Opinion

 

What’s not to love about podcasts? Advice, comedy, news, and drama delivered directly to your brain. Unlike blogs or articles, you need no effort to enjoy them. Indeed, you can be actively engaged elsewhere: running, cycling, commuting, or simply loafing. The detail and richness of the sound also creates an intimate connection with the host in a way other mediums cannot. It feels like they are talking only to you.

Yet, there is a problem with podcasts: There are too many of them. If I listened continuously to the episodes in my queue it would take 6 months. I suppose I could see patients and listen at the same time. (Yes, I have a problem.) I also own far more books than I’ll ever read. Aspirational, I call it.

Martinan/Thinkstock

If, like me, you’re unable to dedicate your life to consuming podcasts, you might appreciate a few recommendations. Here’s a charcuterie board of tasty bits, carefully curated to avoid political allergies and Dunning-Kruger references.

 

1. Physicians Practice. It’s one of the oldest podcasts running and addresses a wide range of issues affecting health care professionals and the industry at large. Episodes are short (typically under 10 minutes) and address a range of issues relevant to both young and seasoned physicians With scores of podcasts from which to choose, I suggest just selecting one and jumping in. With episode titles such as “The Patient Empathy Problem Physicians Must Face” and “EHRs Not Designed with Real People in Mind, Expert Opines,” it’s easy to do.

2. UpToDate. If you’re looking for straight clinical talk buttressed with scientific evidence, then download UpToDate. Episodes typically feature interviews with one or two respected physician leaders who share their clinical findings. You can select episode topics based upon clinical specialty or simply start listening. Here is a sampling of topics: sentinel lymph node metastasis in melanoma; dexamethasone and acute pharyngitis pain in adults; management of anticoagulation for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. UpToDate states that it is entirely funded by user subscriptions and does not accept advertising or funding unrelated to subscriptions.

3. Bedside Rounds. The tagline for the podcast Bedside Rounds is “Because medicine is awesome.” This is not meant to be ironic. Creator and host, Adam Rodman, MD, a global health hospitalist who divides his time between Boston (at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) and Botswana, is that eager kid in the classroom who sits in the front row just because he’s so excited to be there. Unlike UpToDate, which focuses on current advances in clinical medicine, Bedside Rounds explores both the science and art of medicine through captivating stories heavily rooted in the history of medicine. Instead of brushing the dust off of your old medical books, tune in to Bedside Rounds to hear stories such as “Bone Portraits,” which explores the history of radiation, and “Curse of the Ninth,” which explores whether or not composer Gustav Mahler, worked his heart murmur into his famous Ninth Symphony.

4. The Adventures of Memento Mori. Creator and host, D.S. Moss, has created a podcast about death, or, to be more upbeat, the quest for the meaning of life. A screenwriter/producer, Mr. Moss deep dives into all things death. But it’s not as depressing as it sounds. “Memento mori,” he explains, is Latin for being mindful that you will die. As a result, Mr. Moss has created his podcast with the goal of encouraging listeners to live a more engaged, mindful, and meaningful life. We can apply many of these lessons to our own professional and personal lives and perhaps learn some ways to help our patients cope with terminal illness and mortality. Topics range from the emotional (“Thoughts in Passing,” which features several hospice patients) to the technological (“Digital Afterlife,” which explores what our digital legacies say about us), to the scientific (“The Science of Immortality,” which explores venture capital’s movement in the science of living forever).

 

5. Invisibilia. Invisibilia – Latin for invisible things – is an exploration of the “unseeable forces” that shape human behavior – our beliefs, thoughts, and assumptions. Hosts Alix Spiegel and Hanna Rosin, both of National Public Radio, seamlessly weave storytelling, interviewing, and scientific data to tackle a wide range of topics such as prejudice and implicit bias in “The Culture Inside” to people’s desire for radical change in “Bubble Hopping.” Part behavioral economics, part neuroscience, part sociology, part pop culture, fully fascinating.

6. Jocko Podcast. Jocko Willink, a retired Navy SEAL and motivational author and speaker, along with Echo Charles, conduct compelling interviews with leaders from various fields including the military, sports, medicine, and the arts. Mr. Willink’s style of motivation is refreshingly honest and direct. I have taken tips from his podcasts that have helped me become a more efficient and energetic physician and leader. Two fundamental themes that run through his podcast are the value of treating people well and of living your life with discipline. It gets you a long way as a Navy SEAL, as well as a doctor. One of my personal favorites is Episode 69: “The Real Top Gun. Battlefield, Work, and Life are Identical” with Elite Marine Fighter Pilot, David Berke. If that doesn’t pique your interest, no worries; there are over 100 episodes from which to choose.

There are many, many more podcasts I’d like to recommend, but I’ll show some discipline (thanks, Jocko) and save them for next time.

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].

 

What’s not to love about podcasts? Advice, comedy, news, and drama delivered directly to your brain. Unlike blogs or articles, you need no effort to enjoy them. Indeed, you can be actively engaged elsewhere: running, cycling, commuting, or simply loafing. The detail and richness of the sound also creates an intimate connection with the host in a way other mediums cannot. It feels like they are talking only to you.

Yet, there is a problem with podcasts: There are too many of them. If I listened continuously to the episodes in my queue it would take 6 months. I suppose I could see patients and listen at the same time. (Yes, I have a problem.) I also own far more books than I’ll ever read. Aspirational, I call it.

Martinan/Thinkstock

If, like me, you’re unable to dedicate your life to consuming podcasts, you might appreciate a few recommendations. Here’s a charcuterie board of tasty bits, carefully curated to avoid political allergies and Dunning-Kruger references.

 

1. Physicians Practice. It’s one of the oldest podcasts running and addresses a wide range of issues affecting health care professionals and the industry at large. Episodes are short (typically under 10 minutes) and address a range of issues relevant to both young and seasoned physicians With scores of podcasts from which to choose, I suggest just selecting one and jumping in. With episode titles such as “The Patient Empathy Problem Physicians Must Face” and “EHRs Not Designed with Real People in Mind, Expert Opines,” it’s easy to do.

2. UpToDate. If you’re looking for straight clinical talk buttressed with scientific evidence, then download UpToDate. Episodes typically feature interviews with one or two respected physician leaders who share their clinical findings. You can select episode topics based upon clinical specialty or simply start listening. Here is a sampling of topics: sentinel lymph node metastasis in melanoma; dexamethasone and acute pharyngitis pain in adults; management of anticoagulation for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. UpToDate states that it is entirely funded by user subscriptions and does not accept advertising or funding unrelated to subscriptions.

3. Bedside Rounds. The tagline for the podcast Bedside Rounds is “Because medicine is awesome.” This is not meant to be ironic. Creator and host, Adam Rodman, MD, a global health hospitalist who divides his time between Boston (at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) and Botswana, is that eager kid in the classroom who sits in the front row just because he’s so excited to be there. Unlike UpToDate, which focuses on current advances in clinical medicine, Bedside Rounds explores both the science and art of medicine through captivating stories heavily rooted in the history of medicine. Instead of brushing the dust off of your old medical books, tune in to Bedside Rounds to hear stories such as “Bone Portraits,” which explores the history of radiation, and “Curse of the Ninth,” which explores whether or not composer Gustav Mahler, worked his heart murmur into his famous Ninth Symphony.

4. The Adventures of Memento Mori. Creator and host, D.S. Moss, has created a podcast about death, or, to be more upbeat, the quest for the meaning of life. A screenwriter/producer, Mr. Moss deep dives into all things death. But it’s not as depressing as it sounds. “Memento mori,” he explains, is Latin for being mindful that you will die. As a result, Mr. Moss has created his podcast with the goal of encouraging listeners to live a more engaged, mindful, and meaningful life. We can apply many of these lessons to our own professional and personal lives and perhaps learn some ways to help our patients cope with terminal illness and mortality. Topics range from the emotional (“Thoughts in Passing,” which features several hospice patients) to the technological (“Digital Afterlife,” which explores what our digital legacies say about us), to the scientific (“The Science of Immortality,” which explores venture capital’s movement in the science of living forever).

 

5. Invisibilia. Invisibilia – Latin for invisible things – is an exploration of the “unseeable forces” that shape human behavior – our beliefs, thoughts, and assumptions. Hosts Alix Spiegel and Hanna Rosin, both of National Public Radio, seamlessly weave storytelling, interviewing, and scientific data to tackle a wide range of topics such as prejudice and implicit bias in “The Culture Inside” to people’s desire for radical change in “Bubble Hopping.” Part behavioral economics, part neuroscience, part sociology, part pop culture, fully fascinating.

6. Jocko Podcast. Jocko Willink, a retired Navy SEAL and motivational author and speaker, along with Echo Charles, conduct compelling interviews with leaders from various fields including the military, sports, medicine, and the arts. Mr. Willink’s style of motivation is refreshingly honest and direct. I have taken tips from his podcasts that have helped me become a more efficient and energetic physician and leader. Two fundamental themes that run through his podcast are the value of treating people well and of living your life with discipline. It gets you a long way as a Navy SEAL, as well as a doctor. One of my personal favorites is Episode 69: “The Real Top Gun. Battlefield, Work, and Life are Identical” with Elite Marine Fighter Pilot, David Berke. If that doesn’t pique your interest, no worries; there are over 100 episodes from which to choose.

There are many, many more podcasts I’d like to recommend, but I’ll show some discipline (thanks, Jocko) and save them for next time.

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].

 

What’s not to love about podcasts? Advice, comedy, news, and drama delivered directly to your brain. Unlike blogs or articles, you need no effort to enjoy them. Indeed, you can be actively engaged elsewhere: running, cycling, commuting, or simply loafing. The detail and richness of the sound also creates an intimate connection with the host in a way other mediums cannot. It feels like they are talking only to you.

Yet, there is a problem with podcasts: There are too many of them. If I listened continuously to the episodes in my queue it would take 6 months. I suppose I could see patients and listen at the same time. (Yes, I have a problem.) I also own far more books than I’ll ever read. Aspirational, I call it.

