs rather than being opioid naive, thus the need for higher dosing. In addition, we cannot be certain of the actual cause of death; opioid levels obtained in body fluids postmortem may be difficult to interpret and are apt to be higher in chronic users (see Dallier v. Hsu, discussed below).
We are currently in the throes of an epidemic of opioid deaths involving both illicit street drugs such as heroin and synthetic fentanyl, as well as FDA-approved controlled substances such as morphine and codeine derivatives. Overdose now exceeds motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths, with nearly 100 Americans dying every day from an opioid overdose.
In an earlier column, we drew attention to physician and manufacturer criminality associated with opioid prescription deaths.1 In this article, we will focus on the civil liability facing doctors who treat patients afflicted with pain.
The onslaught of warnings, caution, and threats of criminal prosecution has prompted Medicare and pharmacy chains to impose restrictions on opioid prescriptions. Even more troubling, doctors are increasingly cutting back or stopping entirely their prescriptions. As a result, some patients may resort to desperate measures to obtain their drugs.
A recent article in the Washington Post draws attention to this situation.2 It tells the story of a 49-year-old trucker who had been taking large amounts of prescription opioids ever since hip surgery left him with nerve damage. Because no doctor nearby would write an opioid prescription, he had to drive 367 miles to his old pain clinic each month for a refill. According to the article, chronic pain patients may turn to unregulated alternatives such as kratom, and some have threatened suicide.
Citing data from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, the article reported that the annual volume of prescription opioids shrank 29% between 2011 and 2017, even as the number of overdose deaths climbed ever higher. The drop in prescriptions was greatest for patients receiving high doses, most of whom had chronic pain.
Failure to treat pain can constitute substandard care. In Bergman v. Eden Medical Center, an Alameda County jury in California turned in a verdict against an internist charged with elder abuse and reckless negligence for failing to give enough pain medication to a patient dying of cancer.3 William Bergman was an 85-year-old retired railroad worker who complained of severe back pain. During his 6-day stay at the hospital, nurses consistently charted his pain in the 7-10 range, and on the day of discharge, his pain was at level 10. He died at home shortly thereafter.
After 4 days of deliberation, the jury, in a 9-3 vote, entered a guilty verdict, and awarded $1.5 million in general damages. That amount was subsequently reduced to $250,000 because of California’s cap on noneconomic damages. The Bergman case is notable for being the first of its kind, and it squarely put physicians on notice regarding their duty to adequately provide pain relief.
At the same time, prescribing opioid drugs that result in harm can be the basis of a successful claim – if the plaintiff can prove the tort elements of negligence. However, this may be harder than it looks.
For example, a Connecticut malpractice case alleging negligent opioid prescriptions resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant.4 The patient had a congenital skeletal deformity called Madelung’s disease, and she suffered from many years of severe pain requiring chronic opioids such as oxycodone, methadone, morphine, fentanyl, and hydrocodone, in combination and with other types of medications for anxiety, sleep problems, and depression. She was not a compliant patient and had a history of inconsistent pill counts and urine tests, and a history of stockpiling and hoarding pills.
Following a recent fracture of her right arm and shoulder, she visited several doctors for narcotic prescriptions before consulting the defendant doctor, who concluded that hers was an emergency and urgent situation. He believed that if he did not prescribe medications to address her pain, she would engage in unsafe drug-seeking behaviors. Accordingly, the doctor prescribed the following: methadone, 40 mg, 4 pills per day; extended-release morphine sulfate, 60 mg, 2 per day; alprazolam, 1 mg, 3 per day. Within hours of filing her prescription, she began to stumble, developed slurred speech, and then became unresponsive and died.
The court was unpersuaded that the requisite standard of care was to contact the patient’s prior treaters or pharmacy, or to obtain her current records to determine her level of drug naiveté or tolerance, or that the defendant should have initiated treatment with starting doses of drugs. It held that that reflected “a narrow textbook approach to the practice of pain management and ignores the role of patient-physician interaction.”
Based on all the evidence, the patient’s tolerance for opiates had greatly escalated, and her level of pain remained at 10 on a scale of 10. The defendant had independently assessed the patient, determined her needs, and ruled out that she was opiate naive. Based on all the circumstances, he prescribed morphine, methadone, and alprazolam. The morphine prescription of 60 mg extended release every 12 hours was not lethal to her and was not her first opioid analgesic. The court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proving causation, there being no finding that the patient took more medications than prescribed or overdosed. It was unimpressed by the various calculations offered by the experts on postmortem drug levels and causation.
A recent report from the Doctor’s Company, a major malpractice carrier, reviewed 1,770 claims closed between 2007 and 2015 in which patient harm involved medication factors.5 In 272 of those claims (15%), the medications were narcotic analgesics, most often prescribed in the outpatient setting and involving methadone and oxycodone. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently published treatment guidelines noting that long-term opioid use among patients with chronic pain increased the likelihood of addiction and overdose and had uncertain benefits. They discouraged doses higher than the equivalent of 90 mg of morphine.6
While it is true that opioid-related malpractice lawsuits are not infrequent, stopping entirely the prescribing of controlled narcotic analgesics in the name of “first do no harm” is simplistic and misguided.
It is better to adopt widely recommended strategies in opioid prescribing, recognizing that, as Howard Marcus, MD, chair of the Texas Alliance for Patient Access, has said, “It is possible to prescribe opioids responsibly and safely for patients with chronic pain who do not obtain sufficient relief and reasonable function with nonopioid treatment. However, to do so, it is necessary to have adequate knowledge of the pharmacology of opioids, risk factors, and side effects. Safe opioid prescribing requires thorough patient evaluation, attention to detail, and familiarity with guidelines and regulations.”7
To this might be added the suggestion that, in tough cases, one should make a referral to a pain specialist skilled in the use of such drugs.
Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].
References
1. “Physician liability in opioid deaths.” Internal Medicine News, July 13, 2017.
2. “Unintended consequences: Inside the fallout of America’s crackdown on opioids.” Washington Post, May 31, 2018.
3. Bergman v. Eden Medical Center, No. H205732-1 (Sup. Ct. Alameda Co., Cal., June 13, 2001).
4. Dallaire v. Hsu, CV 07-5004043 (Conn. Sup. Ct., May 18, 2010).
5. “Prescription opioid abuse epidemic: analysis of medication-related claims.” The Doctor’s Advocate, first quarter 2017.
6. N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374(16):1501-4.
7. “Prescribing opioids safely.” The Doctor’s Advocate, second quarter 2017.
Question: A new patient with severe back pain sought treatment at the Ease-Your-Pain Clinic, a facility run by medical specialists. Following a history and physical, he was given a prescription for high-dose oxycodone. Shortly after filing the prescription, he became unresponsive, and toxicology studies postmortem revealed elevated blood levels.
In a wrongful death lawsuit against the doctor and clinic, which of the following statements is best?
A. A wrongful death lawsuit deals with a special type of malpractice in which criminal sanctions are likely.
B. The facts here fall within the domain of common knowledge, or res ipsa loquitur; so the case will not have to depend on an expert witness.
C. Substandard care is clearly evident from the fact that this opioid-naive patient was prescribed a much higher than usual starting dose of the drug.
D. The elevated blood levels indicate that the cause of death was an opioid overdose.
E. To prevail, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence and through expert testimony, that the defendant’s breach of duty of due care legally caused the patient’s death.
Answer: E. Criminal prosecution for homicide is quite different from a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, requiring state action with proof beyond reasonable doubt and a showing of intent. It is rare in medical malpractice cases, which require expert testimony to prove breach of duty and causation.
Choices C and D are incorrect, as the facts given are deliberately brief and vague. For example, the medical history may have revealed this patient to be a chronic user of opioid drugs rather than being opioid naive, thus the need for higher dosing. In addition, we cannot be certain of the actual cause of death; opioid levels obtained in body fluids postmortem may be difficult to interpret and are apt to be higher in chronic users (see Dallier v. Hsu, discussed below).
We are currently in the throes of an epidemic of opioid deaths involving both illicit street drugs such as heroin and synthetic fentanyl, as well as FDA-approved controlled substances such as morphine and codeine derivatives. Overdose now exceeds motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths, with nearly 100 Americans dying every day from an opioid overdose.
In an earlier column, we drew attention to physician and manufacturer criminality associated with opioid prescription deaths.1 In this article, we will focus on the civil liability facing doctors who treat patients afflicted with pain.
The onslaught of warnings, caution, and threats of criminal prosecution has prompted Medicare and pharmacy chains to impose restrictions on opioid prescriptions. Even more troubling, doctors are increasingly cutting back or stopping entirely their prescriptions. As a result, some patients may resort to desperate measures to obtain their drugs.
A recent article in the Washington Post draws attention to this situation.2 It tells the story of a 49-year-old trucker who had been taking large amounts of prescription opioids ever since hip surgery left him with nerve damage. Because no doctor nearby would write an opioid prescription, he had to drive 367 miles to his old pain clinic each month for a refill. According to the article, chronic pain patients may turn to unregulated alternatives such as kratom, and some have threatened suicide.
Citing data from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, the article reported that the annual volume of prescription opioids shrank 29% between 2011 and 2017, even as the number of overdose deaths climbed ever higher. The drop in prescriptions was greatest for patients receiving high doses, most of whom had chronic pain.
Failure to treat pain can constitute substandard care. In Bergman v. Eden Medical Center, an Alameda County jury in California turned in a verdict against an internist charged with elder abuse and reckless negligence for failing to give enough pain medication to a patient dying of cancer.3 William Bergman was an 85-year-old retired railroad worker who complained of severe back pain. During his 6-day stay at the hospital, nurses consistently charted his pain in the 7-10 range, and on the day of discharge, his pain was at level 10. He died at home shortly thereafter.
After 4 days of deliberation, the jury, in a 9-3 vote, entered a guilty verdict, and awarded $1.5 million in general damages. That amount was subsequently reduced to $250,000 because of California’s cap on noneconomic damages. The Bergman case is notable for being the first of its kind, and it squarely put physicians on notice regarding their duty to adequately provide pain relief.
At the same time, prescribing opioid drugs that result in harm can be the basis of a successful claim – if the plaintiff can prove the tort elements of negligence. However, this may be harder than it looks.
For example, a Connecticut malpractice case alleging negligent opioid prescriptions resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant.4 The patient had a congenital skeletal deformity called Madelung’s disease, and she suffered from many years of severe pain requiring chronic opioids such as oxycodone, methadone, morphine, fentanyl, and hydrocodone, in combination and with other types of medications for anxiety, sleep problems, and depression. She was not a compliant patient and had a history of inconsistent pill counts and urine tests, and a history of stockpiling and hoarding pills.
Following a recent fracture of her right arm and shoulder, she visited several doctors for narcotic prescriptions before consulting the defendant doctor, who concluded that hers was an emergency and urgent situation. He believed that if he did not prescribe medications to address her pain, she would engage in unsafe drug-seeking behaviors. Accordingly, the doctor prescribed the following: methadone, 40 mg, 4 pills per day; extended-release morphine sulfate, 60 mg, 2 per day; alprazolam, 1 mg, 3 per day. Within hours of filing her prescription, she began to stumble, developed slurred speech, and then became unresponsive and died.
The court was unpersuaded that the requisite standard of care was to contact the patient’s prior treaters or pharmacy, or to obtain her current records to determine her level of drug naiveté or tolerance, or that the defendant should have initiated treatment with starting doses of drugs. It held that that reflected “a narrow textbook approach to the practice of pain management and ignores the role of patient-physician interaction.”
Based on all the evidence, the patient’s tolerance for opiates had greatly escalated, and her level of pain remained at 10 on a scale of 10. The defendant had independently assessed the patient, determined her needs, and ruled out that she was opiate naive. Based on all the circumstances, he prescribed morphine, methadone, and alprazolam. The morphine prescription of 60 mg extended release every 12 hours was not lethal to her and was not her first opioid analgesic. The court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proving causation, there being no finding that the patient took more medications than prescribed or overdosed. It was unimpressed by the various calculations offered by the experts on postmortem drug levels and causation.
A recent report from the Doctor’s Company, a major malpractice carrier, reviewed 1,770 claims closed between 2007 and 2015 in which patient harm involved medication factors.5 In 272 of those claims (15%), the medications were narcotic analgesics, most often prescribed in the outpatient setting and involving methadone and oxycodone. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently published treatment guidelines noting that long-term opioid use among patients with chronic pain increased the likelihood of addiction and overdose and had uncertain benefits. They discouraged doses higher than the equivalent of 90 mg of morphine.6
While it is true that opioid-related malpractice lawsuits are not infrequent, stopping entirely the prescribing of controlled narcotic analgesics in the name of “first do no harm” is simplistic and misguided.
It is better to adopt widely recommended strategies in opioid prescribing, recognizing that, as Howard Marcus, MD, chair of the Texas Alliance for Patient Access, has said, “It is possible to prescribe opioids responsibly and safely for patients with chronic pain who do not obtain sufficient relief and reasonable function with nonopioid treatment. However, to do so, it is necessary to have adequate knowledge of the pharmacology of opioids, risk factors, and side effects. Safe opioid prescribing requires thorough patient evaluation, attention to detail, and familiarity with guidelines and regulations.”7
To this might be added the suggestion that, in tough cases, one should make a referral to a pain specialist skilled in the use of such drugs.
Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].
References
1. “Physician liability in opioid deaths.” Internal Medicine News, July 13, 2017.
2. “Unintended consequences: Inside the fallout of America’s crackdown on opioids.” Washington Post, May 31, 2018.
3. Bergman v. Eden Medical Center, No. H205732-1 (Sup. Ct. Alameda Co., Cal., June 13, 2001).
4. Dallaire v. Hsu, CV 07-5004043 (Conn. Sup. Ct., May 18, 2010).
5. “Prescription opioid abuse epidemic: analysis of medication-related claims.” The Doctor’s Advocate, first quarter 2017.
6. N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374(16):1501-4.
7. “Prescribing opioids safely.” The Doctor’s Advocate, second quarter 2017.
Question: A new patient with severe back pain sought treatment at the Ease-Your-Pain Clinic, a facility run by medical specialists. Following a history and physical, he was given a prescription for high-dose oxycodone. Shortly after filing the prescription, he became unresponsive, and toxicology studies postmortem revealed elevated blood levels.
In a wrongful death lawsuit against the doctor and clinic, which of the following statements is best?
A. A wrongful death lawsuit deals with a special type of malpractice in which criminal sanctions are likely.
B. The facts here fall within the domain of common knowledge, or res ipsa loquitur; so the case will not have to depend on an expert witness.
C. Substandard care is clearly evident from the fact that this opioid-naive patient was prescribed a much higher than usual starting dose of the drug.
D. The elevated blood levels indicate that the cause of death was an opioid overdose.
E. To prevail, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence and through expert testimony, that the defendant’s breach of duty of due care legally caused the patient’s death.