Martinan/Thinkstock

If, like me, you’re unable to dedicate your life to consuming podcasts, you might appreciate a few recommendations. Here’s a charcuterie board of tasty bits, carefully curated to avoid political allergies and Dunning-Kruger references.

 

1. Physicians Practice. It’s one of the oldest podcasts running and addresses a wide range of issues affecting health care professionals and the industry at large. Episodes are short (typically under 10 minutes) and address a range of issues relevant to both young and seasoned physicians With scores of podcasts from which to choose, I suggest just selecting one and jumping in. With episode titles such as “The Patient Empathy Problem Physicians Must Face” and “EHRs Not Designed with Real People in Mind, Expert Opines,” it’s easy to do.

2. UpToDate. If you’re looking for straight clinical talk buttressed with scientific evidence, then download UpToDate. Episodes typically feature interviews with one or two respected physician leaders who share their clinical findings. You can select episode topics based upon clinical specialty or simply start listening. Here is a sampling of topics: sentinel lymph node metastasis in melanoma; dexamethasone and acute pharyngitis pain in adults; management of anticoagulation for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. UpToDate states that it is entirely funded by user subscriptions and does not accept advertising or funding unrelated to subscriptions.

3. Bedside Rounds. The tagline for the podcast Bedside Rounds is “Because medicine is awesome.” This is not meant to be ironic. Creator and host, Adam Rodman, MD, a global health hospitalist who divides his time between Boston (at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) and Botswana, is that eager kid in the classroom who sits in the front row just because he’s so excited to be there. Unlike UpToDate, which focuses on current advances in clinical medicine, Bedside Rounds explores both the science and art of medicine through captivating stories heavily rooted in the history of medicine. Instead of brushing the dust off of your old medical books, tune in to Bedside Rounds to hear stories such as “Bone Portraits,” which explores the history of radiation, and “Curse of the Ninth,” which explores whether or not composer Gustav Mahler, worked his heart murmur into his famous Ninth Symphony.

4. The Adventures of Memento Mori. Creator and host, D.S. Moss, has created a podcast about death, or, to be more upbeat, the quest for the meaning of life. A screenwriter/producer, Mr. Moss deep dives into all things death. But it’s not as depressing as it sounds. “Memento mori,” he explains, is Latin for being mindful that you will die. As a result, Mr. Moss has created his podcast with the goal of encouraging listeners to live a more engaged, mindful, and meaningful life. We can apply many of these lessons to our own professional and personal lives and perhaps learn some ways to help our patients cope with terminal illness and mortality. Topics range from the emotional (“Thoughts in Passing,” which features several hospice patients) to the technological (“Digital Afterlife,” which explores what our digital legacies say about us), to the scientific (“The Science of Immortality,” which explores venture capital’s movement in the science of living forever).

 

5. Invisibilia. Invisibilia – Latin for invisible things – is an exploration of the “unseeable forces” that shape human behavior – our beliefs, thoughts, and assumptions. Hosts Alix Spiegel and Hanna Rosin, both of National Public Radio, seamlessly weave storytelling, interviewing, and scientific data to tackle a wide range of topics such as prejudice and implicit bias in “The Culture Inside” to people’s desire for radical change in “Bubble Hopping.” Part behavioral economics, part neuroscience, part sociology, part pop culture, fully fascinating.

6. Jocko Podcast. Jocko Willink, a retired Navy SEAL and motivational author and speaker, along with Echo Charles, conduct compelling interviews with leaders from various fields including the military, sports, medicine, and the arts. Mr. Willink’s style of motivation is refreshingly honest and direct. I have taken tips from his podcasts that have helped me become a more efficient and energetic physician and leader. Two fundamental themes that run through his podcast are the value of treating people well and of living your life with discipline. It gets you a long way as a Navy SEAL, as well as a doctor. One of my personal favorites is Episode 69: “The Real Top Gun. Battlefield, Work, and Life are Identical” with Elite Marine Fighter Pilot, David Berke. If that doesn’t pique your interest, no worries; there are over 100 episodes from which to choose.

There are many, many more podcasts I’d like to recommend, but I’ll show some discipline (thanks, Jocko) and save them for next time.

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].

 

Over the last few years, I have spoken to many people about their experiences with involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations. While the stories I’ve heard are anecdotes, often from people who have reached out to me, and not randomized, controlled studies, I’ve taken the liberty of coming to a few conclusions. First, involuntary hospitalizations help people. Most people say that they left the hospital with fewer symptoms than they had when they entered. Second, many of those people, helped though they may have been, are angry about the treatment they received. An unknown percentage feel traumatized by their psychiatric treatment, and years later they dwell on a perception of injustice and injury.

It’s perplexing that this negative residue remains given that involuntary psychiatric care often helps people to escape from the torment of psychosis or from soul-crushing depressions. While many feel it should be easier to involuntarily treat psychiatric disorders, there are no groups of patients asking for easier access to involuntary care. One group, Mad in America – formed by journalist Robert Whitaker – takes the position that psychiatric medications don’t just harm people, but that psychotropic medications actually cause psychiatric disorders in people who would have fared better without them. It now offers CME activities through its conferences and website!

When the March 1, 2018, New England Journal of Medicine featured an essay about a patient who had benefited from involuntary psychiatric care, I read “Out of the Straitjacket” with interest. Michael S. Weinstein, MD, a trauma surgeon at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, wrote:

“In the middle of elective inpatient electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant depression, he had become profoundly depressed, delirious, and hopeless. He’d lost faith in treatment and in reasons to live. He withdrew to bed and would not get up or eat. He had to be committed for his own safety. Several security guards had to forcefully remove him from his bed.”

The patient, he noted, was injected with haloperidol and placed in restraints in a seclusion room. By the third paragraph, Weinstein switches to a first-person narrative and reveals that he is that patient. He goes on to talk about the stresses of life as a trauma surgeon, and describes both classic physician burnout and severe major depression. The essay includes an element of catharsis. The author shares his painful story, with all the gore of amputating the limbs of others to the agony of feeling that those he loves might be better off without him. Post-hospitalization, Weinstein’s message is clear: He wants to help others break free from the stigma of silent shame and let them know that help is available. “You would not be reading this today were it not for the love of my wife, my children, my mother and sister, and so many others, including the guards and doctors who ‘locked me up’ against my will. They kept me from crossing into the abyss,” he writes.

The essay (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:793-5) surprised me, because I have never heard a patient who has been forcibly medicated and placed in restraints and seclusion talk about the experience with gratitude. I contacted Dr. Weinstein and asked if he would speak with me about his experiences as a committed patient back in early 2016. In fact, he said that he had only recently begun to speak of his experiences with his therapist, and he spoke openly about what he remembered of those events.

Dr. Weinstein told me his story in more detail – it was a long and tumultuous journey from the depth of depression to where he is now. “I’m in a much better place than I’ve ever been. I’ve developed tools for resilience and I’ve found joy.” His gratitude was real, and his purpose in sharing his story remains a positive and hopeful vision for others who suffer. Clearly, he was not traumatized by his treatment. I approached him with the question of what psychiatrists could learn from his experiences. The story that followed had the texture of those I was used to hearing from people who had been involuntarily treated.

Like many people I’ve spoken with, Dr. Weinstein assumed he was officially committed to the locked unit, but he did not recall a legal hearing. In fact, many of those I’ve talked with had actually signed themselves in, and Dr. Weinstein thought that was possible.

“When I wrote the New England Journal piece, it originated from a place of anger. I was voluntarily admitted to a private, self-pay psychiatric unit, and I was getting ECT. I was getting worse, not better. I was in a scary place, and I was deeply depressed. The day before, I had gone for a walk without telling the staff or following the sign-out procedure. They decided I needed to be in a locked unit, and when they told me, I was lying in bed.”

Upon hearing that he would be transferred, Dr. Weinstein became combative. He was medicated and taken to a locked unit in the hospital, placed in restraints, and put into a seclusion room.

“I’ve wondered if this could have been done another way. Maybe if they had given me a chance to process the information, perhaps I would have gone more willingly without guards carrying me through the facility. I wondered if the way the information was delivered didn’t escalate things, if it could have been done differently.” Listening to him, I wondered as well, though Dr. Weinstein was well aware that the actions of his treatment team came with the best of intentions to help him. I pointed out that the treatment team may have felt fearful when he disappeared from the unit, and as they watched him decline further, they may well have felt a bit desperate and fearful of their ability to keep him safe on an unlocked unit. None of this surprised him.

Was Dr. Weinstein open to returning to a psychiatric unit if his depression recurs?

“A few months after I left, I became even more depressed and suicidal. I didn’t go back, and I really hope I’ll never have to be in a hospital again.” Instead, he notes that medication changes, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and sessions with his psychotherapist were helpful. “They changed my perspective.”

Dr. Weinstein also questions if he should have agreed to ECT. “I was better when I left the hospital, but the treatment itself was crude, and I still wonder if it affects my memory now.”

I wanted to know what psychiatrists might learn from his experiences with involuntary care. Weinstein hesitated. “It wasn’t the best experience, and I felt there had to be a better way, but I know everyone was trying to help me, and I want my overall message to be one of hope. I don’t want to complain, because I’ve ended up in a much better place, I’m back at work, enjoying my family, and I feel joy now.”

For psychiatrists, this is the best outcome from a story such as Dr. Weinstein’s. He’s much better, in a scenario where he could have just as easily have died, and he wasn’t traumatized by his care. However, he avoided returning to inpatient care at a precarious time, and he’s left asking if there weren’t a gentler way this could have transpired. These questions are easier to look at from the perspective of a Monday morning quarterback than they are to look at from the perspective of a treatment team dealing with a very sick and combative patient. Still, I hope we all continue to question patients about their experiences and ask if there might be better ways.
 

Dr. Miller, who practices in Baltimore, is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).

 

Over the last few years, I have spoken to many people about their experiences with involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations. While the stories I’ve heard are anecdotes, often from people who have reached out to me, and not randomized, controlled studies, I’ve taken the liberty of coming to a few conclusions. First, involuntary hospitalizations help people. Most people say that they left the hospital with fewer symptoms than they had when they entered. Second, many of those people, helped though they may have been, are angry about the treatment they received. An unknown percentage feel traumatized by their psychiatric treatment, and years later they dwell on a perception of injustice and injury.

It’s perplexing that this negative residue remains given that involuntary psychiatric care often helps people to escape from the torment of psychosis or from soul-crushing depressions. While many feel it should be easier to involuntarily treat psychiatric disorders, there are no groups of patients asking for easier access to involuntary care. One group, Mad in America – formed by journalist Robert Whitaker – takes the position that psychiatric medications don’t just harm people, but that psychotropic medications actually cause psychiatric disorders in people who would have fared better without them. It now offers CME activities through its conferences and website!

When the March 1, 2018, New England Journal of Medicine featured an essay about a patient who had benefited from involuntary psychiatric care, I read “Out of the Straitjacket” with interest. Michael S. Weinstein, MD, a trauma surgeon at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, wrote:

“In the middle of elective inpatient electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant depression, he had become profoundly depressed, delirious, and hopeless. He’d lost faith in treatment and in reasons to live. He withdrew to bed and would not get up or eat. He had to be committed for his own safety. Several security guards had to forcefully remove him from his bed.”

The patient, he noted, was injected with haloperidol and placed in restraints in a seclusion room. By the third paragraph, Weinstein switches to a first-person narrative and reveals that he is that patient. He goes on to talk about the stresses of life as a trauma surgeon, and describes both classic physician burnout and severe major depression. The essay includes an element of catharsis. The author shares his painful story, with all the gore of amputating the limbs of others to the agony of feeling that those he loves might be better off without him. Post-hospitalization, Weinstein’s message is clear: He wants to help others break free from the stigma of silent shame and let them know that help is available. “You would not be reading this today were it not for the love of my wife, my children, my mother and sister, and so many others, including the guards and doctors who ‘locked me up’ against my will. They kept me from crossing into the abyss,” he writes.

The essay (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:793-5) surprised me, because I have never heard a patient who has been forcibly medicated and placed in restraints and seclusion talk about the experience with gratitude. I contacted Dr. Weinstein and asked if he would speak with me about his experiences as a committed patient back in early 2016. In fact, he said that he had only recently begun to speak of his experiences with his therapist, and he spoke openly about what he remembered of those events.

Dr. Weinstein told me his story in more detail – it was a long and tumultuous journey from the depth of depression to where he is now. “I’m in a much better place than I’ve ever been. I’ve developed tools for resilience and I’ve found joy.” His gratitude was real, and his purpose in sharing his story remains a positive and hopeful vision for others who suffer. Clearly, he was not traumatized by his treatment. I approached him with the question of what psychiatrists could learn from his experiences. The story that followed had the texture of those I was used to hearing from people who had been involuntarily treated.

Like many people I’ve spoken with, Dr. Weinstein assumed he was officially committed to the locked unit, but he did not recall a legal hearing. In fact, many of those I’ve talked with had actually signed themselves in, and Dr. Weinstein thought that was possible.

“When I wrote the New England Journal piece, it originated from a place of anger. I was voluntarily admitted to a private, self-pay psychiatric unit, and I was getting ECT. I was getting worse, not better. I was in a scary place, and I was deeply depressed. The day before, I had gone for a walk without telling the staff or following the sign-out procedure. They decided I needed to be in a locked unit, and when they told me, I was lying in bed.”

Upon hearing that he would be transferred, Dr. Weinstein became combative. He was medicated and taken to a locked unit in the hospital, placed in restraints, and put into a seclusion room.

“I’ve wondered if this could have been done another way. Maybe if they had given me a chance to process the information, perhaps I would have gone more willingly without guards carrying me through the facility. I wondered if the way the information was delivered didn’t escalate things, if it could have been done differently.” Listening to him, I wondered as well, though Dr. Weinstein was well aware that the actions of his treatment team came with the best of intentions to help him. I pointed out that the treatment team may have felt fearful when he disappeared from the unit, and as they watched him decline further, they may well have felt a bit desperate and fearful of their ability to keep him safe on an unlocked unit. None of this surprised him.

Was Dr. Weinstein open to returning to a psychiatric unit if his depression recurs?

“A few months after I left, I became even more depressed and suicidal. I didn’t go back, and I really hope I’ll never have to be in a hospital again.” Instead, he notes that medication changes, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and sessions with his psychotherapist were helpful. “They changed my perspective.”

Dr. Weinstein also questions if he should have agreed to ECT. “I was better when I left the hospital, but the treatment itself was crude, and I still wonder if it affects my memory now.”

I wanted to know what psychiatrists might learn from his experiences with involuntary care. Weinstein hesitated. “It wasn’t the best experience, and I felt there had to be a better way, but I know everyone was trying to help me, and I want my overall message to be one of hope. I don’t want to complain, because I’ve ended up in a much better place, I’m back at work, enjoying my family, and I feel joy now.”

For psychiatrists, this is the best outcome from a story such as Dr. Weinstein’s. He’s much better, in a scenario where he could have just as easily have died, and he wasn’t traumatized by his care. However, he avoided returning to inpatient care at a precarious time, and he’s left asking if there weren’t a gentler way this could have transpired. These questions are easier to look at from the perspective of a Monday morning quarterback than they are to look at from the perspective of a treatment team dealing with a very sick and combative patient. Still, I hope we all continue to question patients about their experiences and ask if there might be better ways.
 

Dr. Miller, who practices in Baltimore, is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).

 

Over the last few years, I have spoken to many people about their experiences with involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations. While the stories I’ve heard are anecdotes, often from people who have reached out to me, and not randomized, controlled studies, I’ve taken the liberty of coming to a few conclusions. First, involuntary hospitalizations help people. Most people say that they left the hospital with fewer symptoms than they had when they entered. Second, many of those people, helped though they may have been, are angry about the treatment they received. An unknown percentage feel traumatized by their psychiatric treatment, and years later they dwell on a perception of injustice and injury.

It’s perplexing that this negative residue remains given that involuntary psychiatric care often helps people to escape from the torment of psychosis or from soul-crushing depressions. While many feel it should be easier to involuntarily treat psychiatric disorders, there are no groups of patients asking for easier access to involuntary care. One group, Mad in America – formed by journalist Robert Whitaker – takes the position that psychiatric medications don’t just harm people, but that psychotropic medications actually cause psychiatric disorders in people who would have fared better without them. It now offers CME activities through its conferences and website!

When the March 1, 2018, New England Journal of Medicine featured an essay about a patient who had benefited from involuntary psychiatric care, I read “Out of the Straitjacket” with interest. Michael S. Weinstein, MD, a trauma surgeon at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, wrote:

“In the middle of elective inpatient electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant depression, he had become profoundly depressed, delirious, and hopeless. He’d lost faith in treatment and in reasons to live. He withdrew to bed and would not get up or eat. He had to be committed for his own safety. Several security guards had to forcefully remove him from his bed.”

The patient, he noted, was injected with haloperidol and placed in restraints in a seclusion room. By the third paragraph, Weinstein switches to a first-person narrative and reveals that he is that patient. He goes on to talk about the stresses of life as a trauma surgeon, and describes both classic physician burnout and severe major depression. The essay includes an element of catharsis. The author shares his painful story, with all the gore of amputating the limbs of others to the agony of feeling that those he loves might be better off without him. Post-hospitalization, Weinstein’s message is clear: He wants to help others break free from the stigma of silent shame and let them know that help is available. “You would not be reading this today were it not for the love of my wife, my children, my mother and sister, and so many others, including the guards and doctors who ‘locked me up’ against my will. They kept me from crossing into the abyss,” he writes.

The essay (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:793-5) surprised me, because I have never heard a patient who has been forcibly medicated and placed in restraints and seclusion talk about the experience with gratitude. I contacted Dr. Weinstein and asked if he would speak with me about his experiences as a committed patient back in early 2016. In fact, he said that he had only recently begun to speak of his experiences with his therapist, and he spoke openly about what he remembered of those events.

Dr. Weinstein told me his story in more detail – it was a long and tumultuous journey from the depth of depression to where he is now. “I’m in a much better place than I’ve ever been. I’ve developed tools for resilience and I’ve found joy.” His gratitude was real, and his purpose in sharing his story remains a positive and hopeful vision for others who suffer. Clearly, he was not traumatized by his treatment. I approached him with the question of what psychiatrists could learn from his experiences. The story that followed had the texture of those I was used to hearing from people who had been involuntarily treated.

Like many people I’ve spoken with, Dr. Weinstein assumed he was officially committed to the locked unit, but he did not recall a legal hearing. In fact, many of those I’ve talked with had actually signed themselves in, and Dr. Weinstein thought that was possible.

“When I wrote the New England Journal piece, it originated from a place of anger. I was voluntarily admitted to a private, self-pay psychiatric unit, and I was getting ECT. I was getting worse, not better. I was in a scary place, and I was deeply depressed. The day before, I had gone for a walk without telling the staff or following the sign-out procedure. They decided I needed to be in a locked unit, and when they told me, I was lying in bed.”

Upon hearing that he would be transferred, Dr. Weinstein became combative. He was medicated and taken to a locked unit in the hospital, placed in restraints, and put into a seclusion room.

“I’ve wondered if this could have been done another way. Maybe if they had given me a chance to process the information, perhaps I would have gone more willingly without guards carrying me through the facility. I wondered if the way the information was delivered didn’t escalate things, if it could have been done differently.” Listening to him, I wondered as well, though Dr. Weinstein was well aware that the actions of his treatment team came with the best of intentions to help him. I pointed out that the treatment team may have felt fearful when he disappeared from the unit, and as they watched him decline further, they may well have felt a bit desperate and fearful of their ability to keep him safe on an unlocked unit. None of this surprised him.

Was Dr. Weinstein open to returning to a psychiatric unit if his depression recurs?

“A few months after I left, I became even more depressed and suicidal. I didn’t go back, and I really hope I’ll never have to be in a hospital again.” Instead, he notes that medication changes, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and sessions with his psychotherapist were helpful. “They changed my perspective.”