Answer: E. Criminal prosecution for homicide is quite different from a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, requiring state action with proof beyond reasonable doubt and a showing of intent. It is rare in medical malpractice cases, which require expert testimony to prove breach of duty and causation.
Choices C and D are incorrect, as the facts given are deliberately brief and vague. For example, the medical history may have revealed this patient to be a chronic user of opioid drugs rather than being opioid naive, thus the need for higher dosing. In addition, we cannot be certain of the actual cause of death; opioid levels obtained in body fluids postmortem may be difficult to interpret and are apt to be higher in chronic users (see Dallier v. Hsu, discussed below).
We are currently in the throes of an epidemic of opioid deaths involving both illicit street drugs such as heroin and synthetic fentanyl, as well as FDA-approved controlled substances such as morphine and codeine derivatives. Overdose now exceeds motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths, with nearly 100 Americans dying every day from an opioid overdose.
In an earlier column, we drew attention to physician and manufacturer criminality associated with opioid prescription deaths.1 In this article, we will focus on the civil liability facing doctors who treat patients afflicted with pain.
The onslaught of warnings, caution, and threats of criminal prosecution has prompted Medicare and pharmacy chains to impose restrictions on opioid prescriptions. Even more troubling, doctors are increasingly cutting back or stopping entirely their prescriptions. As a result, some patients may resort to desperate measures to obtain their drugs.
A recent article in the Washington Post draws attention to this situation.2 It tells the story of a 49-year-old trucker who had been taking large amounts of prescription opioids ever since hip surgery left him with nerve damage. Because no doctor nearby would write an opioid prescription, he had to drive 367 miles to his old pain clinic each month for a refill. According to the article, chronic pain patients may turn to unregulated alternatives such as kratom, and some have threatened suicide.
Citing data from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, the article reported that the annual volume of prescription opioids shrank 29% between 2011 and 2017, even as the number of overdose deaths climbed ever higher. The drop in prescriptions was greatest for patients receiving high doses, most of whom had chronic pain.
Failure to treat pain can constitute substandard care. In Bergman v. Eden Medical Center, an Alameda County jury in California turned in a verdict against an internist charged with elder abuse and reckless negligence for failing to give enough pain medication to a patient dying of cancer.3 William Bergman was an 85-year-old retired railroad worker who complained of severe back pain. During his 6-day stay at the hospital, nurses consistently charted his pain in the 7-10 range, and on the day of discharge, his pain was at level 10. He died at home shortly thereafter.
After 4 days of deliberation, the jury, in a 9-3 vote, entered a guilty verdict, and awarded $1.5 million in general damages. That amount was subsequently reduced to $250,000 because of California’s cap on noneconomic damages. The Bergman case is notable for being the first of its kind, and it squarely put physicians on notice regarding their duty to adequately provide pain relief.
At the same time, prescribing opioid drugs that result in harm can be the basis of a successful claim – if the plaintiff can prove the tort elements of negligence. However, this may be harder than it looks.
For example, a Connecticut malpractice case alleging negligent opioid prescriptions resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant.4 The patient had a congenital skeletal deformity called Madelung’s disease, and she suffered from many years of severe pain requiring chronic opioids such as oxycodone, methadone, morphine, fentanyl, and hydrocodone, in combination and with other types of medications for anxiety, sleep problems, and depression. She was not a compliant patient and had a history of inconsistent pill counts and urine tests, and a history of stockpiling and hoarding pills.
Following a recent fracture of her right arm and shoulder, she visited several doctors for narcotic prescriptions before consulting the defendant doctor, who concluded that hers was an emergency and urgent situation. He believed that if he did not prescribe medications to address her pain, she would engage in unsafe drug-seeking behaviors. Accordingly, the doctor prescribed the following: methadone, 40 mg, 4 pills per day; extended-release morphine sulfate, 60 mg, 2 per day; alprazolam, 1 mg, 3 per day. Within hours of filing her prescription, she began to stumble, developed slurred speech, and then became unresponsive and died.
The court was unpersuaded that the requisite standard of care was to contact the patient’s prior treaters or pharmacy, or to obtain her current records to determine her level of drug naiveté or tolerance, or that the defendant should have initiated treatment with starting doses of drugs. It held that that reflected “a narrow textbook approach to the practice of pain management and ignores the role of patient-physician interaction.”
Based on all the evidence, the patient’s tolerance for opiates had greatly escalated, and her level of pain remained at 10 on a scale of 10. The defendant had independently assessed the patient, determined her needs, and ruled out that she was opiate naive. Based on all the circumstances, he prescribed morphine, methadone, and alprazolam. The morphine prescription of 60 mg extended release every 12 hours was not lethal to her and was not her first opioid analgesic. The court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proving causation, there being no finding that the patient took more medications than prescribed or overdosed. It was unimpressed by the various calculations offered by the experts on postmortem drug levels and causation.
A recent report from the Doctor’s Company, a major malpractice carrier, reviewed 1,770 claims closed between 2007 and 2015 in which patient harm involved medication factors.5 In 272 of those claims (15%), the medications were narcotic analgesics, most often prescribed in the outpatient setting and involving methadone and oxycodone. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently published treatment guidelines noting that long-term opioid use among patients with chronic pain increased the likelihood of addiction and overdose and had uncertain benefits. They discouraged doses higher than the equivalent of 90 mg of morphine.6
While it is true that opioid-related malpractice lawsuits are not infrequent, stopping entirely the prescribing of controlled narcotic analgesics in the name of “first do no harm” is simplistic and misguided.
It is better to adopt widely recommended strategies in opioid prescribing, recognizing that, as Howard Marcus, MD, chair of the Texas Alliance for Patient Access, has said, “It is possible to prescribe opioids responsibly and safely for patients with chronic pain who do not obtain sufficient relief and reasonable function with nonopioid treatment. However, to do so, it is necessary to have adequate knowledge of the pharmacology of opioids, risk factors, and side effects. Safe opioid prescribing requires thorough patient evaluation, attention to detail, and familiarity with guidelines and regulations.”7
To this might be added the suggestion that, in tough cases, one should make a referral to a pain specialist skilled in the use of such drugs.
Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].
References
1. “Physician liability in opioid deaths.” Internal Medicine News, July 13, 2017.
2. “Unintended consequences: Inside the fallout of America’s crackdown on opioids.” Washington Post, May 31, 2018.
3. Bergman v. Eden Medical Center, No. H205732-1 (Sup. Ct. Alameda Co., Cal., June 13, 2001).
4. Dallaire v. Hsu, CV 07-5004043 (Conn. Sup. Ct., May 18, 2010).
5. “Prescription opioid abuse epidemic: analysis of medication-related claims.” The Doctor’s Advocate, first quarter 2017.
6. N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374(16):1501-4.
7. “Prescribing opioids safely.” The Doctor’s Advocate, second quarter 2017.
Tabata training
I’m in really good shape. Well, more like really not bad shape. I eat healthy food (see my previous column on diet) and work out nearly every day. I have done so for years. I’ve learned that working out doesn’t make much difference with my weight, but it makes a huge difference with my mood, even more so than meditating. That’s why I’ll never give it up.
My approach is to vary my routine, typically by month. I’ve done “BUD/S qualification” months where I do only push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, and runs to meet the minimum requirements for the Navy Seal Training. (It’s not as hard as you might think, although I’m pretty lenient on form.)
When I have an hour to exercise and I’m deep into a podcast, then I’ll just keep going. If I’m trying to work out a piece I’m writing, like this one, then I’ll go for a run along the harbor here in San Diego. If I have to catch an early flight or drive to LA for the day, then I might have only 15 minutes. In that instance, I do high-intensity sprints, also known as high-intensity interval training (HIIT). Although it’s hard to break a good sweat, these workouts are both challenging and rewarding.
Recently, I participated in a wonderful physician wellness program at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, where, over several weeks, we learned about nutrition, practiced meditation, and did Tabatas. What’s a Tabata you ask? It’s a kick in the butt.
. Yup, it’s a 4-minute workout that consists of 20 seconds of all-out, maximum effort, followed by 10 seconds of rest. The specific move you do for Tabatas is up to you, but it’s recommended that it be the same move for all 4 minutes. I like burpees which work your entire body – you jump, you drop into a push-up position, you pull your feet back in, and jump again. (Check out a video on YouTube.)
When we started the class, I thought Tabatas would be too easy for a gym rat like me. Plus, there were pediatricians, and even radiologists there, so how hard could they be? Let’s just say I couldn’t sit for 2 days after my first session: That’s how hard.
Tabatas are also a quick way to torch calories. A study published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2013 found subjects who performed a 20-minute Tabata session experienced improved cardiorespiratory endurance and increased calorie burn (J Sports Sci Med. 2013 Sep;12[3]: 612-3).
Sometimes on a Monday, which is typically my difficult day, I’ll break out a few burpees in my office between patients. The energy jolt is real, and unlike caffeine, doesn’t leave me shaky. Because Tabatas require physical and mental focus, they’re an effective way to clear your mind after a grueling patient visit or if you’re feeling distracted. You simply can’t be thinking about that late patient or angry email when you’re jumping and lunging at full speed.
All the physicians in our program liked the Tabatas; many were even better than me. (Turns out we have pediatricians and radiologists who do things like run the Boston marathon and win Spartan races).
And if you start doing Tabatas, feel free to email me if you need a recommendation for a standing desk – you might not be able to sit as much afterward.
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].
I’m in really good shape. Well, more like really not bad shape. I eat healthy food (see my previous column on diet) and work out nearly every day. I have done so for years. I’ve learned that working out doesn’t make much difference with my weight, but it makes a huge difference with my mood, even more so than meditating. That’s why I’ll never give it up.
My approach is to vary my routine, typically by month. I’ve done “BUD/S qualification” months where I do only push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, and runs to meet the minimum requirements for the Navy Seal Training. (It’s not as hard as you might think, although I’m pretty lenient on form.)
When I have an hour to exercise and I’m deep into a podcast, then I’ll just keep going. If I’m trying to work out a piece I’m writing, like this one, then I’ll go for a run along the harbor here in San Diego. If I have to catch an early flight or drive to LA for the day, then I might have only 15 minutes. In that instance, I do high-intensity sprints, also known as high-intensity interval training (HIIT). Although it’s hard to break a good sweat, these workouts are both challenging and rewarding.
Recently, I participated in a wonderful physician wellness program at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, where, over several weeks, we learned about nutrition, practiced meditation, and did Tabatas. What’s a Tabata you ask? It’s a kick in the butt.
. Yup, it’s a 4-minute workout that consists of 20 seconds of all-out, maximum effort, followed by 10 seconds of rest. The specific move you do for Tabatas is up to you, but it’s recommended that it be the same move for all 4 minutes. I like burpees which work your entire body – you jump, you drop into a push-up position, you pull your feet back in, and jump again. (Check out a video on YouTube.)
When we started the class, I thought Tabatas would be too easy for a gym rat like me. Plus, there were pediatricians, and even radiologists there, so how hard could they be? Let’s just say I couldn’t sit for 2 days after my first session: That’s how hard.
Tabatas are also a quick way to torch calories. A study published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2013 found subjects who performed a 20-minute Tabata session experienced improved cardiorespiratory endurance and increased calorie burn (J Sports Sci Med. 2013 Sep;12[3]: 612-3).
Sometimes on a Monday, which is typically my difficult day, I’ll break out a few burpees in my office between patients. The energy jolt is real, and unlike caffeine, doesn’t leave me shaky. Because Tabatas require physical and mental focus, they’re an effective way to clear your mind after a grueling patient visit or if you’re feeling distracted. You simply can’t be thinking about that late patient or angry email when you’re jumping and lunging at full speed.
All the physicians in our program liked the Tabatas; many were even better than me. (Turns out we have pediatricians and radiologists who do things like run the Boston marathon and win Spartan races).
And if you start doing Tabatas, feel free to email me if you need a recommendation for a standing desk – you might not be able to sit as much afterward.
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].
I’m in really good shape. Well, more like really not bad shape. I eat healthy food (see my previous column on diet) and work out nearly every day. I have done so for years. I’ve learned that working out doesn’t make much difference with my weight, but it makes a huge difference with my mood, even more so than meditating. That’s why I’ll never give it up.
My approach is to vary my routine, typically by month. I’ve done “BUD/S qualification” months where I do only push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, and runs to meet the minimum requirements for the Navy Seal Training. (It’s not as hard as you might think, although I’m pretty lenient on form.)
When I have an hour to exercise and I’m deep into a podcast, then I’ll just keep going. If I’m trying to work out a piece I’m writing, like this one, then I’ll go for a run along the harbor here in San Diego. If I have to catch an early flight or drive to LA for the day, then I might have only 15 minutes. In that instance, I do high-intensity sprints, also known as high-intensity interval training (HIIT). Although it’s hard to break a good sweat, these workouts are both challenging and rewarding.
Recently, I participated in a wonderful physician wellness program at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, where, over several weeks, we learned about nutrition, practiced meditation, and did Tabatas. What’s a Tabata you ask? It’s a kick in the butt.
. Yup, it’s a 4-minute workout that consists of 20 seconds of all-out, maximum effort, followed by 10 seconds of rest. The specific move you do for Tabatas is up to you, but it’s recommended that it be the same move for all 4 minutes. I like burpees which work your entire body – you jump, you drop into a push-up position, you pull your feet back in, and jump again. (Check out a video on YouTube.)
When we started the class, I thought Tabatas would be too easy for a gym rat like me. Plus, there were pediatricians, and even radiologists there, so how hard could they be? Let’s just say I couldn’t sit for 2 days after my first session: That’s how hard.
Tabatas are also a quick way to torch calories. A study published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2013 found subjects who performed a 20-minute Tabata session experienced improved cardiorespiratory endurance and increased calorie burn (J Sports Sci Med. 2013 Sep;12[3]: 612-3).
Sometimes on a Monday, which is typically my difficult day, I’ll break out a few burpees in my office between patients. The energy jolt is real, and unlike caffeine, doesn’t leave me shaky. Because Tabatas require physical and mental focus, they’re an effective way to clear your mind after a grueling patient visit or if you’re feeling distracted. You simply can’t be thinking about that late patient or angry email when you’re jumping and lunging at full speed.
All the physicians in our program liked the Tabatas; many were even better than me. (Turns out we have pediatricians and radiologists who do things like run the Boston marathon and win Spartan races).
And if you start doing Tabatas, feel free to email me if you need a recommendation for a standing desk – you might not be able to sit as much afterward.
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].
Preventing suicide: What should clinicians do differently?
“Suicide rates are increasing,” Dr. Igor Galynker said, “and I believe they will continue to rise. These are deaths of despair, and despair is increasing in our society.”
That said, I listened with interest to the May 16 MDedge Psychcast, “Approach assesses imminent suicide risk,” an interview with Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, author of “The Suicidal Crisis” and director of the Galynker Suicide Research Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. In the podcast, Dr. Galynker talked about techniques for identifying those at risk for suicide among the patients psychiatrists see for evaluation and treatment.