Dr. Weinstein also questions if he should have agreed to ECT. “I was better when I left the hospital, but the treatment itself was crude, and I still wonder if it affects my memory now.”

I wanted to know what psychiatrists might learn from his experiences with involuntary care. Weinstein hesitated. “It wasn’t the best experience, and I felt there had to be a better way, but I know everyone was trying to help me, and I want my overall message to be one of hope. I don’t want to complain, because I’ve ended up in a much better place, I’m back at work, enjoying my family, and I feel joy now.”

For psychiatrists, this is the best outcome from a story such as Dr. Weinstein’s. He’s much better, in a scenario where he could have just as easily have died, and he wasn’t traumatized by his care. However, he avoided returning to inpatient care at a precarious time, and he’s left asking if there weren’t a gentler way this could have transpired. These questions are easier to look at from the perspective of a Monday morning quarterback than they are to look at from the perspective of a treatment team dealing with a very sick and combative patient. Still, I hope we all continue to question patients about their experiences and ask if there might be better ways.
 

Dr. Miller, who practices in Baltimore, is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016).

 

A patient came into my office recently and informed me that a well-known laser tattoo removal clinic in Los Angeles that she had gone to for years had suddenly shut down. All locations closed. No one answered the phone. No information about the remainder of the money in the package she bought. After researching online, she found that the Better Business Bureau did not yet have much information but doubted she would get her money back. This particular patient had not gone to the clinic in more than a year but had a residual tattoo and had looked into returning for more treatments and using the remainder of her package. She was one of the lucky ones. Other online discussion groups had entries from numerous patients who paid for packages (some costing thousands of dollars) for multiple laser treatments. Some had paid recently and had not yet received a single treatment and were left with no information about their options or where their money had gone.

zoom-zoom/Thinkstock

I had heard of this tattoo removal clinic before, but like many of the Med Spas and nonphysician cosmetic clinics in this town, I hadn’t given it much attention. Upon further investigation, I learned that this laser tattoo removal clinic shut down suddenly, leaving only a piece of paper in the window stating that the clinic was being taken over by another medical group and would reopen soon. Months later, there is still no clinic. People continue to comment online that they have no information and have no way of contacting anyone to get their money back or receive the treatments they paid for. Multiple news outlets have reported this story.

It turns out the closed clinics were not just in Los Angeles but also included other laser tattoo removal clinics with the same name in multiple locations in Southern California and Texas. No notification was given to the patients in advance. Nor was any notification given to some of the staff members, who complained online that they suddenly lost their jobs. Ironically, the same clinics had posted a letter online several years ago honoring discounted first treatments and packages for patients of a different laser tattoo clinic that had suddenly shut down.

So how often is this happening? Are all these clinics owned by the same people? And what can our specialty do to protect patients from being scammed and, for that matter, receiving treatment from professionals who may not be properly trained or experienced to provide that treatment?

 

In a world in which insurance reimbursements keep getting cut, more and more medical professionals – physicians and nonphysicians alike – are looking to fee-for-service procedures and practice models for increasing income. Sometimes, this may involve physicians delegating procedures to nonphysicians. Franchised clinics open up with a physician to “oversee” the clinic, while extenders often perform the procedures (many times without the physician present). Physicians who are neither trained nor specialized to do certain cosmetic procedures start to perform them. Patients get used to receiving treatments from nonphysicians or from physicians who are not specialized to perform cosmetic procedures, and then may devalue the procedure, feeling it’s unnecessary for a physician or a specialized physician to perform it.

For these types of cosmetic procedures, such as laser tattoo removal, which are not covered by insurance, patients also sometimes seek treatment at a discount (#don’tGrouponyourface), but often at the expense of being treated by a less well-trained or less-qualified individual. This happens with botulinum toxin injections, fillers, and lasers (particularly laser hair removal and laser tattoo removal). It spirals down a path that devalues both our specialty and the high level of training we have received. Then we – the highly specialized physicians – frequently are expected to manage the complications when they occur.

Much of this is the fault of our own specialty (dermatologists and plastic surgeons) in delegating physician cosmetic procedures to nonphysicians. When nonphysicians perform these procedures, then nonspecialized physicians may devalue the procedures and start to believe that a weekend course is enough to be able to learn them if a less trained individual can do them. In some instances, it is appropriate to have an extender help with a procedure, but where do we draw the line? How do we protect patients, maximize our practice, and maintain the value of our specialty for the level of training that we have? Should only specialized trained physicians (board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeons) be allowed to perform certain cosmetic procedures? While this approach may decrease overall income to some clinics, it would maintain the trust between the patient and the physician, the quality of care, and the integrity of our training, education, and specialty. While opening multiple laser tattoo removal clinics may seem like a smart business idea, if the physician can’t be there to oversee and actually perform the procedure, the risk of all of the problems outlined above can occur.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

 

A patient came into my office recently and informed me that a well-known laser tattoo removal clinic in Los Angeles that she had gone to for years had suddenly shut down. All locations closed. No one answered the phone. No information about the remainder of the money in the package she bought. After researching online, she found that the Better Business Bureau did not yet have much information but doubted she would get her money back. This particular patient had not gone to the clinic in more than a year but had a residual tattoo and had looked into returning for more treatments and using the remainder of her package. She was one of the lucky ones. Other online discussion groups had entries from numerous patients who paid for packages (some costing thousands of dollars) for multiple laser treatments. Some had paid recently and had not yet received a single treatment and were left with no information about their options or where their money had gone.

zoom-zoom/Thinkstock

I had heard of this tattoo removal clinic before, but like many of the Med Spas and nonphysician cosmetic clinics in this town, I hadn’t given it much attention. Upon further investigation, I learned that this laser tattoo removal clinic shut down suddenly, leaving only a piece of paper in the window stating that the clinic was being taken over by another medical group and would reopen soon. Months later, there is still no clinic. People continue to comment online that they have no information and have no way of contacting anyone to get their money back or receive the treatments they paid for. Multiple news outlets have reported this story.

It turns out the closed clinics were not just in Los Angeles but also included other laser tattoo removal clinics with the same name in multiple locations in Southern California and Texas. No notification was given to the patients in advance. Nor was any notification given to some of the staff members, who complained online that they suddenly lost their jobs. Ironically, the same clinics had posted a letter online several years ago honoring discounted first treatments and packages for patients of a different laser tattoo clinic that had suddenly shut down.

So how often is this happening? Are all these clinics owned by the same people? And what can our specialty do to protect patients from being scammed and, for that matter, receiving treatment from professionals who may not be properly trained or experienced to provide that treatment?

 

In a world in which insurance reimbursements keep getting cut, more and more medical professionals – physicians and nonphysicians alike – are looking to fee-for-service procedures and practice models for increasing income. Sometimes, this may involve physicians delegating procedures to nonphysicians. Franchised clinics open up with a physician to “oversee” the clinic, while extenders often perform the procedures (many times without the physician present). Physicians who are neither trained nor specialized to do certain cosmetic procedures start to perform them. Patients get used to receiving treatments from nonphysicians or from physicians who are not specialized to perform cosmetic procedures, and then may devalue the procedure, feeling it’s unnecessary for a physician or a specialized physician to perform it.

For these types of cosmetic procedures, such as laser tattoo removal, which are not covered by insurance, patients also sometimes seek treatment at a discount (#don’tGrouponyourface), but often at the expense of being treated by a less well-trained or less-qualified individual. This happens with botulinum toxin injections, fillers, and lasers (particularly laser hair removal and laser tattoo removal). It spirals down a path that devalues both our specialty and the high level of training we have received. Then we – the highly specialized physicians – frequently are expected to manage the complications when they occur.

Much of this is the fault of our own specialty (dermatologists and plastic surgeons) in delegating physician cosmetic procedures to nonphysicians. When nonphysicians perform these procedures, then nonspecialized physicians may devalue the procedures and start to believe that a weekend course is enough to be able to learn them if a less trained individual can do them. In some instances, it is appropriate to have an extender help with a procedure, but where do we draw the line? How do we protect patients, maximize our practice, and maintain the value of our specialty for the level of training that we have? Should only specialized trained physicians (board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeons) be allowed to perform certain cosmetic procedures? While this approach may decrease overall income to some clinics, it would maintain the trust between the patient and the physician, the quality of care, and the integrity of our training, education, and specialty. While opening multiple laser tattoo removal clinics may seem like a smart business idea, if the physician can’t be there to oversee and actually perform the procedure, the risk of all of the problems outlined above can occur.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

 

A patient came into my office recently and informed me that a well-known laser tattoo removal clinic in Los Angeles that she had gone to for years had suddenly shut down. All locations closed. No one answered the phone. No information about the remainder of the money in the package she bought. After researching online, she found that the Better Business Bureau did not yet have much information but doubted she would get her money back. This particular patient had not gone to the clinic in more than a year but had a residual tattoo and had looked into returning for more treatments and using the remainder of her package. She was one of the lucky ones. Other online discussion groups had entries from numerous patients who paid for packages (some costing thousands of dollars) for multiple laser treatments. Some had paid recently and had not yet received a single treatment and were left with no information about their options or where their money had gone.

zoom-zoom/Thinkstock

I had heard of this tattoo removal clinic before, but like many of the Med Spas and nonphysician cosmetic clinics in this town, I hadn’t given it much attention. Upon further investigation, I learned that this laser tattoo removal clinic shut down suddenly, leaving only a piece of paper in the window stating that the clinic was being taken over by another medical group and would reopen soon. Months later, there is still no clinic. People continue to comment online that they have no information and have no way of contacting anyone to get their money back or receive the treatments they paid for. Multiple news outlets have reported this story.

It turns out the closed clinics were not just in Los Angeles but also included other laser tattoo removal clinics with the same name in multiple locations in Southern California and Texas. No notification was given to the patients in advance. Nor was any notification given to some of the staff members, who complained online that they suddenly lost their jobs. Ironically, the same clinics had posted a letter online several years ago honoring discounted first treatments and packages for patients of a different laser tattoo clinic that had suddenly shut down.

So how often is this happening? Are all these clinics owned by the same people? And what can our specialty do to protect patients from being scammed and, for that matter, receiving treatment from professionals who may not be properly trained or experienced to provide that treatment?

 

In a world in which insurance reimbursements keep getting cut, more and more medical professionals – physicians and nonphysicians alike – are looking to fee-for-service procedures and practice models for increasing income. Sometimes, this may involve physicians delegating procedures to nonphysicians. Franchised clinics open up with a physician to “oversee” the clinic, while extenders often perform the procedures (many times without the physician present). Physicians who are neither trained nor specialized to do certain cosmetic procedures start to perform them. Patients get used to receiving treatments from nonphysicians or from physicians who are not specialized to perform cosmetic procedures, and then may devalue the procedure, feeling it’s unnecessary for a physician or a specialized physician to perform it.

For these types of cosmetic procedures, such as laser tattoo removal, which are not covered by insurance, patients also sometimes seek treatment at a discount (#don’tGrouponyourface), but often at the expense of being treated by a less well-trained or less-qualified individual. This happens with botulinum toxin injections, fillers, and lasers (particularly laser hair removal and laser tattoo removal). It spirals down a path that devalues both our specialty and the high level of training we have received. Then we – the highly specialized physicians – frequently are expected to manage the complications when they occur.

Much of this is the fault of our own specialty (dermatologists and plastic surgeons) in delegating physician cosmetic procedures to nonphysicians. When nonphysicians perform these procedures, then nonspecialized physicians may devalue the procedures and start to believe that a weekend course is enough to be able to learn them if a less trained individual can do them. In some instances, it is appropriate to have an extender help with a procedure, but where do we draw the line? How do we protect patients, maximize our practice, and maintain the value of our specialty for the level of training that we have? Should only specialized trained physicians (board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeons) be allowed to perform certain cosmetic procedures? While this approach may decrease overall income to some clinics, it would maintain the trust between the patient and the physician, the quality of care, and the integrity of our training, education, and specialty. While opening multiple laser tattoo removal clinics may seem like a smart business idea, if the physician can’t be there to oversee and actually perform the procedure, the risk of all of the problems outlined above can occur.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

 

Significant changes have occurred in the updated American Heart Association Stroke Council’s recommendations for early management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Conceptually, early management can be separated into initial triage and decisions about intervention to restore blood flow with thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy. If reperfusion therapy is not appropriate, then the focus is on management to minimize further damage from the stroke, decrease the likelihood of recurrence, and lessen secondary problems related to the stroke.

All patients with AIS should receive noncontrast CT to determine if there is evidence of a hemorrhagic stroke and, if such evidence exists, than the patient is not a candidate for thrombolysis. Intravenous alteplase should be considered for patients who present within 3 hours of stroke onset and for selected patients presenting between 3-4.5 hours after stroke onset (for more details, see Table 6 in the guidelines). Selected patients with AIS who present within 6-24 hours of last time they were known to be normal and who have large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, may be candidates for mechanical thrombectomy in specialized centers. Patients who are not candidates for acute interventions should then be managed according to early stroke management guidelines.

Early stroke management for patients with AIS admitted to medical floors involves attention to blood pressure, glucose, and antiplatelet therapy. For patients with blood pressure lower than 220/120 mm Hg who did not receive IV alteplase or thrombectomy, treatment of hypertension in the first 48-72 hours after an AIS does not change the outcome. It is reasonable when patients have BP greater than or equal to 220/120 mm Hg, to lower blood pressure by 15% during the first 24 hours after onset of stroke. Starting or restarting antihypertensive therapy during hospitalization in patients with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg who are neurologically stable improves long-term blood pressure control and is considered a reasonable strategy.

For patients with noncardioembolic AIS, the use of antiplatelet agents rather than oral anticoagulation is recommended. Patients should be treated with aspirin 160 mg-325 mg within 24-48 hours of presentation. In patients unsafe or unable to swallow, rectal or nasogastric administration is recommended. In patients with minor stroke, 21 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) started within 24 hours can decrease stroke recurrence for the first 90 days after a stroke. This recommendation is based on a single study, the CHANCE trial, in a homogeneous population in China, and its generalizability is not known. If a patient had an AIS while already on aspirin, there is some evidence supporting a decreased risk of major cardiovascular events and recurrent stroke in patients switching to an alternative antiplatelet agent or combination antiplatelet therapy. Because of methodologic issues in the those studies, the guideline concludes that, for those already on aspirin, it is of unclear benefit to increase the dose of aspirin, switch to a different antiplatelet agent, or add a second antiplatelet agent. Switching to warfarin is not beneficial for secondary stroke prevention. High-dose statin therapy should be initiated. For patients with AIS in the setting of atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation can be started within 4-14 days after the stroke. One study showed that anticoagulation should not be started before 4 days after the stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.53 for starting anticoagulation at 4-14 days, compared with less than 4 days.

Hyperglycemia should be controlled to a range of 140-180 mg/dL, because higher values are associated with worse outcomes. Oxygen should be used if needed to maintain oxygen saturation greater than 94%. High-intensity statin therapy should be used, and smoking cessation is strongly encouraged for those who use tobacco, with avoidance of secondhand smoke whenever possible.

Patients should be screened for dysphagia before taking anything per oral, including medications. A nasogastric tube may be considered within the first 7 days, if patients are dysphagic. Oral hygiene protocols may include antibacterial mouth rinse, systematic oral care, and decontamination gel to decrease the risk of pneumonia .

For deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, intermittent pneumatic compression, in addition to the aspirin that a patient is on is reasonable, and the benefit of prophylactic-dose subcutaneous heparin (unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin) in immobile patients with AIS is not well established.

 

In the poststroke setting, patients should be screened for depression and, if appropriate, treated with antidepressants. Regular skin assessments are recommended with objective scales, and skin friction and pressure should be actively minimized with regular turning, good skin hygiene, and use of specialized mattresses, wheelchair cushions, and seating until mobility returns. Early rehabilitation for hospitalized stroke patients should be provided, but high-dose, very-early mobilization within 24 hours of stroke should not be done because it reduces the odds of a favorable outcome at 3 months.

Completing the diagnostic evaluation for the cause of stroke and decreasing the chance of future strokes should be part of the initial hospitalization. While MRI is more sensitive than is CT for detecting AIS, routine use of MRI in all patients with AIS is not cost effective and therefore is not recommended. For patients with nondisabling AIS in the carotid territory and who are candidates for carotid endarterectomy or stenting, noninvasive imaging of the cervical vessels should be performed within 24 hours of admission, with plans for carotid revascularization between 48 hours and 7 days if indicated. Cardiac monitoring for at least the first 24 hours of admission should be performed, while primarily looking for atrial fibrillation as a cause of stroke. In some patients, prolonged cardiac monitoring may be reasonable. With prolonged cardiac monitoring, atrial fibrillation is newly detected in nearly a quarter of patients with stroke or TIA, but the effect on outcomes is uncertain. Routine use of echocardiography is not recommended but may be done in selected patients. All patients should be screened for diabetes. It is not clear whether screening for thrombophilic states is useful.

All patients should be counseled on stroke, and provided education about it and how it will affect their lives. Following their acute medical stay, all patients will benefit from rehabilitation, with the benefits associated using a program tailored to their needs and outcome goals.
 

 

The bottom line

Early management of stroke involves first determining whether someone is a candidate for reperfusion therapy with alteplase or thrombectomy and then, if not, admitting them to a monitored setting to screen for atrial fibrillation and evaluation for carotid stenosis. Patients should be evaluated for both depression and swallowing function, and there should be initiation of deep vein thrombosis prevention, appropriate management of elevated blood pressures, anti-platelet therapy, and statin therapy as well as plans for rehabilitation services.

Reference

Powers WJ et al. on behalf of the American Heart Association Stroke Council. 2018 Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110.

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 (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Callahan is an attending physician and preceptor in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

 

Significant changes have occurred in the updated American Heart Association Stroke Council’s recommendations for early management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Conceptually, early management can be separated into initial triage and decisions about intervention to restore blood flow with thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy. If reperfusion therapy is not appropriate, then the focus is on management to minimize further damage from the stroke, decrease the likelihood of recurrence, and lessen secondary problems related to the stroke.

All patients with AIS should receive noncontrast CT to determine if there is evidence of a hemorrhagic stroke and, if such evidence exists, than the patient is not a candidate for thrombolysis. Intravenous alteplase should be considered for patients who present within 3 hours of stroke onset and for selected patients presenting between 3-4.5 hours after stroke onset (for more details, see Table 6 in the guidelines). Selected patients with AIS who present within 6-24 hours of last time they were known to be normal and who have large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, may be candidates for mechanical thrombectomy in specialized centers. Patients who are not candidates for acute interventions should then be managed according to early stroke management guidelines.

Early stroke management for patients with AIS admitted to medical floors involves attention to blood pressure, glucose, and antiplatelet therapy. For patients with blood pressure lower than 220/120 mm Hg who did not receive IV alteplase or thrombectomy, treatment of hypertension in the first 48-72 hours after an AIS does not change the outcome. It is reasonable when patients have BP greater than or equal to 220/120 mm Hg, to lower blood pressure by 15% during the first 24 hours after onset of stroke. Starting or restarting antihypertensive therapy during hospitalization in patients with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg who are neurologically stable improves long-term blood pressure control and is considered a reasonable strategy.

For patients with noncardioembolic AIS, the use of antiplatelet agents rather than oral anticoagulation is recommended. Patients should be treated with aspirin 160 mg-325 mg within 24-48 hours of presentation. In patients unsafe or unable to swallow, rectal or nasogastric administration is recommended. In patients with minor stroke, 21 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) started within 24 hours can decrease stroke recurrence for the first 90 days after a stroke. This recommendation is based on a single study, the CHANCE trial, in a homogeneous population in China, and its generalizability is not known. If a patient had an AIS while already on aspirin, there is some evidence supporting a decreased risk of major cardiovascular events and recurrent stroke in patients switching to an alternative antiplatelet agent or combination antiplatelet therapy. Because of methodologic issues in the those studies, the guideline concludes that, for those already on aspirin, it is of unclear benefit to increase the dose of aspirin, switch to a different antiplatelet agent, or add a second antiplatelet agent. Switching to warfarin is not beneficial for secondary stroke prevention. High-dose statin therapy should be initiated. For patients with AIS in the setting of atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation can be started within 4-14 days after the stroke. One study showed that anticoagulation should not be started before 4 days after the stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.53 for starting anticoagulation at 4-14 days, compared with less than 4 days.