“Using suicidal ideation as a risk factor is flawed,” he contended. “Asking about suicidal thoughts leaves us to miss 75% of people who go on to die by suicide.” Dr. Galynker noted that suicidal thoughts are often absent or not endorsed at all and clinicians should view other factors – such as the patient’s sense of being entrapped and the clinician’s own emotional responses to the patient – as more sensitive measures of elevated suicide risk.
This informative podcast left me with more questions, so I called Dr. Galynker. Suicide remains a rare phenomenon, and most psychiatrists will have limited experience with completed suicide during the course of a career. Dr. Galynker’s interest in suicide as an area of research began after he had a patient die the year after he finished residency training. Since then, he’s had one more patient suicide, and he’s aware of eight people who have died after leaving his care. “It can be devastating,” he said.
I wanted to know what psychiatrists should be doing differently after we have identified a patient at risk. While it seems obvious that a depressed patient should be treated for major depression, it also seems obvious that our interventions are imprecisely targeted and not fully successful.
We talked about the role of hospitalization in preventing suicide. Dr. Galynker has mixed opinions on this. He noted that suicide rates skyrocket in the time right after psychiatric hospitalization. “For women, the rate is 250 times higher at the time of hospital discharge; for men it’s 100 times higher. But hospitalization may help someone to survive a transitional period and to gather their support systems.”
Dr. Galynker noted that since the podcast in May aired, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published findings on suicide rates in the United States. He summarized some of the key points from the findings.
“Suicide rates were going down until 1999. From 2000 to 2006, suicide rates increased by 1% per year. From 2006 until 2016, rates have increased by 2% per year. Most people who die by suicide don’t have a diagnosis of a mental illness. And finally – and what has gone unnoticed – most people who die by suicide do not express suicidal intent. In fact, in that study, suicide intent was disclosed by less than a quarter of persons both with and without known mental health conditions.”
Dr. Galynker talked about safety plans and emphasized means restriction as ways to prevent suicide, including limiting access to firearms, placing netting under bridges, and providing medications in smaller containers.
“Suicidal ideation comes late; it may happen 15 minutes before a suicidal act or attempt. We need to alert people that there are certainly things that put them at risk, and we need to look at the drivers.
“Sometimes, people die for trivial reasons.” He noted instances where a susceptible person might attempt or complete suicide after an argument or perceived slight. Work is being done to look at outreach interventions to those at risk, including phone contacts and postcards.
“We don’t have a suicide-specific diagnosis ... and people die for other reasons besides mental illness. Final romantic rejection, terminal illness, and humiliating failures in business all place people at elevated risk. We need to work to change the suicidal narrative for people away from one where life has no future; we need to help them open doors.”
Dr. Miller is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care,” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
“Suicide rates are increasing,” Dr. Igor Galynker said, “and I believe they will continue to rise. These are deaths of despair, and despair is increasing in our society.”
That said, I listened with interest to the May 16 MDedge Psychcast, “Approach assesses imminent suicide risk,” an interview with Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, author of “The Suicidal Crisis” and director of the Galynker Suicide Research Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. In the podcast, Dr. Galynker talked about techniques for identifying those at risk for suicide among the patients psychiatrists see for evaluation and treatment.
“Using suicidal ideation as a risk factor is flawed,” he contended. “Asking about suicidal thoughts leaves us to miss 75% of people who go on to die by suicide.” Dr. Galynker noted that suicidal thoughts are often absent or not endorsed at all and clinicians should view other factors – such as the patient’s sense of being entrapped and the clinician’s own emotional responses to the patient – as more sensitive measures of elevated suicide risk.
This informative podcast left me with more questions, so I called Dr. Galynker. Suicide remains a rare phenomenon, and most psychiatrists will have limited experience with completed suicide during the course of a career. Dr. Galynker’s interest in suicide as an area of research began after he had a patient die the year after he finished residency training. Since then, he’s had one more patient suicide, and he’s aware of eight people who have died after leaving his care. “It can be devastating,” he said.
I wanted to know what psychiatrists should be doing differently after we have identified a patient at risk. While it seems obvious that a depressed patient should be treated for major depression, it also seems obvious that our interventions are imprecisely targeted and not fully successful.
We talked about the role of hospitalization in preventing suicide. Dr. Galynker has mixed opinions on this. He noted that suicide rates skyrocket in the time right after psychiatric hospitalization. “For women, the rate is 250 times higher at the time of hospital discharge; for men it’s 100 times higher. But hospitalization may help someone to survive a transitional period and to gather their support systems.”
Dr. Galynker noted that since the podcast in May aired, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published findings on suicide rates in the United States. He summarized some of the key points from the findings.
“Suicide rates were going down until 1999. From 2000 to 2006, suicide rates increased by 1% per year. From 2006 until 2016, rates have increased by 2% per year. Most people who die by suicide don’t have a diagnosis of a mental illness. And finally – and what has gone unnoticed – most people who die by suicide do not express suicidal intent. In fact, in that study, suicide intent was disclosed by less than a quarter of persons both with and without known mental health conditions.”
Dr. Galynker talked about safety plans and emphasized means restriction as ways to prevent suicide, including limiting access to firearms, placing netting under bridges, and providing medications in smaller containers.
“Suicidal ideation comes late; it may happen 15 minutes before a suicidal act or attempt. We need to alert people that there are certainly things that put them at risk, and we need to look at the drivers.
“Sometimes, people die for trivial reasons.” He noted instances where a susceptible person might attempt or complete suicide after an argument or perceived slight. Work is being done to look at outreach interventions to those at risk, including phone contacts and postcards.
“We don’t have a suicide-specific diagnosis ... and people die for other reasons besides mental illness. Final romantic rejection, terminal illness, and humiliating failures in business all place people at elevated risk. We need to work to change the suicidal narrative for people away from one where life has no future; we need to help them open doors.”
Dr. Miller is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care,” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
“Suicide rates are increasing,” Dr. Igor Galynker said, “and I believe they will continue to rise. These are deaths of despair, and despair is increasing in our society.”
That said, I listened with interest to the May 16 MDedge Psychcast, “Approach assesses imminent suicide risk,” an interview with Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, author of “The Suicidal Crisis” and director of the Galynker Suicide Research Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. In the podcast, Dr. Galynker talked about techniques for identifying those at risk for suicide among the patients psychiatrists see for evaluation and treatment.
“Using suicidal ideation as a risk factor is flawed,” he contended. “Asking about suicidal thoughts leaves us to miss 75% of people who go on to die by suicide.” Dr. Galynker noted that suicidal thoughts are often absent or not endorsed at all and clinicians should view other factors – such as the patient’s sense of being entrapped and the clinician’s own emotional responses to the patient – as more sensitive measures of elevated suicide risk.
This informative podcast left me with more questions, so I called Dr. Galynker. Suicide remains a rare phenomenon, and most psychiatrists will have limited experience with completed suicide during the course of a career. Dr. Galynker’s interest in suicide as an area of research began after he had a patient die the year after he finished residency training. Since then, he’s had one more patient suicide, and he’s aware of eight people who have died after leaving his care. “It can be devastating,” he said.
I wanted to know what psychiatrists should be doing differently after we have identified a patient at risk. While it seems obvious that a depressed patient should be treated for major depression, it also seems obvious that our interventions are imprecisely targeted and not fully successful.
We talked about the role of hospitalization in preventing suicide. Dr. Galynker has mixed opinions on this. He noted that suicide rates skyrocket in the time right after psychiatric hospitalization. “For women, the rate is 250 times higher at the time of hospital discharge; for men it’s 100 times higher. But hospitalization may help someone to survive a transitional period and to gather their support systems.”
Dr. Galynker noted that since the podcast in May aired, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published findings on suicide rates in the United States. He summarized some of the key points from the findings.
“Suicide rates were going down until 1999. From 2000 to 2006, suicide rates increased by 1% per year. From 2006 until 2016, rates have increased by 2% per year. Most people who die by suicide don’t have a diagnosis of a mental illness. And finally – and what has gone unnoticed – most people who die by suicide do not express suicidal intent. In fact, in that study, suicide intent was disclosed by less than a quarter of persons both with and without known mental health conditions.”
Dr. Galynker talked about safety plans and emphasized means restriction as ways to prevent suicide, including limiting access to firearms, placing netting under bridges, and providing medications in smaller containers.
“Suicidal ideation comes late; it may happen 15 minutes before a suicidal act or attempt. We need to alert people that there are certainly things that put them at risk, and we need to look at the drivers.
“Sometimes, people die for trivial reasons.” He noted instances where a susceptible person might attempt or complete suicide after an argument or perceived slight. Work is being done to look at outreach interventions to those at risk, including phone contacts and postcards.
“We don’t have a suicide-specific diagnosis ... and people die for other reasons besides mental illness. Final romantic rejection, terminal illness, and humiliating failures in business all place people at elevated risk. We need to work to change the suicidal narrative for people away from one where life has no future; we need to help them open doors.”
Dr. Miller is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care,” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).
From the Editors: The Value of Community
I was recently reminded of the importance of face-to-face meetings to gain understanding and to learn from the experiences of others. In this case, the lesson was delivered in the idyllic setting of Sunriver, Oregon, where the Oregon and Washington chapters of the American College of Surgeons held their annual meeting. I always come away from this meeting energized and inspired by the shared experiences of young and old, urban and rural. This meeting exceeded all expectations in the quality of the presentations but also, more importantly, in the quality of the exchange of ideas and viewpoints among surgeons across the full spectrum of practice types, geographical locations, and generations.
Community and rural surgeons were both well represented at this meeting, perhaps because our Oregon chapter president, Keith Thomas, is a rural surgeon; he had invited rural surgeon extraordinaire Tyler Hughes to be the keynote speaker; and the overarching theme of the meeting was “The Right Care in the Right Place.” The program featured controversial topics that were presented in a way that respected all views and shed more light than heat on the subject: a debate about whether (and which) cancers needed to be referred to tertiary centers, an exploration of how surgical care for all might be improved by regionalization in a matrix that could allow all patients to access timely and appropriate care, and even a discussion of a strategy through which we might build consensus for the prevention of firearm injuries and deaths while avoiding the “demonization of the enemy” that currently occurs whenever the subject is mentioned.
The residents’ and fellows’ presentations have evolved over the past few decades to include a broader range of research topics than those in prior meetings. This year, trainees gave papers not only on the treatment of specific surgical conditions or basic science studies but also on quality improvement, patient safety, ethics, end-of-life care, and cutting-edge technologies. Those who presented their research displayed the very best attributes of the millennial generation: creativity, altruism, and a commitment to make our shared future world a better, safer, more humane place. They fielded questions from the audience like “old pros,” demonstrating an impressive understanding of their subjects as well as a passion for their work.
Although the accelerating demands on our lives have led some to question whether the time required to attend a chapter meeting is worth the money and effort, I would argue that it is crucial to our future to do so. As surgical practice becomes more specialized and “siloed,” it is critical that we reaffirm what unites us rather than focus on what separates us. It is easy to attribute ill motives and malevolent characteristics to someone who sees things differently than you do. Is much more difficult to do so when you spend time with that person and learn about him or her as an individual. Local ACS chapter meetings accomplish that and more. Older surgeons nearing retirement and worried about the future of their communities can meet and mingle with residents and fellows who might become future partners. Former colleagues from medical school or residency who have pursued different practice paths can reacquaint themselves with one another, relive the good (and perhaps bad) old times, and share a chuckle or two. Surgeons who practice in the “ivory tower” can gain appreciation for the challenges of practicing in a resource-limited facility. Those from competing institutions or practices can learn that the “other” is facing the same issues and that common strategies for success might be found. We can all gain a greater understanding that the other person’s problems aren’t that different or less complex than ours.
In addition to providing a stimulating program, a successful chapter meeting requires skillful planning and execution by an experienced chapter manager. Our Oregon chapter is fortunate to have Harvey Gail, an outstanding manager who takes care of those essential tasks that make the meeting run smoothly so that we can focus on the substance of the meeting itself.
Attending a chapter meeting requires a relatively short time commitment of three days away from home – including a weekend – and a tank of gas. Some have suggested that holding the meeting in the largest city in the region would lessen travel time demands for many, but doing so would mean losing the low-key setting that creates the perfect atmosphere for developing professional and personal relationships and building a true community. The future survival of our profession depends on finding better, novel solutions to our common problems; we can accomplish that only by sharing our diverse perspectives and identifying solutions that meet all of our needs and those of our patients.
To those of you who rarely (or never) have attended a chapter meeting, you need to go. You’ll be surprised at how much you can learn from your fellow surgeons, who, I guarantee, are more like you than they are different.
Dr. Deveney is a professor of surgery and the vice chair of education in the department of surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She is the coeditor of ACS Surgery News.
I was recently reminded of the importance of face-to-face meetings to gain understanding and to learn from the experiences of others. In this case, the lesson was delivered in the idyllic setting of Sunriver, Oregon, where the Oregon and Washington chapters of the American College of Surgeons held their annual meeting. I always come away from this meeting energized and inspired by the shared experiences of young and old, urban and rural. This meeting exceeded all expectations in the quality of the presentations but also, more importantly, in the quality of the exchange of ideas and viewpoints among surgeons across the full spectrum of practice types, geographical locations, and generations.
Community and rural surgeons were both well represented at this meeting, perhaps because our Oregon chapter president, Keith Thomas, is a rural surgeon; he had invited rural surgeon extraordinaire Tyler Hughes to be the keynote speaker; and the overarching theme of the meeting was “The Right Care in the Right Place.” The program featured controversial topics that were presented in a way that respected all views and shed more light than heat on the subject: a debate about whether (and which) cancers needed to be referred to tertiary centers, an exploration of how surgical care for all might be improved by regionalization in a matrix that could allow all patients to access timely and appropriate care, and even a discussion of a strategy through which we might build consensus for the prevention of firearm injuries and deaths while avoiding the “demonization of the enemy” that currently occurs whenever the subject is mentioned.
The residents’ and fellows’ presentations have evolved over the past few decades to include a broader range of research topics than those in prior meetings. This year, trainees gave papers not only on the treatment of specific surgical conditions or basic science studies but also on quality improvement, patient safety, ethics, end-of-life care, and cutting-edge technologies. Those who presented their research displayed the very best attributes of the millennial generation: creativity, altruism, and a commitment to make our shared future world a better, safer, more humane place. They fielded questions from the audience like “old pros,” demonstrating an impressive understanding of their subjects as well as a passion for their work.
Although the accelerating demands on our lives have led some to question whether the time required to attend a chapter meeting is worth the money and effort, I would argue that it is crucial to our future to do so. As surgical practice becomes more specialized and “siloed,” it is critical that we reaffirm what unites us rather than focus on what separates us. It is easy to attribute ill motives and malevolent characteristics to someone who sees things differently than you do. Is much more difficult to do so when you spend time with that person and learn about him or her as an individual. Local ACS chapter meetings accomplish that and more. Older surgeons nearing retirement and worried about the future of their communities can meet and mingle with residents and fellows who might become future partners. Former colleagues from medical school or residency who have pursued different practice paths can reacquaint themselves with one another, relive the good (and perhaps bad) old times, and share a chuckle or two. Surgeons who practice in the “ivory tower” can gain appreciation for the challenges of practicing in a resource-limited facility. Those from competing institutions or practices can learn that the “other” is facing the same issues and that common strategies for success might be found. We can all gain a greater understanding that the other person’s problems aren’t that different or less complex than ours.