Hyperglycemia should be controlled to a range of 140-180 mg/dL, because higher values are associated with worse outcomes. Oxygen should be used if needed to maintain oxygen saturation greater than 94%. High-intensity statin therapy should be used, and smoking cessation is strongly encouraged for those who use tobacco, with avoidance of secondhand smoke whenever possible.

Patients should be screened for dysphagia before taking anything per oral, including medications. A nasogastric tube may be considered within the first 7 days, if patients are dysphagic. Oral hygiene protocols may include antibacterial mouth rinse, systematic oral care, and decontamination gel to decrease the risk of pneumonia .

For deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, intermittent pneumatic compression, in addition to the aspirin that a patient is on is reasonable, and the benefit of prophylactic-dose subcutaneous heparin (unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin) in immobile patients with AIS is not well established.

 

In the poststroke setting, patients should be screened for depression and, if appropriate, treated with antidepressants. Regular skin assessments are recommended with objective scales, and skin friction and pressure should be actively minimized with regular turning, good skin hygiene, and use of specialized mattresses, wheelchair cushions, and seating until mobility returns. Early rehabilitation for hospitalized stroke patients should be provided, but high-dose, very-early mobilization within 24 hours of stroke should not be done because it reduces the odds of a favorable outcome at 3 months.

Completing the diagnostic evaluation for the cause of stroke and decreasing the chance of future strokes should be part of the initial hospitalization. While MRI is more sensitive than is CT for detecting AIS, routine use of MRI in all patients with AIS is not cost effective and therefore is not recommended. For patients with nondisabling AIS in the carotid territory and who are candidates for carotid endarterectomy or stenting, noninvasive imaging of the cervical vessels should be performed within 24 hours of admission, with plans for carotid revascularization between 48 hours and 7 days if indicated. Cardiac monitoring for at least the first 24 hours of admission should be performed, while primarily looking for atrial fibrillation as a cause of stroke. In some patients, prolonged cardiac monitoring may be reasonable. With prolonged cardiac monitoring, atrial fibrillation is newly detected in nearly a quarter of patients with stroke or TIA, but the effect on outcomes is uncertain. Routine use of echocardiography is not recommended but may be done in selected patients. All patients should be screened for diabetes. It is not clear whether screening for thrombophilic states is useful.

All patients should be counseled on stroke, and provided education about it and how it will affect their lives. Following their acute medical stay, all patients will benefit from rehabilitation, with the benefits associated using a program tailored to their needs and outcome goals.
 

 

The bottom line

Early management of stroke involves first determining whether someone is a candidate for reperfusion therapy with alteplase or thrombectomy and then, if not, admitting them to a monitored setting to screen for atrial fibrillation and evaluation for carotid stenosis. Patients should be evaluated for both depression and swallowing function, and there should be initiation of deep vein thrombosis prevention, appropriate management of elevated blood pressures, anti-platelet therapy, and statin therapy as well as plans for rehabilitation services.

Reference

Powers WJ et al. on behalf of the American Heart Association Stroke Council. 2018 Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110.

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 (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Callahan is an attending physician and preceptor in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

 

Significant changes have occurred in the updated American Heart Association Stroke Council’s recommendations for early management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Conceptually, early management can be separated into initial triage and decisions about intervention to restore blood flow with thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy. If reperfusion therapy is not appropriate, then the focus is on management to minimize further damage from the stroke, decrease the likelihood of recurrence, and lessen secondary problems related to the stroke.

All patients with AIS should receive noncontrast CT to determine if there is evidence of a hemorrhagic stroke and, if such evidence exists, than the patient is not a candidate for thrombolysis. Intravenous alteplase should be considered for patients who present within 3 hours of stroke onset and for selected patients presenting between 3-4.5 hours after stroke onset (for more details, see Table 6 in the guidelines). Selected patients with AIS who present within 6-24 hours of last time they were known to be normal and who have large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, may be candidates for mechanical thrombectomy in specialized centers. Patients who are not candidates for acute interventions should then be managed according to early stroke management guidelines.

Early stroke management for patients with AIS admitted to medical floors involves attention to blood pressure, glucose, and antiplatelet therapy. For patients with blood pressure lower than 220/120 mm Hg who did not receive IV alteplase or thrombectomy, treatment of hypertension in the first 48-72 hours after an AIS does not change the outcome. It is reasonable when patients have BP greater than or equal to 220/120 mm Hg, to lower blood pressure by 15% during the first 24 hours after onset of stroke. Starting or restarting antihypertensive therapy during hospitalization in patients with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg who are neurologically stable improves long-term blood pressure control and is considered a reasonable strategy.

For patients with noncardioembolic AIS, the use of antiplatelet agents rather than oral anticoagulation is recommended. Patients should be treated with aspirin 160 mg-325 mg within 24-48 hours of presentation. In patients unsafe or unable to swallow, rectal or nasogastric administration is recommended. In patients with minor stroke, 21 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) started within 24 hours can decrease stroke recurrence for the first 90 days after a stroke. This recommendation is based on a single study, the CHANCE trial, in a homogeneous population in China, and its generalizability is not known. If a patient had an AIS while already on aspirin, there is some evidence supporting a decreased risk of major cardiovascular events and recurrent stroke in patients switching to an alternative antiplatelet agent or combination antiplatelet therapy. Because of methodologic issues in the those studies, the guideline concludes that, for those already on aspirin, it is of unclear benefit to increase the dose of aspirin, switch to a different antiplatelet agent, or add a second antiplatelet agent. Switching to warfarin is not beneficial for secondary stroke prevention. High-dose statin therapy should be initiated. For patients with AIS in the setting of atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation can be started within 4-14 days after the stroke. One study showed that anticoagulation should not be started before 4 days after the stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.53 for starting anticoagulation at 4-14 days, compared with less than 4 days.

Hyperglycemia should be controlled to a range of 140-180 mg/dL, because higher values are associated with worse outcomes. Oxygen should be used if needed to maintain oxygen saturation greater than 94%. High-intensity statin therapy should be used, and smoking cessation is strongly encouraged for those who use tobacco, with avoidance of secondhand smoke whenever possible.

Patients should be screened for dysphagia before taking anything per oral, including medications. A nasogastric tube may be considered within the first 7 days, if patients are dysphagic. Oral hygiene protocols may include antibacterial mouth rinse, systematic oral care, and decontamination gel to decrease the risk of pneumonia .

For deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, intermittent pneumatic compression, in addition to the aspirin that a patient is on is reasonable, and the benefit of prophylactic-dose subcutaneous heparin (unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin) in immobile patients with AIS is not well established.

 

In the poststroke setting, patients should be screened for depression and, if appropriate, treated with antidepressants. Regular skin assessments are recommended with objective scales, and skin friction and pressure should be actively minimized with regular turning, good skin hygiene, and use of specialized mattresses, wheelchair cushions, and seating until mobility returns. Early rehabilitation for hospitalized stroke patients should be provided, but high-dose, very-early mobilization within 24 hours of stroke should not be done because it reduces the odds of a favorable outcome at 3 months.

Completing the diagnostic evaluation for the cause of stroke and decreasing the chance of future strokes should be part of the initial hospitalization. While MRI is more sensitive than is CT for detecting AIS, routine use of MRI in all patients with AIS is not cost effective and therefore is not recommended. For patients with nondisabling AIS in the carotid territory and who are candidates for carotid endarterectomy or stenting, noninvasive imaging of the cervical vessels should be performed within 24 hours of admission, with plans for carotid revascularization between 48 hours and 7 days if indicated. Cardiac monitoring for at least the first 24 hours of admission should be performed, while primarily looking for atrial fibrillation as a cause of stroke. In some patients, prolonged cardiac monitoring may be reasonable. With prolonged cardiac monitoring, atrial fibrillation is newly detected in nearly a quarter of patients with stroke or TIA, but the effect on outcomes is uncertain. Routine use of echocardiography is not recommended but may be done in selected patients. All patients should be screened for diabetes. It is not clear whether screening for thrombophilic states is useful.

All patients should be counseled on stroke, and provided education about it and how it will affect their lives. Following their acute medical stay, all patients will benefit from rehabilitation, with the benefits associated using a program tailored to their needs and outcome goals.
 

 

The bottom line

Early management of stroke involves first determining whether someone is a candidate for reperfusion therapy with alteplase or thrombectomy and then, if not, admitting them to a monitored setting to screen for atrial fibrillation and evaluation for carotid stenosis. Patients should be evaluated for both depression and swallowing function, and there should be initiation of deep vein thrombosis prevention, appropriate management of elevated blood pressures, anti-platelet therapy, and statin therapy as well as plans for rehabilitation services.

Reference

Powers WJ et al. on behalf of the American Heart Association Stroke Council. 2018 Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110.

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 (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Callahan is an attending physician and preceptor in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

Look, I am not a burnout expert. And neither are you (presumably). None of us know much, but that won’t stop the regulations from coming. Program directors are already being asked to provide “wellness plans.” Through the SVS, experts have been enlisted to help, but it is now clear that what works for others won’t necessarily work for vascular surgeons. The next step is up to us. We are the only ones with detailed knowledge of our lives. I believe we are moving closer to answers but still face a few significant hurdles. Don’t worry, there are solutions. Hear me out …

Previously, I shared three studies with you, which found that vascular surgeons had the highest rates of suicidal ideation and career dissatisfaction among surgeons while spending more hours in the hospital than any other specialty. So what has been done to address these horrific numbers? Very little. We need answers now, but most of the data are over 10 years old. Much has changed in our specialty. The endovascular revolution created an entirely new working paradigm. A busy vascular surgeon used to perform 300 cases annually; now this number approaches 1,000. More procedures means more clerical work. Lead aprons and radiation exposure have added new ergonomic and medical concerns. Reimbursement dynamics now favor shorter, more frequent patient interactions over longer, more complex cases. We are benchmarked against old work standards while CPT bundling continuously lowers current RVU designations. EMR was supposed to make our lives better; it has done the opposite. Patient-centered health care has become a mantra, but the measures taken often backfire. Practicing medicine where the desired outcome is a high score on patient satisfaction surveys will likely lead to unnecessary tests, poor cost allocation, and low physician fulfillment. Quality of care is now measured scrupulously while the quality of our lives remains undocumented.