In addition to providing a stimulating program, a successful chapter meeting requires skillful planning and execution by an experienced chapter manager. Our Oregon chapter is fortunate to have Harvey Gail, an outstanding manager who takes care of those essential tasks that make the meeting run smoothly so that we can focus on the substance of the meeting itself.
Attending a chapter meeting requires a relatively short time commitment of three days away from home – including a weekend – and a tank of gas. Some have suggested that holding the meeting in the largest city in the region would lessen travel time demands for many, but doing so would mean losing the low-key setting that creates the perfect atmosphere for developing professional and personal relationships and building a true community. The future survival of our profession depends on finding better, novel solutions to our common problems; we can accomplish that only by sharing our diverse perspectives and identifying solutions that meet all of our needs and those of our patients.
To those of you who rarely (or never) have attended a chapter meeting, you need to go. You’ll be surprised at how much you can learn from your fellow surgeons, who, I guarantee, are more like you than they are different.
Dr. Deveney is a professor of surgery and the vice chair of education in the department of surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She is the coeditor of ACS Surgery News.
I was recently reminded of the importance of face-to-face meetings to gain understanding and to learn from the experiences of others. In this case, the lesson was delivered in the idyllic setting of Sunriver, Oregon, where the Oregon and Washington chapters of the American College of Surgeons held their annual meeting. I always come away from this meeting energized and inspired by the shared experiences of young and old, urban and rural. This meeting exceeded all expectations in the quality of the presentations but also, more importantly, in the quality of the exchange of ideas and viewpoints among surgeons across the full spectrum of practice types, geographical locations, and generations.
Community and rural surgeons were both well represented at this meeting, perhaps because our Oregon chapter president, Keith Thomas, is a rural surgeon; he had invited rural surgeon extraordinaire Tyler Hughes to be the keynote speaker; and the overarching theme of the meeting was “The Right Care in the Right Place.” The program featured controversial topics that were presented in a way that respected all views and shed more light than heat on the subject: a debate about whether (and which) cancers needed to be referred to tertiary centers, an exploration of how surgical care for all might be improved by regionalization in a matrix that could allow all patients to access timely and appropriate care, and even a discussion of a strategy through which we might build consensus for the prevention of firearm injuries and deaths while avoiding the “demonization of the enemy” that currently occurs whenever the subject is mentioned.
The residents’ and fellows’ presentations have evolved over the past few decades to include a broader range of research topics than those in prior meetings. This year, trainees gave papers not only on the treatment of specific surgical conditions or basic science studies but also on quality improvement, patient safety, ethics, end-of-life care, and cutting-edge technologies. Those who presented their research displayed the very best attributes of the millennial generation: creativity, altruism, and a commitment to make our shared future world a better, safer, more humane place. They fielded questions from the audience like “old pros,” demonstrating an impressive understanding of their subjects as well as a passion for their work.
Although the accelerating demands on our lives have led some to question whether the time required to attend a chapter meeting is worth the money and effort, I would argue that it is crucial to our future to do so. As surgical practice becomes more specialized and “siloed,” it is critical that we reaffirm what unites us rather than focus on what separates us. It is easy to attribute ill motives and malevolent characteristics to someone who sees things differently than you do. Is much more difficult to do so when you spend time with that person and learn about him or her as an individual. Local ACS chapter meetings accomplish that and more. Older surgeons nearing retirement and worried about the future of their communities can meet and mingle with residents and fellows who might become future partners. Former colleagues from medical school or residency who have pursued different practice paths can reacquaint themselves with one another, relive the good (and perhaps bad) old times, and share a chuckle or two. Surgeons who practice in the “ivory tower” can gain appreciation for the challenges of practicing in a resource-limited facility. Those from competing institutions or practices can learn that the “other” is facing the same issues and that common strategies for success might be found. We can all gain a greater understanding that the other person’s problems aren’t that different or less complex than ours.
In addition to providing a stimulating program, a successful chapter meeting requires skillful planning and execution by an experienced chapter manager. Our Oregon chapter is fortunate to have Harvey Gail, an outstanding manager who takes care of those essential tasks that make the meeting run smoothly so that we can focus on the substance of the meeting itself.
Attending a chapter meeting requires a relatively short time commitment of three days away from home – including a weekend – and a tank of gas. Some have suggested that holding the meeting in the largest city in the region would lessen travel time demands for many, but doing so would mean losing the low-key setting that creates the perfect atmosphere for developing professional and personal relationships and building a true community. The future survival of our profession depends on finding better, novel solutions to our common problems; we can accomplish that only by sharing our diverse perspectives and identifying solutions that meet all of our needs and those of our patients.
To those of you who rarely (or never) have attended a chapter meeting, you need to go. You’ll be surprised at how much you can learn from your fellow surgeons, who, I guarantee, are more like you than they are different.
Dr. Deveney is a professor of surgery and the vice chair of education in the department of surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She is the coeditor of ACS Surgery News.
Credit cards FAQ
After my last column on credit cards, I was (as usual) inundated with questions, comments, and requests for copies of the letter we give to patients explaining our credit card policy.
at www.mdedge.com/edermatologynews. If you have a question not addressed here, feel free to ask, either on the website or via email ([email protected]).
How do you safeguard the credit information you keep on file?
The same way we do medical information; it’s all covered by the same HIPAA rules. If you have an EHR, it can go in the chart with everything else; if not, I suggest a separate portable file that can be locked up each night.
How do you keep the info current, as cards do expire?
We check expiration dates at each visit, and ask for a new number or date if the card has expired or is close.
Don’t your patients object to signing, in effect, a blank check?
They’re not “signing a blank check.” All credit card contracts give cardholders the right to challenge any charge against their account.
There were some initial objections, mostly from devotees of the financial “old school.” But when we explain that we’re doing nothing different than a hotel does at each check-in, and that it will work to their advantage as well, by decreasing the bills they will receive and the checks they must write, most come around.
How do you handle patients who refuse to hand over a number, particularly those who say they have no credit cards?
We used to let refusers slide, but now we’ve made the policy mandatory. Patients who refuse without a good reason are asked, like any patient who refuses to cooperate with any standard office policy, to go elsewhere. Life’s too short. And “I don’t have any credit cards” does not count as a good reason. Nearly everyone has credit cards in this day and age. For the occasional patient who does not have a credit card, my office manager does have authority to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, however.
One cosmetic surgeon I know asks “no credit card” patients to pay a lawyer-style “retainer,” which is held in escrow, and used to pay receivable amounts as they come due. When presented with that alternative, he told me, most of them suddenly remember that they do have a credit card after all.
What’s the difference between this and “balance billing”?
All the difference in the world. “Balance billing” is billing patients for the difference between your normal fee and the insurer’s authorized payment. If your office has contracted to accept that particular insurance, you can’t do that; but you can bill for the portion of the insurer-determined payment not paid by the insurer. (Many contracts stipulate that you must do so.) For example, your normal fee is $200; the insurer approves $100, and pays 80% of that. The other $20 is the patient’s responsibility, and that is what you charge to the credit card – instead of sending out a statement for that amount.
Since we instituted this policy, one patient has called to ask if it is legal, and one insurance company has inquired about it. How do you respond to such queries?
Of course it’s legal; you are entitled to collect what is owed to you. Ask those patients if they question the legality every time they check into a hotel or rent a car.
We have had no inquiries from insurers, but my response would be that it’s none of their business. Again, you have every right to bill for the patient-owed portion of your fees – in fact, Medicare and many private insurers consider it an illegal “inducement” if you don’t – and third parties have no right to dictate how you can or cannot collect it.
In the past, another popular practice management columnist advised against adopting this policy.
Despite multiple requests from me and others, that columnist – who owns a medical billing company – has never, to my knowledge, offered a single convincing argument in support of that position.
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].
After my last column on credit cards, I was (as usual) inundated with questions, comments, and requests for copies of the letter we give to patients explaining our credit card policy.
at www.mdedge.com/edermatologynews. If you have a question not addressed here, feel free to ask, either on the website or via email ([email protected]).
How do you safeguard the credit information you keep on file?
The same way we do medical information; it’s all covered by the same HIPAA rules. If you have an EHR, it can go in the chart with everything else; if not, I suggest a separate portable file that can be locked up each night.
How do you keep the info current, as cards do expire?
We check expiration dates at each visit, and ask for a new number or date if the card has expired or is close.
Don’t your patients object to signing, in effect, a blank check?
They’re not “signing a blank check.” All credit card contracts give cardholders the right to challenge any charge against their account.
There were some initial objections, mostly from devotees of the financial “old school.” But when we explain that we’re doing nothing different than a hotel does at each check-in, and that it will work to their advantage as well, by decreasing the bills they will receive and the checks they must write, most come around.
How do you handle patients who refuse to hand over a number, particularly those who say they have no credit cards?
We used to let refusers slide, but now we’ve made the policy mandatory. Patients who refuse without a good reason are asked, like any patient who refuses to cooperate with any standard office policy, to go elsewhere. Life’s too short. And “I don’t have any credit cards” does not count as a good reason. Nearly everyone has credit cards in this day and age. For the occasional patient who does not have a credit card, my office manager does have authority to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, however.
One cosmetic surgeon I know asks “no credit card” patients to pay a lawyer-style “retainer,” which is held in escrow, and used to pay receivable amounts as they come due. When presented with that alternative, he told me, most of them suddenly remember that they do have a credit card after all.
What’s the difference between this and “balance billing”?
All the difference in the world. “Balance billing” is billing patients for the difference between your normal fee and the insurer’s authorized payment. If your office has contracted to accept that particular insurance, you can’t do that; but you can bill for the portion of the insurer-determined payment not paid by the insurer. (Many contracts stipulate that you must do so.) For example, your normal fee is $200; the insurer approves $100, and pays 80% of that. The other $20 is the patient’s responsibility, and that is what you charge to the credit card – instead of sending out a statement for that amount.
Since we instituted this policy, one patient has called to ask if it is legal, and one insurance company has inquired about it. How do you respond to such queries?
Of course it’s legal; you are entitled to collect what is owed to you. Ask those patients if they question the legality every time they check into a hotel or rent a car.
We have had no inquiries from insurers, but my response would be that it’s none of their business. Again, you have every right to bill for the patient-owed portion of your fees – in fact, Medicare and many private insurers consider it an illegal “inducement” if you don’t – and third parties have no right to dictate how you can or cannot collect it.
In the past, another popular practice management columnist advised against adopting this policy.
Despite multiple requests from me and others, that columnist – who owns a medical billing company – has never, to my knowledge, offered a single convincing argument in support of that position.
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].
After my last column on credit cards, I was (as usual) inundated with questions, comments, and requests for copies of the letter we give to patients explaining our credit card policy.
at www.mdedge.com/edermatologynews. If you have a question not addressed here, feel free to ask, either on the website or via email ([email protected]).
How do you safeguard the credit information you keep on file?
The same way we do medical information; it’s all covered by the same HIPAA rules. If you have an EHR, it can go in the chart with everything else; if not, I suggest a separate portable file that can be locked up each night.
How do you keep the info current, as cards do expire?
We check expiration dates at each visit, and ask for a new number or date if the card has expired or is close.
Don’t your patients object to signing, in effect, a blank check?
They’re not “signing a blank check.” All credit card contracts give cardholders the right to challenge any charge against their account.
There were some initial objections, mostly from devotees of the financial “old school.” But when we explain that we’re doing nothing different than a hotel does at each check-in, and that it will work to their advantage as well, by decreasing the bills they will receive and the checks they must write, most come around.
How do you handle patients who refuse to hand over a number, particularly those who say they have no credit cards?
We used to let refusers slide, but now we’ve made the policy mandatory. Patients who refuse without a good reason are asked, like any patient who refuses to cooperate with any standard office policy, to go elsewhere. Life’s too short. And “I don’t have any credit cards” does not count as a good reason. Nearly everyone has credit cards in this day and age. For the occasional patient who does not have a credit card, my office manager does have authority to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, however.
One cosmetic surgeon I know asks “no credit card” patients to pay a lawyer-style “retainer,” which is held in escrow, and used to pay receivable amounts as they come due. When presented with that alternative, he told me, most of them suddenly remember that they do have a credit card after all.
What’s the difference between this and “balance billing”?
All the difference in the world. “Balance billing” is billing patients for the difference between your normal fee and the insurer’s authorized payment. If your office has contracted to accept that particular insurance, you can’t do that; but you can bill for the portion of the insurer-determined payment not paid by the insurer. (Many contracts stipulate that you must do so.) For example, your normal fee is $200; the insurer approves $100, and pays 80% of that. The other $20 is the patient’s responsibility, and that is what you charge to the credit card – instead of sending out a statement for that amount.
Since we instituted this policy, one patient has called to ask if it is legal, and one insurance company has inquired about it. How do you respond to such queries?
Of course it’s legal; you are entitled to collect what is owed to you. Ask those patients if they question the legality every time they check into a hotel or rent a car.
We have had no inquiries from insurers, but my response would be that it’s none of their business. Again, you have every right to bill for the patient-owed portion of your fees – in fact, Medicare and many private insurers consider it an illegal “inducement” if you don’t – and third parties have no right to dictate how you can or cannot collect it.
In the past, another popular practice management columnist advised against adopting this policy.
Despite multiple requests from me and others, that columnist – who owns a medical billing company – has never, to my knowledge, offered a single convincing argument in support of that position.
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].
PNPs integrate behavioral, mental health in PC practice
Concerns about mental health (MH) care delivery for children are repeatedly identified by health care providers, described in the literature, and addressed through advocacy. Unfortunately, health inequities continue to exist, including the social stigma of an MH diagnosis, lower reimbursement for MH compared with medical care, and poor access to expert pediatric behavioral health providers. This is especially true for families living below the poverty line, who are more likely to have MH problems.1
An estimated 50% of primary care (PC) pediatric visits involve an MH or behavioral problem, yet only about 20% of these patients receive services.2 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one out of seven children aged 2-8 years has a developmental or behavioral disorder.3 In children aged 3-17 years, 7% have ADHD, 2% have depressive disorders, and 3% have anxiety.3 In the 2015 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance survey, more than 29% of high school respondents stated that they felt so sad or hopeless during the past 12 months that they had stopped some of their usual activities, and 18% considered suicide.4 The incidence of violent acts committed by and affecting teens adds a critical need for creative provision of pediatric MH care.
MH integration in pediatric PC, supported by the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and many others is an avenue to provide quality MH services for children.5,6,7 In a coordinated or colocated model, a behavioral health specialist works with a pediatric provider either in consultation with the practice (coordinated) or in the same practice site where patients are referred (colocated).7 The collaborative care model places pediatric medical providers with care managers or behavioral health specialists to deliver care in one practice setting.
The use of pediatric nurse practitioners (PNPs) with advanced training in MH care is described in the literature as a different type of collaborative care model.8,9,10 PNPs assess, diagnose, and treat using pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies. PNPs may offer evidence-based psychotherapy or refer for psychotherapy or parenting skills development. Those who have added knowledge and skills in MH care may seek validation of these competencies through completion of added certification as pediatric PC MH specialists (PMHS).11 Since 2011, there are more than 400 PMHSs certified in the United States. We share examples of services provided by PNPs across the United States.
At a federally qualified health center
Dawn Garzon Maaks, PhD, CPNP-PC, the current president of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, is certified as a PMHS and works in a federally-qualified health center in southwest Washington State. This center provides lifespan services for patients, with separate office spaces for MH/psychiatric care and PC. Within this colocated environment, Dr. Garzon Maaks spends about 75% of her time caring for children with developmental, behavioral, and MH problems in the MH clinic and 25% in the PC office, providing health maintenance and acute episodic care. She collaborates with psychiatrists and psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners by adding pediatric developmental and medical expertise and is welcomed by providers who have limited experience caring for children. While providing PC, she educates about issues such as resiliency, screening for substance abuse, and treatment of common pediatric mood disorders and ADHD. Her expertise also allows for MH care integration into PC visits, taking away the “stigma” which still is pervasive for patients referred to MH providers.
“What my position has taught me is that when primary and mental health care providers work closely, it improves outcomes for all patients seen. Through frequent consultation, our primary care physicians have increasing skills in caring for children with mild mental health issues, thus freeing up the mental health people to deal with the more significant cases. On the other hand, our mental health providers benefit from having the primary care expertise in diagnosing and treating common conditions that mimic mental health issues. This integration also significantly reduces stigma because families see their mental health professional in the primary care setting,” Dr. Garzon Maaks said.
At an urban/suburban PC practice
Another PNP MH expert, Dr. Susan Van Cleve, is certified as a PMHS and works as a subspecialist within an urban/suburban pediatric PC practice. Her team is composed of two PNPs and one registered nurse who is designated as the full time MH coordinator. This team cares for children and teens with mild to moderate MH disorders from within the practice. The registered nurse performs intake interviews, schedules patients, and sends out screening tools before visits and is available to families and providers in the practice on a dedicated phone line. She refers complex patients to local providers for more comprehensive care and follows them to ensure that appointments and referrals are made. Scheduling with the PNPs allows for longer appointments, comprehensive treatment including medication management if warranted, and close follow-up care. Patient types seen include those with concerns about developmental delays, autism spectrum disorder, disruptive behavior, ADHD, anxiety, and depression. Children or teens with more severe disorders are referred to colleagues in psychiatry or counseling services, or to pediatric or adolescent subspecialists in the community.
“The children and families I see seem to feel comfortable because our behavioral team is embedded in the pediatric practice, and we use the same office space. Families have easy access to our full-time registered nurse who is available to answer questions, provide resources and advice, lend support, or assist navigating the health system. This type of system increases access, enables us to provide comprehensive family-centered care, and supports the child and family,” said Dr. Van Cleve, clinical professor and primary care pediatric nurse practitioner program director at the University of Iowa College of Nursing, Iowa City.
As an educator
Naomi A. Schapiro, PhD, CPNP, is a professor of nursing at the University of California, San Francisco, and a PNP at a school-based health center with an integrated behavioral health model, managed by a federally qualified health center in a medically underserved area. She is the principle investigator of an Advanced Nursing Education Health Resources Service Administration grant supporting interprofessional training and practice collaboration to improve care and reduce health inequities for disadvantaged children and adolescents coping with both behavioral health conditions and chronic physical conditions, including obesity.11
Dr. Schapiro collaborates with a multidisciplinary, multi-university team, a local children’s hospital, a social work training program, and the county health care services agency to develop and implement a training program for pediatric PC providers to increase skills and self-confidence implementing American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines assessing and treating depression, ADHD, anxiety and trauma-related symptoms; triaging patients with nonsuicidal self-injury and suicidal ideation; and recognizing and referring patients with bipolar disorder and psychosis. These training modules are currently being recorded for online posting. As part of this interprofessional collaboration, Dr. Schapiro and her colleagues developed a “warmline” for decision support, staffed by a psychiatrist and two nurse practitioners available to PC providers in a network of 29 school-based health centers and two pediatric practices for complex decision making about medications or diagnostic dilemmas. Efforts are underway to continue and expand this program.
“As a faculty teaching PNP students enhanced behavioral health assessment skills, I have been proudest when students have been able to apply and disseminate these skills,” Dr. Schapiro said. “One of our recent PNP graduates was in a community primary care practicum when an adolescent thinking about suicide walked into the clinic with her father. Her preceptor wasn’t sure how to proceed, when the student said, ‘Wait! We just practiced this in class.’ The student pulled up her course website, and she and her preceptor walked through the assessment together, developed a safety plan with the teen and her father, and connected the teen with a therapist, avoiding an unnecessary ER visit and potential fragmentation of care.”
The need and expectation that pediatric PC providers incorporate MH services is well documented.2,12,13 PNPs who have additional training and expertise in assessing, diagnosing, and managing MH care are an excellent solution for addressing this problem. The benefits of this team-based approach to the pediatric health care home include decreasing stigma, increasing access, and providing comprehensive MH care to children and their families.
Dr. Haut works at Beacon Pediatrics, a large primary care practice in Rehoboth Beach, Del. She works part-time for Pediatrix Medical Group, serving the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit medical team at the Herman & Walter Samuelson Children’s Hospital at Sinai in Baltimore, and she serves as adjunct faculty at the University of Maryland School of Nursing, also in Baltimore. Other contributors to this article were Dawn Garzon Maaks, PhD, CPNP, PMHS; Naomi Schapiro, PhD, CPNP; Susan Van Cleve, DNP, RN, CPNP-PC, PMHS; and Laura Searcy, MN, APRN, PPCNP-BC. Ms. Searcy is on the medical staff at WellStar Kennestone Regional Medical Center in Marietta, Ga., delivering care to newborns. Dr. Haut and Ms. Searcy are members of the Pediatric News Consultant Advisory Board. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. “Best principles for integration of child psychiatry into the pediatric health home,” AACAP Executive Summary,2012, pages 1-13.
2. Pediatrics. 2009 Apr;123(4):1248-51.
3. Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Children’s Mental Health Data and Statistics.
4. MMWR Surveill Summ, 2016. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a1.
5. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):909-17.
6. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.
7. “Integrating child psychology services into primary care,” by Tynan D, Woods K, and Carpenter J. American Psychological Association, 2014.
8. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2005;11(5): 276-82.
9. J Nurse Pract. 2013;9(4):243-8.
10. J Pediatr Health Care. 2013; 27(3):162-3.
11. Advanced Nursing Education Health Resources Service Administration grant (#D09HP26958).
12. J Nurse Pract. 2013:9(3):142-8.
13. Pediatrics. 2018;141(3):e20174082
Concerns about mental health (MH) care delivery for children are repeatedly identified by health care providers, described in the literature, and addressed through advocacy. Unfortunately, health inequities continue to exist, including the social stigma of an MH diagnosis, lower reimbursement for MH compared with medical care, and poor access to expert pediatric behavioral health providers. This is especially true for families living below the poverty line, who are more likely to have MH problems.1
An estimated 50% of primary care (PC) pediatric visits involve an MH or behavioral problem, yet only about 20% of these patients receive services.2 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one out of seven children aged 2-8 years has a developmental or behavioral disorder.3 In children aged 3-17 years, 7% have ADHD, 2% have depressive disorders, and 3% have anxiety.3 In the 2015 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance survey, more than 29% of high school respondents stated that they felt so sad or hopeless during the past 12 months that they had stopped some of their usual activities, and 18% considered suicide.4 The incidence of violent acts committed by and affecting teens adds a critical need for creative provision of pediatric MH care.
MH integration in pediatric PC, supported by the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and many others is an avenue to provide quality MH services for children.5,6,7 In a coordinated or colocated model, a behavioral health specialist works with a pediatric provider either in consultation with the practice (coordinated) or in the same practice site where patients are referred (colocated).7 The collaborative care model places pediatric medical providers with care managers or behavioral health specialists to deliver care in one practice setting.
The use of pediatric nurse practitioners (PNPs) with advanced training in MH care is described in the literature as a different type of collaborative care model.8,9,10 PNPs assess, diagnose, and treat using pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies. PNPs may offer evidence-based psychotherapy or refer for psychotherapy or parenting skills development. Those who have added knowledge and skills in MH care may seek validation of these competencies through completion of added certification as pediatric PC MH specialists (PMHS).11 Since 2011, there are more than 400 PMHSs certified in the United States. We share examples of services provided by PNPs across the United States.
At a federally qualified health center
Dawn Garzon Maaks, PhD, CPNP-PC, the current president of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, is certified as a PMHS and works in a federally-qualified health center in southwest Washington State. This center provides lifespan services for patients, with separate office spaces for MH/psychiatric care and PC. Within this colocated environment, Dr. Garzon Maaks spends about 75% of her time caring for children with developmental, behavioral, and MH problems in the MH clinic and 25% in the PC office, providing health maintenance and acute episodic care. She collaborates with psychiatrists and psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners by adding pediatric developmental and medical expertise and is welcomed by providers who have limited experience caring for children. While providing PC, she educates about issues such as resiliency, screening for substance abuse, and treatment of common pediatric mood disorders and ADHD. Her expertise also allows for MH care integration into PC visits, taking away the “stigma” which still is pervasive for patients referred to MH providers.
“What my position has taught me is that when primary and mental health care providers work closely, it improves outcomes for all patients seen. Through frequent consultation, our primary care physicians have increasing skills in caring for children with mild mental health issues, thus freeing up the mental health people to deal with the more significant cases. On the other hand, our mental health providers benefit from having the primary care expertise in diagnosing and treating common conditions that mimic mental health issues. This integration also significantly reduces stigma because families see their mental health professional in the primary care setting,” Dr. Garzon Maaks said.
At an urban/suburban PC practice
Another PNP MH expert, Dr. Susan Van Cleve, is certified as a PMHS and works as a subspecialist within an urban/suburban pediatric PC practice. Her team is composed of two PNPs and one registered nurse who is designated as the full time MH coordinator. This team cares for children and teens with mild to moderate MH disorders from within the practice. The registered nurse performs intake interviews, schedules patients, and sends out screening tools before visits and is available to families and providers in the practice on a dedicated phone line. She refers complex patients to local providers for more comprehensive care and follows them to ensure that appointments and referrals are made. Scheduling with the PNPs allows for longer appointments, comprehensive treatment including medication management if warranted, and close follow-up care. Patient types seen include those with concerns about developmental delays, autism spectrum disorder, disruptive behavior, ADHD, anxiety, and depression. Children or teens with more severe disorders are referred to colleagues in psychiatry or counseling services, or to pediatric or adolescent subspecialists in the community.
“The children and families I see seem to feel comfortable because our behavioral team is embedded in the pediatric practice, and we use the same office space. Families have easy access to our full-time registered nurse who is available to answer questions, provide resources and advice, lend support, or assist navigating the health system. This type of system increases access, enables us to provide comprehensive family-centered care, and supports the child and family,” said Dr. Van Cleve, clinical professor and primary care pediatric nurse practitioner program director at the University of Iowa College of Nursing, Iowa City.
As an educator
Naomi A. Schapiro, PhD, CPNP, is a professor of nursing at the University of California, San Francisco, and a PNP at a school-based health center with an integrated behavioral health model, managed by a federally qualified health center in a medically underserved area. She is the principle investigator of an Advanced Nursing Education Health Resources Service Administration grant supporting interprofessional training and practice collaboration to improve care and reduce health inequities for disadvantaged children and adolescents coping with both behavioral health conditions and chronic physical conditions, including obesity.11
Dr. Schapiro collaborates with a multidisciplinary, multi-university team, a local children’s hospital, a social work training program, and the county health care services agency to develop and implement a training program for pediatric PC providers to increase skills and self-confidence implementing American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines assessing and treating depression, ADHD, anxiety and trauma-related symptoms; triaging patients with nonsuicidal self-injury and suicidal ideation; and recognizing and referring patients with bipolar disorder and psychosis. These training modules are currently being recorded for online posting. As part of this interprofessional collaboration, Dr. Schapiro and her colleagues developed a “warmline” for decision support, staffed by a psychiatrist and two nurse practitioners available to PC providers in a network of 29 school-based health centers and two pediatric practices for complex decision making about medications or diagnostic dilemmas. Efforts are underway to continue and expand this program.
“As a faculty teaching PNP students enhanced behavioral health assessment skills, I have been proudest when students have been able to apply and disseminate these skills,” Dr. Schapiro said. “One of our recent PNP graduates was in a community primary care practicum when an adolescent thinking about suicide walked into the clinic with her father. Her preceptor wasn’t sure how to proceed, when the student said, ‘Wait! We just practiced this in class.’ The student pulled up her course website, and she and her preceptor walked through the assessment together, developed a safety plan with the teen and her father, and connected the teen with a therapist, avoiding an unnecessary ER visit and potential fragmentation of care.”
The need and expectation that pediatric PC providers incorporate MH services is well documented.2,12,13 PNPs who have additional training and expertise in assessing, diagnosing, and managing MH care are an excellent solution for addressing this problem. The benefits of this team-based approach to the pediatric health care home include decreasing stigma, increasing access, and providing comprehensive MH care to children and their families.
Dr. Haut works at Beacon Pediatrics, a large primary care practice in Rehoboth Beach, Del. She works part-time for Pediatrix Medical Group, serving the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit medical team at the Herman & Walter Samuelson Children’s Hospital at Sinai in Baltimore, and she serves as adjunct faculty at the University of Maryland School of Nursing, also in Baltimore. Other contributors to this article were Dawn Garzon Maaks, PhD, CPNP, PMHS; Naomi Schapiro, PhD, CPNP; Susan Van Cleve, DNP, RN, CPNP-PC, PMHS; and Laura Searcy, MN, APRN, PPCNP-BC. Ms. Searcy is on the medical staff at WellStar Kennestone Regional Medical Center in Marietta, Ga., delivering care to newborns. Dr. Haut and Ms. Searcy are members of the Pediatric News Consultant Advisory Board. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. “Best principles for integration of child psychiatry into the pediatric health home,” AACAP Executive Summary,2012, pages 1-13.
2. Pediatrics. 2009 Apr;123(4):1248-51.
3. Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Children’s Mental Health Data and Statistics.
4. MMWR Surveill Summ, 2016. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a1.
5. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):909-17.
6. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.
7. “Integrating child psychology services into primary care,” by Tynan D, Woods K, and Carpenter J. American Psychological Association, 2014.
8. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2005;11(5): 276-82.
9. J Nurse Pract. 2013;9(4):243-8.
10. J Pediatr Health Care. 2013; 27(3):162-3.
11. Advanced Nursing Education Health Resources Service Administration grant (#D09HP26958).
12. J Nurse Pract. 2013:9(3):142-8.
13. Pediatrics. 2018;141(3):e20174082
Concerns about mental health (MH) care delivery for children are repeatedly identified by health care providers, described in the literature, and addressed through advocacy. Unfortunately, health inequities continue to exist, including the social stigma of an MH diagnosis, lower reimbursement for MH compared with medical care, and poor access to expert pediatric behavioral health providers. This is especially true for families living below the poverty line, who are more likely to have MH problems.1
An estimated 50% of primary care (PC) pediatric visits involve an MH or behavioral problem, yet only about 20% of these patients receive services.2 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one out of seven children aged 2-8 years has a developmental or behavioral disorder.3 In children aged 3-17 years, 7% have ADHD, 2% have depressive disorders, and 3% have anxiety.3 In the 2015 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance survey, more than 29% of high school respondents stated that they felt so sad or hopeless during the past 12 months that they had stopped some of their usual activities, and 18% considered suicide.4 The incidence of violent acts committed by and affecting teens adds a critical need for creative provision of pediatric MH care.
MH integration in pediatric PC, supported by the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and many others is an avenue to provide quality MH services for children.5,6,7 In a coordinated or colocated model, a behavioral health specialist works with a pediatric provider either in consultation with the practice (coordinated) or in the same practice site where patients are referred (colocated).7 The collaborative care model places pediatric medical providers with care managers or behavioral health specialists to deliver care in one practice setting.
The use of pediatric nurse practitioners (PNPs) with advanced training in MH care is described in the literature as a different type of collaborative care model.8,9,10 PNPs assess, diagnose, and treat using pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies. PNPs may offer evidence-based psychotherapy or refer for psychotherapy or parenting skills development. Those who have added knowledge and skills in MH care may seek validation of these competencies through completion of added certification as pediatric PC MH specialists (PMHS).11 Since 2011, there are more than 400 PMHSs certified in the United States. We share examples of services provided by PNPs across the United States.
At a federally qualified health center
Dawn Garzon Maaks, PhD, CPNP-PC, the current president of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, is certified as a PMHS and works in a federally-qualified health center in southwest Washington State. This center provides lifespan services for patients, with separate office spaces for MH/psychiatric care and PC. Within this colocated environment, Dr. Garzon Maaks spends about 75% of her time caring for children with developmental, behavioral, and MH problems in the MH clinic and 25% in the PC office, providing health maintenance and acute episodic care. She collaborates with psychiatrists and psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners by adding pediatric developmental and medical expertise and is welcomed by providers who have limited experience caring for children. While providing PC, she educates about issues such as resiliency, screening for substance abuse, and treatment of common pediatric mood disorders and ADHD. Her expertise also allows for MH care integration into PC visits, taking away the “stigma” which still is pervasive for patients referred to MH providers.
“What my position has taught me is that when primary and mental health care providers work closely, it improves outcomes for all patients seen. Through frequent consultation, our primary care physicians have increasing skills in caring for children with mild mental health issues, thus freeing up the mental health people to deal with the more significant cases. On the other hand, our mental health providers benefit from having the primary care expertise in diagnosing and treating common conditions that mimic mental health issues. This integration also significantly reduces stigma because families see their mental health professional in the primary care setting,” Dr. Garzon Maaks said.
At an urban/suburban PC practice
Another PNP MH expert, Dr. Susan Van Cleve, is certified as a PMHS and works as a subspecialist within an urban/suburban pediatric PC practice. Her team is composed of two PNPs and one registered nurse who is designated as the full time MH coordinator. This team cares for children and teens with mild to moderate MH disorders from within the practice. The registered nurse performs intake interviews, schedules patients, and sends out screening tools before visits and is available to families and providers in the practice on a dedicated phone line. She refers complex patients to local providers for more comprehensive care and follows them to ensure that appointments and referrals are made. Scheduling with the PNPs allows for longer appointments, comprehensive treatment including medication management if warranted, and close follow-up care. Patient types seen include those with concerns about developmental delays, autism spectrum disorder, disruptive behavior, ADHD, anxiety, and depression. Children or teens with more severe disorders are referred to colleagues in psychiatry or counseling services, or to pediatric or adolescent subspecialists in the community.
“The children and families I see seem to feel comfortable because our behavioral team is embedded in the pediatric practice, and we use the same office space. Families have easy access to our full-time registered nurse who is available to answer questions, provide resources and advice, lend support, or assist navigating the health system. This type of system increases access, enables us to provide comprehensive family-centered care, and supports the child and family,” said Dr. Van Cleve, clinical professor and primary care pediatric nurse practitioner program director at the University of Iowa College of Nursing, Iowa City.
As an educator
Naomi A. Schapiro, PhD, CPNP, is a professor of nursing at the University of California, San Francisco, and a PNP at a school-based health center with an integrated behavioral health model, managed by a federally qualified health center in a medically underserved area. She is the principle investigator of an Advanced Nursing Education Health Resources Service Administration grant supporting interprofessional training and practice collaboration to improve care and reduce health inequities for disadvantaged children and adolescents coping with both behavioral health conditions and chronic physical conditions, including obesity.11
Dr. Schapiro collaborates with a multidisciplinary, multi-university team, a local children’s hospital, a social work training program, and the county health care services agency to develop and implement a training program for pediatric PC providers to increase skills and self-confidence implementing American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines assessing and treating depression, ADHD, anxiety and trauma-related symptoms; triaging patients with nonsuicidal self-injury and suicidal ideation; and recognizing and referring patients with bipolar disorder and psychosis. These training modules are currently being recorded for online posting. As part of this interprofessional collaboration, Dr. Schapiro and her colleagues developed a “warmline” for decision support, staffed by a psychiatrist and two nurse practitioners available to PC providers in a network of 29 school-based health centers and two pediatric practices for complex decision making about medications or diagnostic dilemmas. Efforts are underway to continue and expand this program.
“As a faculty teaching PNP students enhanced behavioral health assessment skills, I have been proudest when students have been able to apply and disseminate these skills,” Dr. Schapiro said. “One of our recent PNP graduates was in a community primary care practicum when an adolescent thinking about suicide walked into the clinic with her father. Her preceptor wasn’t sure how to proceed, when the student said, ‘Wait! We just practiced this in class.’ The student pulled up her course website, and she and her preceptor walked through the assessment together, developed a safety plan with the teen and her father, and connected the teen with a therapist, avoiding an unnecessary ER visit and potential fragmentation of care.”
The need and expectation that pediatric PC providers incorporate MH services is well documented.2,12,13 PNPs who have additional training and expertise in assessing, diagnosing, and managing MH care are an excellent solution for addressing this problem. The benefits of this team-based approach to the pediatric health care home include decreasing stigma, increasing access, and providing comprehensive MH care to children and their families.
Dr. Haut works at Beacon Pediatrics, a large primary care practice in Rehoboth Beach, Del. She works part-time for Pediatrix Medical Group, serving the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit medical team at the Herman & Walter Samuelson Children’s Hospital at Sinai in Baltimore, and she serves as adjunct faculty at the University of Maryland School of Nursing, also in Baltimore. Other contributors to this article were Dawn Garzon Maaks, PhD, CPNP, PMHS; Naomi Schapiro, PhD, CPNP; Susan Van Cleve, DNP, RN, CPNP-PC, PMHS; and Laura Searcy, MN, APRN, PPCNP-BC. Ms. Searcy is on the medical staff at WellStar Kennestone Regional Medical Center in Marietta, Ga., delivering care to newborns. Dr. Haut and Ms. Searcy are members of the Pediatric News Consultant Advisory Board. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. “Best principles for integration of child psychiatry into the pediatric health home,” AACAP Executive Summary,2012, pages 1-13.
2. Pediatrics. 2009 Apr;123(4):1248-51.
3. Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Children’s Mental Health Data and Statistics.
4. MMWR Surveill Summ, 2016. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a1.
5. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):909-17.
6. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):929-37.
7. “Integrating child psychology services into primary care,” by Tynan D, Woods K, and Carpenter J. American Psychological Association, 2014.
8. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2005;11(5): 276-82.
9. J Nurse Pract. 2013;9(4):243-8.
10. J Pediatr Health Care. 2013; 27(3):162-3.
11. Advanced Nursing Education Health Resources Service Administration grant (#D09HP26958).
12. J Nurse Pract. 2013:9(3):142-8.
13. Pediatrics. 2018;141(3):e20174082
Examining developmental monitoring and screening in LMICs
Over the last decade, three series published in the Lancet on child development have increased global awareness of the importance of early brain development and highlighted the critical role nurturing care plays in the first 3 years of a child’s life. Yet, as practitioners and policy makers in low- and middle-income countries increasingly acknowledge the influence early development has on later developmental, educational, and socioeconomic trajectories, there has been less agreement regarding the most appropriate methods and measures for screening and monitoring child development over time.
In an article published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, we and our colleagues, Emily Vargas-Barón, PhD, of RISE Institute, Washington, and Kevin P. Marks, MD, of PeaceHealth Medical Group in Eugene, Ore., countered some of the concerns raised about translating and adapting screening measures developed in HICs. In the paper, we documented the translation, cultural adaptation, and implementation of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ) in LMICs based on a critical examination of 53 studies published in a variety of peer-reviewed journals.
We used a consensus rating procedure to classify the articles into one of four categories: feasibility study, psychometric study, prevalence study, or research study. In total, we identified 8 feasibility studies, 12 psychometric studies, and 9 prevalence studies. The main objectives of these studies varied by economy and region.
Overall, the review revealed that the ASQ is already being used broadly in a range of countries, cultures, and linguistic contexts. As of 2017, the ASQ has been used in 23 LMICs distributed across all world regions and has been translated into at least 16 languages for use in these countries. Over half of the studies reported that parents filled out the ASQ, a finding that runs contrary to recent misconceptions about the use of developmental screeners in LMICs.
Additionally, we found that adaptation and use of the ASQ in LMICs often followed one of two paths. The first path involved engagement in a systematic translation and adaptation process, collection of evidence to support reliability and validity, completion of prevalence studies, and use in research or practice. This first path resulted in higher rates of parent completion and, in general, closer adherence to the administration procedures recommended by the ASQ development team. In contrast, a second path utilized the ASQ solely for research purposes. This path tended to result in more frequent deviations from recommended procedures for adaptation and translation (for example, on-the-fly translation or administration by assessors) and may be fueling some of the misunderstandings associated with developmental screening in LMICs.
As countries begin to develop and scale up Early Childhood Development and Early Childhood Intervention systems and services worldwide, it is vitally important that properly standardized developmental screening measures with strong evidence of reliability and validity are available for parents and practitioners. Regardless of whether researchers develop these measures locally or adapt them from measures developed in HICs, it is imperative that decision makers step back, compile available psychometric and feasibility information across the studies that have been conducted for a given measure, and draw their own conclusions.
Finally, given that some LMICs may have fewer early intervention resources and may face more barriers to ensuring service follow-up, it would be ideal if evidence-based developmental promotion (for example, early literacy promotion, positive parenting tips, or resiliency counseling) is incorporated into the process of developmental screening. In theory, this would make the screening process more effective and parent-centered.
Mr. Small is with the Oregon Research Institute, Eugene. Dr. Hix-Small is with Portland (Ore.) State University. The authors have stated that they had no interests that might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias. Dr. Hix-Small has worked as a paid ASQ trainer. Email them at [email protected].
Over the last decade, three series published in the Lancet on child development have increased global awareness of the importance of early brain development and highlighted the critical role nurturing care plays in the first 3 years of a child’s life. Yet, as practitioners and policy makers in low- and middle-income countries increasingly acknowledge the influence early development has on later developmental, educational, and socioeconomic trajectories, there has been less agreement regarding the most appropriate methods and measures for screening and monitoring child development over time.
In an article published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, we and our colleagues, Emily Vargas-Barón, PhD, of RISE Institute, Washington, and Kevin P. Marks, MD, of PeaceHealth Medical Group in Eugene, Ore., countered some of the concerns raised about translating and adapting screening measures developed in HICs. In the paper, we documented the translation, cultural adaptation, and implementation of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ) in LMICs based on a critical examination of 53 studies published in a variety of peer-reviewed journals.
We used a consensus rating procedure to classify the articles into one of four categories: feasibility study, psychometric study, prevalence study, or research study. In total, we identified 8 feasibility studies, 12 psychometric studies, and 9 prevalence studies. The main objectives of these studies varied by economy and region.
Overall, the review revealed that the ASQ is already being used broadly in a range of countries, cultures, and linguistic contexts. As of 2017, the ASQ has been used in 23 LMICs distributed across all world regions and has been translated into at least 16 languages for use in these countries. Over half of the studies reported that parents filled out the ASQ, a finding that runs contrary to recent misconceptions about the use of developmental screeners in LMICs.
Additionally, we found that adaptation and use of the ASQ in LMICs often followed one of two paths. The first path involved engagement in a systematic translation and adaptation process, collection of evidence to support reliability and validity, completion of prevalence studies, and use in research or practice. This first path resulted in higher rates of parent completion and, in general, closer adherence to the administration procedures recommended by the ASQ development team. In contrast, a second path utilized the ASQ solely for research purposes. This path tended to result in more frequent deviations from recommended procedures for adaptation and translation (for example, on-the-fly translation or administration by assessors) and may be fueling some of the misunderstandings associated with developmental screening in LMICs.
As countries begin to develop and scale up Early Childhood Development and Early Childhood Intervention systems and services worldwide, it is vitally important that properly standardized developmental screening measures with strong evidence of reliability and validity are available for parents and practitioners. Regardless of whether researchers develop these measures locally or adapt them from measures developed in HICs, it is imperative that decision makers step back, compile available psychometric and feasibility information across the studies that have been conducted for a given measure, and draw their own conclusions.
Finally, given that some LMICs may have fewer early intervention resources and may face more barriers to ensuring service follow-up, it would be ideal if evidence-based developmental promotion (for example, early literacy promotion, positive parenting tips, or resiliency counseling) is incorporated into the process of developmental screening. In theory, this would make the screening process more effective and parent-centered.
Mr. Small is with the Oregon Research Institute, Eugene. Dr. Hix-Small is with Portland (Ore.) State University. The authors have stated that they had no interests that might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias. Dr. Hix-Small has worked as a paid ASQ trainer. Email them at [email protected].
Over the last decade, three series published in the Lancet on child development have increased global awareness of the importance of early brain development and highlighted the critical role nurturing care plays in the first 3 years of a child’s life. Yet, as practitioners and policy makers in low- and middle-income countries increasingly acknowledge the influence early development has on later developmental, educational, and socioeconomic trajectories, there has been less agreement regarding the most appropriate methods and measures for screening and monitoring child development over time.