In the absence of organized reform, burnout appears to be increasing. A recent Mayo Clinic–AMA study found the current prevalence to be 54% among physicians. All of this has not happened overnight. I believe practicing vascular surgeons are resilient by default. The majority of us trained prior to the enforcement of duty hour restrictions. Out of high school, I enrolled in a 6-year BA/MD program (skipping 2 years of college seemed like a great idea in high school, less so when I got there). Half of my class never finished. In my intern year, six of the eight categorical residents dropped out. My odds of reaching PGY 2 were 12.5%. Fuzzy math aside, all of your stories are similar. We have proved our resilience over and over again. What is happening here is different.

Burnout is described as emotional exhaustion, low self-esteem, and depersonalization/cynicism. It develops slowly, progressively as stressors increase. A common thread seems to be the feeling that you alone are not enough. Examine your daily life. What are your most common stressors? For me, they relate to time management, clinical documentation, and whatever fresh hell my kids’ teachers have cooked up for “school projects.”

 

*****Scene*****

Wife: Can you help Luke (kindergarten) finish his diorama? It needs to be a scale depiction of his 3 favorite scenes from Wagner’s Ring cycle.

Me: Sure, I just need to complete the wind tunnel testing on Jack’s (3rd grade) carbon-neutral peanut-free alternative fuel source rocket booster.

Off stage – 7th Grade Son: The genetically modified spiders got loose again!

*****End Scene*****

We want to do a good job, but more hurdles are placed in our way. A recent AMA/Dartmouth Hitchcock study found that 50% of physicians’ time is spent performing data entry and other administrative work. Only 27% of time was spent on patient care. Every hour of face-to-face patient time requires 2 hours of EMR/clerical work. We are trapped in a bureaucratic prison. For years, every quality initiative was solved with a new form. To enter a simple note today, we must first “establish our relationship” with the patient, then ably click through a minefield of “warning boxes” signifying impending DVT prophylaxis catastrophes and antibiotic crimes and misdemeanors, next we scroll through a pre-populated postapocalyptic hellscape of minute- by-minute vital sign entries and lab values dating back to inception. Then, and only then, finally, ON PAGE 11, we can meagerly type: Patient at wound care, will come back on evening rounds.

 

Another important component of the burnout syndrome is dehumanization. Recently I spoke with Donald Zimmerman, PhD, author of the textbook “Person-Focused Health Care Management.” His thoughts on health care were dramatically altered after spending 43 days in an ICU following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. He describes the experience as “my worst nightmare that then got worse and then never ended.” While we can learn from his experience, how many of us were trained to face this horror? Dehumanization is a natural protective response, especially when we have so little time for patient interactions. Compassion fatigue sets in when we don’t have the time and resources to care for our patients.While poor outcomes have been cited as a result of burnout, this appears to be an end-stage result. The Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome (MEMO) study funded by the AHRQ found that physicians often served as a buffer between their patients and poor medical environments. The organizational flaws that led to burnout also independently resulted in substandard patient care. The burnout physicians experienced was a symptom of the defective health care system and not causative of the poor care. Doctors were literally sacrificing their well-being to care for their patients.

Not surprisingly, attitudes regarding burnout vary significantly between health care executives and physicians. A New England Journal of Medicine survey of their Insights Council found that 96% of respondents agreed that burnout is a moderate or serious problem, although physicians were significantly more likely than executives to rate the problem as “serious.” Opinions on solutions varied as well, with executives more likely to support redesign of EMR, while physicians favored reduction of documentation and clerical work. Obviously the physicians’ solution would be more costly to the corporation as the executives deflected the problem back to the EMR designers. Neither group favored the use of resilience/wellness programs as a primary solution.

Of all the remedies proposed, I find resilience training to be especially egregious. Studies consistently show a 40%-50% prevalence of burnout among physicians. How can this be an individual problem? Why train doctors to endure a broken system? This type of problem solving is why burnout continues to flourish. Doctors are not suffering from a disease but rather exhibiting a symptom.

To arrive at possible solutions, let’s look at the elite athlete analogy. What are you trained to do? What are your exceptional skills? For me it is clearly EMR documentation (just checking to see if any of my residents have read this far). How many of us would describe ourselves as expert at billing? Paperwork? Medication reconciliation? Discharge summaries? Should LeBron James hawk 16-ounce Miller Lites in the nosebleeds during halftime? This may sound like I am expressing a cocky attitude that these tasks are beneath us, but we now have concrete evidence that forcing physicians to perform these duties hurts patient care and literally kills us. Full stop. Physician burnout can lead to suicide in the absence of clinical depression.

 

While hopelessness is part and parcel of the burnout syndrome, there are now potential solutions within our grasp. Clearly a reduction in clerical duties will be a key component of any realistic plan. Our time must be proportioned. Few of us are asking to work less. Reducing patient interactions while increasing the average time of these encounters has been shown to reduce burnout without decreasing work hours. We want to do a good job. It is time to remove these barriers.

Our next steps have already been taken, and for me it represents the best example of the potential of Vascular Specialist and the SVS. Under the leadership of SVS President Clem Darling, MD, and Executive Director Ken Slaw, PhD, a task force was created to address this issue. Ably chaired by Dawn Coleman, MD, and including Sam Money, MD, from the SVS Executive Council and Past SVS President Julie Freischlag, MD, the task force has collaborated with actual burnout experts Tait Shanafelt, MD, and Susan Hallbeck, PhD, to create a survey designed to identify the causes, prevalence, and potential solutions to the burnout problem in vascular surgery.

The first survey has been completed and will be issued to all SVS members this month to coincide with the SCVS annual symposium. The second, which will focus more on physical issues, will be released during the VAM in June.

Look, no one hates surveys more than I do. We simply have to get this information. Each survey is designed to only take 10 minutes. Things are going to change one way or another. Let’s lead, not wait to follow. With your help this will be the last time I write this ignorantly on this crisis. Vascular surgeons are few in number but this gives us the potential to deliver the most comprehensive self-assessment any specialty has ever performed. Lend your voice to the coming change.

 

Finally, there are now innovations in use which have proved beneficial in mitigating burnout. A Stanford University School of Medicine program allows physicians to “bank” time spent on committees, teaching, or other administrative duties and exchange these credits for home delivery meals, cleaning services, or even work tasks such as grant applications and paper writing. While the physicians could certainly afford to pay for these assistances, the success of the program demonstrates it is the time saved in arranging the services that the doctors truly valued. Our happiness seems to excel when we spend our time performing the tasks for which we are best suited.

It is time to change. When a system reaches this point, something breaks. Let’s stop being the thing that breaks. Fill out the survey. Get involved. There is time to act before we all burn out on burnout. 

Dr. Sheahan is the Claude C. Craighead Jr. Professor and Chair, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans.

Look, I am not a burnout expert. And neither are you (presumably). None of us know much, but that won’t stop the regulations from coming. Program directors are already being asked to provide “wellness plans.” Through the SVS, experts have been enlisted to help, but it is now clear that what works for others won’t necessarily work for vascular surgeons. The next step is up to us. We are the only ones with detailed knowledge of our lives. I believe we are moving closer to answers but still face a few significant hurdles. Don’t worry, there are solutions. Hear me out …

Previously, I shared three studies with you, which found that vascular surgeons had the highest rates of suicidal ideation and career dissatisfaction among surgeons while spending more hours in the hospital than any other specialty. So what has been done to address these horrific numbers? Very little. We need answers now, but most of the data are over 10 years old. Much has changed in our specialty. The endovascular revolution created an entirely new working paradigm. A busy vascular surgeon used to perform 300 cases annually; now this number approaches 1,000. More procedures means more clerical work. Lead aprons and radiation exposure have added new ergonomic and medical concerns. Reimbursement dynamics now favor shorter, more frequent patient interactions over longer, more complex cases. We are benchmarked against old work standards while CPT bundling continuously lowers current RVU designations. EMR was supposed to make our lives better; it has done the opposite. Patient-centered health care has become a mantra, but the measures taken often backfire. Practicing medicine where the desired outcome is a high score on patient satisfaction surveys will likely lead to unnecessary tests, poor cost allocation, and low physician fulfillment. Quality of care is now measured scrupulously while the quality of our lives remains undocumented.

In the absence of organized reform, burnout appears to be increasing. A recent Mayo Clinic–AMA study found the current prevalence to be 54% among physicians. All of this has not happened overnight. I believe practicing vascular surgeons are resilient by default. The majority of us trained prior to the enforcement of duty hour restrictions. Out of high school, I enrolled in a 6-year BA/MD program (skipping 2 years of college seemed like a great idea in high school, less so when I got there). Half of my class never finished. In my intern year, six of the eight categorical residents dropped out. My odds of reaching PGY 2 were 12.5%. Fuzzy math aside, all of your stories are similar. We have proved our resilience over and over again. What is happening here is different.

Burnout is described as emotional exhaustion, low self-esteem, and depersonalization/cynicism. It develops slowly, progressively as stressors increase. A common thread seems to be the feeling that you alone are not enough. Examine your daily life. What are your most common stressors? For me, they relate to time management, clinical documentation, and whatever fresh hell my kids’ teachers have cooked up for “school projects.”

 

*****Scene*****

Wife: Can you help Luke (kindergarten) finish his diorama? It needs to be a scale depiction of his 3 favorite scenes from Wagner’s Ring cycle.

Me: Sure, I just need to complete the wind tunnel testing on Jack’s (3rd grade) carbon-neutral peanut-free alternative fuel source rocket booster.

Off stage – 7th Grade Son: The genetically modified spiders got loose again!