In an article published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, we and our colleagues, Emily Vargas-Barón, PhD, of RISE Institute, Washington, and Kevin P. Marks, MD, of PeaceHealth Medical Group in Eugene, Ore., countered some of the concerns raised about translating and adapting screening measures developed in HICs. In the paper, we documented the translation, cultural adaptation, and implementation of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ) in LMICs based on a critical examination of 53 studies published in a variety of peer-reviewed journals.
We used a consensus rating procedure to classify the articles into one of four categories: feasibility study, psychometric study, prevalence study, or research study. In total, we identified 8 feasibility studies, 12 psychometric studies, and 9 prevalence studies. The main objectives of these studies varied by economy and region.
Overall, the review revealed that the ASQ is already being used broadly in a range of countries, cultures, and linguistic contexts. As of 2017, the ASQ has been used in 23 LMICs distributed across all world regions and has been translated into at least 16 languages for use in these countries. Over half of the studies reported that parents filled out the ASQ, a finding that runs contrary to recent misconceptions about the use of developmental screeners in LMICs.
Additionally, we found that adaptation and use of the ASQ in LMICs often followed one of two paths. The first path involved engagement in a systematic translation and adaptation process, collection of evidence to support reliability and validity, completion of prevalence studies, and use in research or practice. This first path resulted in higher rates of parent completion and, in general, closer adherence to the administration procedures recommended by the ASQ development team. In contrast, a second path utilized the ASQ solely for research purposes. This path tended to result in more frequent deviations from recommended procedures for adaptation and translation (for example, on-the-fly translation or administration by assessors) and may be fueling some of the misunderstandings associated with developmental screening in LMICs.
As countries begin to develop and scale up Early Childhood Development and Early Childhood Intervention systems and services worldwide, it is vitally important that properly standardized developmental screening measures with strong evidence of reliability and validity are available for parents and practitioners. Regardless of whether researchers develop these measures locally or adapt them from measures developed in HICs, it is imperative that decision makers step back, compile available psychometric and feasibility information across the studies that have been conducted for a given measure, and draw their own conclusions.
Finally, given that some LMICs may have fewer early intervention resources and may face more barriers to ensuring service follow-up, it would be ideal if evidence-based developmental promotion (for example, early literacy promotion, positive parenting tips, or resiliency counseling) is incorporated into the process of developmental screening. In theory, this would make the screening process more effective and parent-centered.
Mr. Small is with the Oregon Research Institute, Eugene. Dr. Hix-Small is with Portland (Ore.) State University. The authors have stated that they had no interests that might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias. Dr. Hix-Small has worked as a paid ASQ trainer. Email them at [email protected].
Looking at study results with a critical eye
As a physician you are the embodiment of delayed gratification. You spent more than 20 years in school before you earned a degree that then allowed you spend another 3-plus years in training before anyone would consider you a “real” doctor. Somewhere along that long and shallow trajectory someone may have said, “You must have done really well on the marshmallow test.”
That is, until this year, when an attempt to replicate the initial study by Shoda et al. failed to find that the associations between delayed gratification and adolescent achievement were anywhere near as significant as those reported in the 1990 study (Psychol Sci. 2018 May. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661). Watts et al. suggest that the discrepancy may be explained in part by a failure to adequately control for family background, home environment, and early cognitive ability in the initial experimental design.
Is there a message here? Should we stop wasting our time reading papers from the developmental psychology literature? Not just yet. There are more papers coming out in which the authors attempt to replicate other landmark studies, often without success (“Undergrads Can Improve Psychology,” by Russel T. Warne and Jordan Wagge, The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2018). Let’s wait and see how much more debunking there is going to be before we throw the baby out with the bath water.
regardless of how prestigious the institution of origin and regardless of how much it appeals to our common sense. Our intuition can be a powerful tool when we are looking for answers, but it can lead us astray if we take it too seriously.
It is often said that a good experiment is one that raises more questions than it answers. You don’t have to remember all that stuff you learned when you studied statistics to be able to question the results of a study you read in a peer-reviewed journal. I find that in many of the papers I read I have serious concerns about how well the authors have controlled for the not-so-obvious variables.
So where does this failed attempt at replicating the original marshmallow test study leave us? It is still very likely given your aptitude for delayed gratification that had you been given the test as a preschooler you would not have even touched the marshmallow until the experimenter re-entered the room to end the test and then ... you probably would have offered to share it with her.
But these new results suggest that your ability to delay gratification was not some skill with which you were born. You may have been born smarter than the average child, but your skill at delaying gratification may have been one you learned from your parents and assimilated from the home environment in which your grew up. This may be one of those nature-or-nurture skirmishes in which nurture wins. And, it may be another good example of the importance of the first 3 or 4 years in a child’s emotional and psychological development.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
As a physician you are the embodiment of delayed gratification. You spent more than 20 years in school before you earned a degree that then allowed you spend another 3-plus years in training before anyone would consider you a “real” doctor. Somewhere along that long and shallow trajectory someone may have said, “You must have done really well on the marshmallow test.”
That is, until this year, when an attempt to replicate the initial study by Shoda et al. failed to find that the associations between delayed gratification and adolescent achievement were anywhere near as significant as those reported in the 1990 study (Psychol Sci. 2018 May. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661). Watts et al. suggest that the discrepancy may be explained in part by a failure to adequately control for family background, home environment, and early cognitive ability in the initial experimental design.
Is there a message here? Should we stop wasting our time reading papers from the developmental psychology literature? Not just yet. There are more papers coming out in which the authors attempt to replicate other landmark studies, often without success (“Undergrads Can Improve Psychology,” by Russel T. Warne and Jordan Wagge, The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2018). Let’s wait and see how much more debunking there is going to be before we throw the baby out with the bath water.
regardless of how prestigious the institution of origin and regardless of how much it appeals to our common sense. Our intuition can be a powerful tool when we are looking for answers, but it can lead us astray if we take it too seriously.
It is often said that a good experiment is one that raises more questions than it answers. You don’t have to remember all that stuff you learned when you studied statistics to be able to question the results of a study you read in a peer-reviewed journal. I find that in many of the papers I read I have serious concerns about how well the authors have controlled for the not-so-obvious variables.
So where does this failed attempt at replicating the original marshmallow test study leave us? It is still very likely given your aptitude for delayed gratification that had you been given the test as a preschooler you would not have even touched the marshmallow until the experimenter re-entered the room to end the test and then ... you probably would have offered to share it with her.
But these new results suggest that your ability to delay gratification was not some skill with which you were born. You may have been born smarter than the average child, but your skill at delaying gratification may have been one you learned from your parents and assimilated from the home environment in which your grew up. This may be one of those nature-or-nurture skirmishes in which nurture wins. And, it may be another good example of the importance of the first 3 or 4 years in a child’s emotional and psychological development.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
As a physician you are the embodiment of delayed gratification. You spent more than 20 years in school before you earned a degree that then allowed you spend another 3-plus years in training before anyone would consider you a “real” doctor. Somewhere along that long and shallow trajectory someone may have said, “You must have done really well on the marshmallow test.”
That is, until this year, when an attempt to replicate the initial study by Shoda et al. failed to find that the associations between delayed gratification and adolescent achievement were anywhere near as significant as those reported in the 1990 study (Psychol Sci. 2018 May. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661). Watts et al. suggest that the discrepancy may be explained in part by a failure to adequately control for family background, home environment, and early cognitive ability in the initial experimental design.
Is there a message here? Should we stop wasting our time reading papers from the developmental psychology literature? Not just yet. There are more papers coming out in which the authors attempt to replicate other landmark studies, often without success (“Undergrads Can Improve Psychology,” by Russel T. Warne and Jordan Wagge, The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2018). Let’s wait and see how much more debunking there is going to be before we throw the baby out with the bath water.
regardless of how prestigious the institution of origin and regardless of how much it appeals to our common sense. Our intuition can be a powerful tool when we are looking for answers, but it can lead us astray if we take it too seriously.
It is often said that a good experiment is one that raises more questions than it answers. You don’t have to remember all that stuff you learned when you studied statistics to be able to question the results of a study you read in a peer-reviewed journal. I find that in many of the papers I read I have serious concerns about how well the authors have controlled for the not-so-obvious variables.
So where does this failed attempt at replicating the original marshmallow test study leave us? It is still very likely given your aptitude for delayed gratification that had you been given the test as a preschooler you would not have even touched the marshmallow until the experimenter re-entered the room to end the test and then ... you probably would have offered to share it with her.
But these new results suggest that your ability to delay gratification was not some skill with which you were born. You may have been born smarter than the average child, but your skill at delaying gratification may have been one you learned from your parents and assimilated from the home environment in which your grew up. This may be one of those nature-or-nurture skirmishes in which nurture wins. And, it may be another good example of the importance of the first 3 or 4 years in a child’s emotional and psychological development.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Should you be worried about the declining birth rate?
The number of births in the United States has fallen for the second year in a row. Births in 2017 were down 2% from 2016, bringing the birth rate to a 30-year low at 60 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years. This decline spanned nearly all maternal age groups, including teenagers (Hamilton et al. NVSS Vital Statistics Rapid Release Report No 004, May 2018).
In the crudest terms, babies represent the raw material of pediatrics. Without children, we pediatricians would have to begin treating those whining adults. Most of us chose pediatrics because we enjoy being around children, and many of us were motivated to study medicine by a desire to help sick children. Is this decline in the supply stream of patients something we should be worrying about?
Before we start looking for other less appealing employment opportunities, let’s look a little closer at the reasons for this declining birth rate. A traditional explanation cites an association between the number of births and the health of the economy. However, this recent decline has occurred in the face of an obviously improving economy.
In an attempt to find a more nuanced explanation, the New York Times asked a nationally representative sample of 1,858 young adults aged 20-45 years how they felt about having children (“Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. They Told Us Why.” by Claire Cain Miller, July 5, 2018). The results were interesting and not necessarily surprising. When the respondents were asked why they had or were expecting to have fewer children than they considered ideal, six of their first eight reasons were linked to their finances, with “Child care is too expensive” leading all answers at 64%. The second highest response was “Want more time for the children I have” (54%) and the sixth was “Want more leisure time”(42%).
When the young adults were asked why they aren’t having children, “Want more leisure time” moved to No. 1 (32%) and “Can’t afford day care” fell to third place (31%) just ahead of “No desire for children” (30%).
Embedded in this data from the National Vital Statistic System (NVSS) and the New York Times poll are the seeds of reassurance. The observation that the young adults’ second reason for not wanting to have more children was that they wanted to have more time with the children they have suggests what pediatricians already have observed for a generation or two. Modern adults appear to be taking their role as parents more seriously. They worry that they aren’t doing a good job and look to us as one of their, if not their most, trusted advisers. 
This epidemic of parental anxiety does not appear to be abating with the declining birth rate. It continues to generate a large percentage of phone calls and office visits. Over the course of my career, it became clear that although there were fewer children being born in our community, pediatricians remained busy, but with a broader spectrum of complaints that tilted toward behavioral issues.
In the current NVSS data, the cesarean section rate rose again and is now 32%, and the preterm birth rate increased for the third year in a row to 10%. The birth rate for low-birth-weight infants climbed to 8%, the highest since 2006. So while the number of births has fallen to a 30-year low, there appear to be more high-risk babies being born.
You can worry about job security if you like, but in a quirky kind of way pediatrics is following along its own rules of supply and demand. And, you should rest easy ... that is until the next panicked call from a parent wakes you in the middle of the night.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
The number of births in the United States has fallen for the second year in a row. Births in 2017 were down 2% from 2016, bringing the birth rate to a 30-year low at 60 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years. This decline spanned nearly all maternal age groups, including teenagers (Hamilton et al. NVSS Vital Statistics Rapid Release Report No 004, May 2018).
In the crudest terms, babies represent the raw material of pediatrics. Without children, we pediatricians would have to begin treating those whining adults. Most of us chose pediatrics because we enjoy being around children, and many of us were motivated to study medicine by a desire to help sick children. Is this decline in the supply stream of patients something we should be worrying about?
Before we start looking for other less appealing employment opportunities, let’s look a little closer at the reasons for this declining birth rate. A traditional explanation cites an association between the number of births and the health of the economy. However, this recent decline has occurred in the face of an obviously improving economy.
In an attempt to find a more nuanced explanation, the New York Times asked a nationally representative sample of 1,858 young adults aged 20-45 years how they felt about having children (“Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. They Told Us Why.” by Claire Cain Miller, July 5, 2018). The results were interesting and not necessarily surprising. When the respondents were asked why they had or were expecting to have fewer children than they considered ideal, six of their first eight reasons were linked to their finances, with “Child care is too expensive” leading all answers at 64%. The second highest response was “Want more time for the children I have” (54%) and the sixth was “Want more leisure time”(42%).
When the young adults were asked why they aren’t having children, “Want more leisure time” moved to No. 1 (32%) and “Can’t afford day care” fell to third place (31%) just ahead of “No desire for children” (30%).
Embedded in this data from the National Vital Statistic System (NVSS) and the New York Times poll are the seeds of reassurance. The observation that the young adults’ second reason for not wanting to have more children was that they wanted to have more time with the children they have suggests what pediatricians already have observed for a generation or two. Modern adults appear to be taking their role as parents more seriously. They worry that they aren’t doing a good job and look to us as one of their, if not their most, trusted advisers.
This epidemic of parental anxiety does not appear to be abating with the declining birth rate. It continues to generate a large percentage of phone calls and office visits. Over the course of my career, it became clear that although there were fewer children being born in our community, pediatricians remained busy, but with a broader spectrum of complaints that tilted toward behavioral issues.
In the current NVSS data, the cesarean section rate rose again and is now 32%, and the preterm birth rate increased for the third year in a row to 10%. The birth rate for low-birth-weight infants climbed to 8%, the highest since 2006. So while the number of births has fallen to a 30-year low, there appear to be more high-risk babies being born.
You can worry about job security if you like, but in a quirky kind of way pediatrics is following along its own rules of supply and demand. And, you should rest easy ... that is until the next panicked call from a parent wakes you in the middle of the night.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
The number of births in the United States has fallen for the second year in a row. Births in 2017 were down 2% from 2016, bringing the birth rate to a 30-year low at 60 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years. This decline spanned nearly all maternal age groups, including teenagers (Hamilton et al. NVSS Vital Statistics Rapid Release Report No 004, May 2018).
In the crudest terms, babies represent the raw material of pediatrics. Without children, we pediatricians would have to begin treating those whining adults. Most of us chose pediatrics because we enjoy being around children, and many of us were motivated to study medicine by a desire to help sick children. Is this decline in the supply stream of patients something we should be worrying about?
Before we start looking for other less appealing employment opportunities, let’s look a little closer at the reasons for this declining birth rate. A traditional explanation cites an association between the number of births and the health of the economy. However, this recent decline has occurred in the face of an obviously improving economy.
In an attempt to find a more nuanced explanation, the New York Times asked a nationally representative sample of 1,858 young adults aged 20-45 years how they felt about having children (“Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. They Told Us Why.” by Claire Cain Miller, July 5, 2018). The results were interesting and not necessarily surprising. When the respondents were asked why they had or were expecting to have fewer children than they considered ideal, six of their first eight reasons were linked to their finances, with “Child care is too expensive” leading all answers at 64%. The second highest response was “Want more time for the children I have” (54%) and the sixth was “Want more leisure time”(42%).
When the young adults were asked why they aren’t having children, “Want more leisure time” moved to No. 1 (32%) and “Can’t afford day care” fell to third place (31%) just ahead of “No desire for children” (30%).
Embedded in this data from the National Vital Statistic System (NVSS) and the New York Times poll are the seeds of reassurance. The observation that the young adults’ second reason for not wanting to have more children was that they wanted to have more time with the children they have suggests what pediatricians already have observed for a generation or two. Modern adults appear to be taking their role as parents more seriously. They worry that they aren’t doing a good job and look to us as one of their, if not their most, trusted advisers.
This epidemic of parental anxiety does not appear to be abating with the declining birth rate. It continues to generate a large percentage of phone calls and office visits. Over the course of my career, it became clear that although there were fewer children being born in our community, pediatricians remained busy, but with a broader spectrum of complaints that tilted toward behavioral issues.
In the current NVSS data, the cesarean section rate rose again and is now 32%, and the preterm birth rate increased for the third year in a row to 10%. The birth rate for low-birth-weight infants climbed to 8%, the highest since 2006. So while the number of births has fallen to a 30-year low, there appear to be more high-risk babies being born.
You can worry about job security if you like, but in a quirky kind of way pediatrics is following along its own rules of supply and demand. And, you should rest easy ... that is until the next panicked call from a parent wakes you in the middle of the night.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Countdown to launch: Health care IT primed for disruption
On Friday, June 29, at 5:42 a.m., I stood with my family on a Florida shore overlooking Kennedy Space Center. We had gathered with about a hundred other people to watch a rocket launch and were overwhelmed with excitement as the coastline erupted in fire, and the spacecraft lifted off toward the heavens. Standing there watching the spectacle, I couldn’t help but be caught up in the irony of the moment. Here we were, at the place where NASA sent the first Americans into space – on the very shores where the Apollo astronauts set off for the moon to plant our nation’s flag in the lunar dust in July of 1969. Yet now, almost 50 years later, this launch was profoundly different. The rocket wasn’t built by NASA, and the intention of its builders wasn’t exploration. This was a Falcon 9, built by SpaceX, a for-profit company founded by an enterprising billionaire. Most surprisingly, this relatively routine launch was intended to accomplish something that NASA – the United States’ own space agency – currently can’t do on its own: Launch rockets.
Since retiring the Space Shuttle in 2011, the United States has had to rely on others – including even Roscosmos (the Russian space agency) – to ferry passengers, satellites, and cargo into space. Seeing this opportunity in a multibillion-dollar industry, private enterprise has risen to the challenge, innovating more quickly and at a lower cost than “the establishment” has ever been capable of. As a result, space travel has been disrupted by corporations competing in a new “space race.” Instead of national pride or scientific dominance, this race has been fueled by profit and is quite similar to one being run in another industry: health care.
Just 1 day prior to watching the launch – on June 28 – we learned that Amazon had purchased PillPack, a prescription drug home delivery service. The stock market responded to the news, and the establishment (in this case CVS, Walgreen’s, and WalMart, among others) collectively lost $17.5 billion in one day. This isn’t the first time Amazon has disrupted the health care world; in January of this year, they, along with Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase, announced a health care partnership to cut costs and improve care delivery for their employees. This move also sent shivers through the market, as health insurers and providers such as Aetna and United Health lost big on expectations that Amazon et al. wouldn’t stop with their own employees. Those of us watching this play out from the sidelines realized we were witnessing a revolution that would mean the end of health care delivery as we know it – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, especially in the world of Electronic Health Records.
As you’ve probably noticed, it is quite rare to find physicians nowadays who love computers. Once an exciting novelty in health care, PCs have become a burdensome necessity and providers often feel enslaved to the EHRs that run on them. There are numerous reasons for this, but one primary cause is that the hundreds of disparate EHRs currently available sprouted out of health care – a centuries-old and very provincial industry – prior to the development of technical and regulatory standards to govern them. As they’ve grown larger and larger from their primitive underpinnings, these EHRs have become more cumbersome to navigate, and vendors have simply “bolted-on” additional features without significant changes to their near-obsolete software architecture.
It’s worth noting that a few EHR companies purport to be true innovators in platform usability, such as industry giant, Epic. According to CEO Judy Faulkner, Epic pours 50% of their revenue back into research and development (though, as Epic is a privately held company, this number can’t be verified). If accurate, Epic is truly an exception, as most electronic record companies spend about 10%-30% on improving their products – far less than they spend on recruiting new customers. Regardless, the outcome is this: Physician expectations for user interface and user experience have far outpaced the current state of the art of EHRs, and this has left a gap that new players outside the health care establishment are apt to fill.
Like Amazon, other software giants have made significant investments in health care over the past several years. According to their website, Apple has been working with hospitals, scientists, and developers to “help health care providers streamline their work, deliver better care, and conduct medical research.” Similarly, Google claims to be “making a number of big bets in health care and life sciences,” by leveraging their artificial intelligence technology to assist in clinical diagnosis and scientific discovery. In spite of a few false starts in the past, these companies are poised to do more than simply disrupt health care. As experts in user interface and design, they could truly change the way physicians interact with health care technology, and it seems like it’s no longer a question of if, but when we’ll see that happen.
The effort of SpaceX and others to change the way we launch rockets tells a story that transcends space travel – It’s a story of how new thinking, more efficient processes, and better design can disrupt the establishment. It’s worth pointing out that NASA hasn’t given up – they are continuing to develop the Space Launch System, which, when completed, will be the most powerful rocket in the world and be capable of carrying astronauts into deep space. In the meantime, however, NASA is embracing the efforts of private industry to help pave a better way forward and make space travel safer and more accessible for everyone. We are hopeful that EHR vendors and other establishment health care institutions are taking note, adapting to meet the needs of the current generation of physicians and patients, and innovating a better way to launch health care into the future.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
On Friday, June 29, at 5:42 a.m., I stood with my family on a Florida shore overlooking Kennedy Space Center. We had gathered with about a hundred other people to watch a rocket launch and were overwhelmed with excitement as the coastline erupted in fire, and the spacecraft lifted off toward the heavens. Standing there watching the spectacle, I couldn’t help but be caught up in the irony of the moment. Here we were, at the place where NASA sent the first Americans into space – on the very shores where the Apollo astronauts set off for the moon to plant our nation’s flag in the lunar dust in July of 1969. Yet now, almost 50 years later, this launch was profoundly different. The rocket wasn’t built by NASA, and the intention of its builders wasn’t exploration. This was a Falcon 9, built by SpaceX, a for-profit company founded by an enterprising billionaire. Most surprisingly, this relatively routine launch was intended to accomplish something that NASA – the United States’ own space agency – currently can’t do on its own: Launch rockets.
Since retiring the Space Shuttle in 2011, the United States has had to rely on others – including even Roscosmos (the Russian space agency) – to ferry passengers, satellites, and cargo into space. Seeing this opportunity in a multibillion-dollar industry, private enterprise has risen to the challenge, innovating more quickly and at a lower cost than “the establishment” has ever been capable of. As a result, space travel has been disrupted by corporations competing in a new “space race.” Instead of national pride or scientific dominance, this race has been fueled by profit and is quite similar to one being run in another industry: health care.
Just 1 day prior to watching the launch – on June 28 – we learned that Amazon had purchased PillPack, a prescription drug home delivery service. The stock market responded to the news, and the establishment (in this case CVS, Walgreen’s, and WalMart, among others) collectively lost $17.5 billion in one day. This isn’t the first time Amazon has disrupted the health care world; in January of this year, they, along with Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase, announced a health care partnership to cut costs and improve care delivery for their employees. This move also sent shivers through the market, as health insurers and providers such as Aetna and United Health lost big on expectations that Amazon et al. wouldn’t stop with their own employees. Those of us watching this play out from the sidelines realized we were witnessing a revolution that would mean the end of health care delivery as we know it – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, especially in the world of Electronic Health Records.
As you’ve probably noticed, it is quite rare to find physicians nowadays who love computers. Once an exciting novelty in health care, PCs have become a burdensome necessity and providers often feel enslaved to the EHRs that run on them. There are numerous reasons for this, but one primary cause is that the hundreds of disparate EHRs currently available sprouted out of health care – a centuries-old and very provincial industry – prior to the development of technical and regulatory standards to govern them. As they’ve grown larger and larger from their primitive underpinnings, these EHRs have become more cumbersome to navigate, and vendors have simply “bolted-on” additional features without significant changes to their near-obsolete software architecture.
It’s worth noting that a few EHR companies purport to be true innovators in platform usability, such as industry giant, Epic. According to CEO Judy Faulkner, Epic pours 50% of their revenue back into research and development (though, as Epic is a privately held company, this number can’t be verified). If accurate, Epic is truly an exception, as most electronic record companies spend about 10%-30% on improving their products – far less than they spend on recruiting new customers. Regardless, the outcome is this: Physician expectations for user interface and user experience have far outpaced the current state of the art of EHRs, and this has left a gap that new players outside the health care establishment are apt to fill.
Like Amazon, other software giants have made significant investments in health care over the past several years. According to their website, Apple has been working with hospitals, scientists, and developers to “help health care providers streamline their work, deliver better care, and conduct medical research.” Similarly, Google claims to be “making a number of big bets in health care and life sciences,” by leveraging their artificial intelligence technology to assist in clinical diagnosis and scientific discovery. In spite of a few false starts in the past, these companies are poised to do more than simply disrupt health care. As experts in user interface and design, they could truly change the way physicians interact with health care technology, and it seems like it’s no longer a question of if, but when we’ll see that happen.
The effort of SpaceX and others to change the way we launch rockets tells a story that transcends space travel – It’s a story of how new thinking, more efficient processes, and better design can disrupt the establishment. It’s worth pointing out that NASA hasn’t given up – they are continuing to develop the Space Launch System, which, when completed, will be the most powerful rocket in the world and be capable of carrying astronauts into deep space. In the meantime, however, NASA is embracing the efforts of private industry to help pave a better way forward and make space travel safer and more accessible for everyone. We are hopeful that EHR vendors and other establishment health care institutions are taking note, adapting to meet the needs of the current generation of physicians and patients, and innovating a better way to launch health care into the future.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
On Friday, June 29, at 5:42 a.m., I stood with my family on a Florida shore overlooking Kennedy Space Center. We had gathered with about a hundred other people to watch a rocket launch and were overwhelmed with excitement as the coastline erupted in fire, and the spacecraft lifted off toward the heavens. Standing there watching the spectacle, I couldn’t help but be caught up in the irony of the moment. Here we were, at the place where NASA sent the first Americans into space – on the very shores where the Apollo astronauts set off for the moon to plant our nation’s flag in the lunar dust in July of 1969. Yet now, almost 50 years later, this launch was profoundly different. The rocket wasn’t built by NASA, and the intention of its builders wasn’t exploration. This was a Falcon 9, built by SpaceX, a for-profit company founded by an enterprising billionaire. Most surprisingly, this relatively routine launch was intended to accomplish something that NASA – the United States’ own space agency – currently can’t do on its own: Launch rockets.
Since retiring the Space Shuttle in 2011, the United States has had to rely on others – including even Roscosmos (the Russian space agency) – to ferry passengers, satellites, and cargo into space. Seeing this opportunity in a multibillion-dollar industry, private enterprise has risen to the challenge, innovating more quickly and at a lower cost than “the establishment” has ever been capable of. As a result, space travel has been disrupted by corporations competing in a new “space race.” Instead of national pride or scientific dominance, this race has been fueled by profit and is quite similar to one being run in another industry: health care.
Just 1 day prior to watching the launch – on June 28 – we learned that Amazon had purchased PillPack, a prescription drug home delivery service. The stock market responded to the news, and the establishment (in this case CVS, Walgreen’s, and WalMart, among others) collectively lost $17.5 billion in one day. This isn’t the first time Amazon has disrupted the health care world; in January of this year, they, along with Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase, announced a health care partnership to cut costs and improve care delivery for their employees. This move also sent shivers through the market, as health insurers and providers such as Aetna and United Health lost big on expectations that Amazon et al. wouldn’t stop with their own employees. Those of us watching this play out from the sidelines realized we were witnessing a revolution that would mean the end of health care delivery as we know it – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, especially in the world of Electronic Health Records.
As you’ve probably noticed, it is quite rare to find physicians nowadays who love computers. Once an exciting novelty in health care, PCs have become a burdensome necessity and providers often feel enslaved to the EHRs that run on them. There are numerous reasons for this, but one primary cause is that the hundreds of disparate EHRs currently available sprouted out of health care – a centuries-old and very provincial industry – prior to the development of technical and regulatory standards to govern them. As they’ve grown larger and larger from their primitive underpinnings, these EHRs have become more cumbersome to navigate, and vendors have simply “bolted-on” additional features without significant changes to their near-obsolete software architecture.
It’s worth noting that a few EHR companies purport to be true innovators in platform usability, such as industry giant, Epic. According to CEO Judy Faulkner, Epic pours 50% of their revenue back into research and development (though, as Epic is a privately held company, this number can’t be verified). If accurate, Epic is truly an exception, as most electronic record companies spend about 10%-30% on improving their products – far less than they spend on recruiting new customers. Regardless, the outcome is this: Physician expectations for user interface and user experience have far outpaced the current state of the art of EHRs, and this has left a gap that new players outside the health care establishment are apt to fill.
Like Amazon, other software giants have made significant investments in health care over the past several years. According to their website, Apple has been working with hospitals, scientists, and developers to “help health care providers streamline their work, deliver better care, and conduct medical research.” Similarly, Google claims to be “making a number of big bets in health care and life sciences,” by leveraging their artificial intelligence technology to assist in clinical diagnosis and scientific discovery. In spite of a few false starts in the past, these companies are poised to do more than simply disrupt health care. As experts in user interface and design, they could truly change the way physicians interact with health care technology, and it seems like it’s no longer a question of if, but when we’ll see that happen.
The effort of SpaceX and others to change the way we launch rockets tells a story that transcends space travel – It’s a story of how new thinking, more efficient processes, and better design can disrupt the establishment. It’s worth pointing out that NASA hasn’t given up – they are continuing to develop the Space Launch System, which, when completed, will be the most powerful rocket in the world and be capable of carrying astronauts into deep space. In the meantime, however, NASA is embracing the efforts of private industry to help pave a better way forward and make space travel safer and more accessible for everyone. We are hopeful that EHR vendors and other establishment health care institutions are taking note, adapting to meet the needs of the current generation of physicians and patients, and innovating a better way to launch health care into the future.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.