*****End Scene*****

We want to do a good job, but more hurdles are placed in our way. A recent AMA/Dartmouth Hitchcock study found that 50% of physicians’ time is spent performing data entry and other administrative work. Only 27% of time was spent on patient care. Every hour of face-to-face patient time requires 2 hours of EMR/clerical work. We are trapped in a bureaucratic prison. For years, every quality initiative was solved with a new form. To enter a simple note today, we must first “establish our relationship” with the patient, then ably click through a minefield of “warning boxes” signifying impending DVT prophylaxis catastrophes and antibiotic crimes and misdemeanors, next we scroll through a pre-populated postapocalyptic hellscape of minute- by-minute vital sign entries and lab values dating back to inception. Then, and only then, finally, ON PAGE 11, we can meagerly type: Patient at wound care, will come back on evening rounds.

 

Another important component of the burnout syndrome is dehumanization. Recently I spoke with Donald Zimmerman, PhD, author of the textbook “Person-Focused Health Care Management.” His thoughts on health care were dramatically altered after spending 43 days in an ICU following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. He describes the experience as “my worst nightmare that then got worse and then never ended.” While we can learn from his experience, how many of us were trained to face this horror? Dehumanization is a natural protective response, especially when we have so little time for patient interactions. Compassion fatigue sets in when we don’t have the time and resources to care for our patients.While poor outcomes have been cited as a result of burnout, this appears to be an end-stage result. The Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome (MEMO) study funded by the AHRQ found that physicians often served as a buffer between their patients and poor medical environments. The organizational flaws that led to burnout also independently resulted in substandard patient care. The burnout physicians experienced was a symptom of the defective health care system and not causative of the poor care. Doctors were literally sacrificing their well-being to care for their patients.

Not surprisingly, attitudes regarding burnout vary significantly between health care executives and physicians. A New England Journal of Medicine survey of their Insights Council found that 96% of respondents agreed that burnout is a moderate or serious problem, although physicians were significantly more likely than executives to rate the problem as “serious.” Opinions on solutions varied as well, with executives more likely to support redesign of EMR, while physicians favored reduction of documentation and clerical work. Obviously the physicians’ solution would be more costly to the corporation as the executives deflected the problem back to the EMR designers. Neither group favored the use of resilience/wellness programs as a primary solution.

Of all the remedies proposed, I find resilience training to be especially egregious. Studies consistently show a 40%-50% prevalence of burnout among physicians. How can this be an individual problem? Why train doctors to endure a broken system? This type of problem solving is why burnout continues to flourish. Doctors are not suffering from a disease but rather exhibiting a symptom.

To arrive at possible solutions, let’s look at the elite athlete analogy. What are you trained to do? What are your exceptional skills? For me it is clearly EMR documentation (just checking to see if any of my residents have read this far). How many of us would describe ourselves as expert at billing? Paperwork? Medication reconciliation? Discharge summaries? Should LeBron James hawk 16-ounce Miller Lites in the nosebleeds during halftime? This may sound like I am expressing a cocky attitude that these tasks are beneath us, but we now have concrete evidence that forcing physicians to perform these duties hurts patient care and literally kills us. Full stop. Physician burnout can lead to suicide in the absence of clinical depression.

 

While hopelessness is part and parcel of the burnout syndrome, there are now potential solutions within our grasp. Clearly a reduction in clerical duties will be a key component of any realistic plan. Our time must be proportioned. Few of us are asking to work less. Reducing patient interactions while increasing the average time of these encounters has been shown to reduce burnout without decreasing work hours. We want to do a good job. It is time to remove these barriers.

Our next steps have already been taken, and for me it represents the best example of the potential of Vascular Specialist and the SVS. Under the leadership of SVS President Clem Darling, MD, and Executive Director Ken Slaw, PhD, a task force was created to address this issue. Ably chaired by Dawn Coleman, MD, and including Sam Money, MD, from the SVS Executive Council and Past SVS President Julie Freischlag, MD, the task force has collaborated with actual burnout experts Tait Shanafelt, MD, and Susan Hallbeck, PhD, to create a survey designed to identify the causes, prevalence, and potential solutions to the burnout problem in vascular surgery.

The first survey has been completed and will be issued to all SVS members this month to coincide with the SCVS annual symposium. The second, which will focus more on physical issues, will be released during the VAM in June.

Look, no one hates surveys more than I do. We simply have to get this information. Each survey is designed to only take 10 minutes. Things are going to change one way or another. Let’s lead, not wait to follow. With your help this will be the last time I write this ignorantly on this crisis. Vascular surgeons are few in number but this gives us the potential to deliver the most comprehensive self-assessment any specialty has ever performed. Lend your voice to the coming change.

 

Finally, there are now innovations in use which have proved beneficial in mitigating burnout. A Stanford University School of Medicine program allows physicians to “bank” time spent on committees, teaching, or other administrative duties and exchange these credits for home delivery meals, cleaning services, or even work tasks such as grant applications and paper writing. While the physicians could certainly afford to pay for these assistances, the success of the program demonstrates it is the time saved in arranging the services that the doctors truly valued. Our happiness seems to excel when we spend our time performing the tasks for which we are best suited.

It is time to change. When a system reaches this point, something breaks. Let’s stop being the thing that breaks. Fill out the survey. Get involved. There is time to act before we all burn out on burnout. 

Dr. Sheahan is the Claude C. Craighead Jr. Professor and Chair, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans.

Look, I am not a burnout expert. And neither are you (presumably). None of us know much, but that won’t stop the regulations from coming. Program directors are already being asked to provide “wellness plans.” Through the SVS, experts have been enlisted to help, but it is now clear that what works for others won’t necessarily work for vascular surgeons. The next step is up to us. We are the only ones with detailed knowledge of our lives. I believe we are moving closer to answers but still face a few significant hurdles. Don’t worry, there are solutions. Hear me out …

Previously, I shared three studies with you, which found that vascular surgeons had the highest rates of suicidal ideation and career dissatisfaction among surgeons while spending more hours in the hospital than any other specialty. So what has been done to address these horrific numbers? Very little. We need answers now, but most of the data are over 10 years old. Much has changed in our specialty. The endovascular revolution created an entirely new working paradigm. A busy vascular surgeon used to perform 300 cases annually; now this number approaches 1,000. More procedures means more clerical work. Lead aprons and radiation exposure have added new ergonomic and medical concerns. Reimbursement dynamics now favor shorter, more frequent patient interactions over longer, more complex cases. We are benchmarked against old work standards while CPT bundling continuously lowers current RVU designations. EMR was supposed to make our lives better; it has done the opposite. Patient-centered health care has become a mantra, but the measures taken often backfire. Practicing medicine where the desired outcome is a high score on patient satisfaction surveys will likely lead to unnecessary tests, poor cost allocation, and low physician fulfillment. Quality of care is now measured scrupulously while the quality of our lives remains undocumented.

In the absence of organized reform, burnout appears to be increasing. A recent Mayo Clinic–AMA study found the current prevalence to be 54% among physicians. All of this has not happened overnight. I believe practicing vascular surgeons are resilient by default. The majority of us trained prior to the enforcement of duty hour restrictions. Out of high school, I enrolled in a 6-year BA/MD program (skipping 2 years of college seemed like a great idea in high school, less so when I got there). Half of my class never finished. In my intern year, six of the eight categorical residents dropped out. My odds of reaching PGY 2 were 12.5%. Fuzzy math aside, all of your stories are similar. We have proved our resilience over and over again. What is happening here is different.

Burnout is described as emotional exhaustion, low self-esteem, and depersonalization/cynicism. It develops slowly, progressively as stressors increase. A common thread seems to be the feeling that you alone are not enough. Examine your daily life. What are your most common stressors? For me, they relate to time management, clinical documentation, and whatever fresh hell my kids’ teachers have cooked up for “school projects.”

 

*****Scene*****

Wife: Can you help Luke (kindergarten) finish his diorama? It needs to be a scale depiction of his 3 favorite scenes from Wagner’s Ring cycle.

Me: Sure, I just need to complete the wind tunnel testing on Jack’s (3rd grade) carbon-neutral peanut-free alternative fuel source rocket booster.

Off stage – 7th Grade Son: The genetically modified spiders got loose again!

*****End Scene*****

We want to do a good job, but more hurdles are placed in our way. A recent AMA/Dartmouth Hitchcock study found that 50% of physicians’ time is spent performing data entry and other administrative work. Only 27% of time was spent on patient care. Every hour of face-to-face patient time requires 2 hours of EMR/clerical work. We are trapped in a bureaucratic prison. For years, every quality initiative was solved with a new form. To enter a simple note today, we must first “establish our relationship” with the patient, then ably click through a minefield of “warning boxes” signifying impending DVT prophylaxis catastrophes and antibiotic crimes and misdemeanors, next we scroll through a pre-populated postapocalyptic hellscape of minute- by-minute vital sign entries and lab values dating back to inception. Then, and only then, finally, ON PAGE 11, we can meagerly type: Patient at wound care, will come back on evening rounds.

 

Another important component of the burnout syndrome is dehumanization. Recently I spoke with Donald Zimmerman, PhD, author of the textbook “Person-Focused Health Care Management.” His thoughts on health care were dramatically altered after spending 43 days in an ICU following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. He describes the experience as “my worst nightmare that then got worse and then never ended.” While we can learn from his experience, how many of us were trained to face this horror? Dehumanization is a natural protective response, especially when we have so little time for patient interactions. Compassion fatigue sets in when we don’t have the time and resources to care for our patients.While poor outcomes have been cited as a result of burnout, this appears to be an end-stage result. The Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome (MEMO) study funded by the AHRQ found that physicians often served as a buffer between their patients and poor medical environments. The organizational flaws that led to burnout also independently resulted in substandard patient care. The burnout physicians experienced was a symptom of the defective health care system and not causative of the poor care. Doctors were literally sacrificing their well-being to care for their patients.

Not surprisingly, attitudes regarding burnout vary significantly between health care executives and physicians. A New England Journal of Medicine survey of their Insights Council found that 96% of respondents agreed that burnout is a moderate or serious problem, although physicians were significantly more likely than executives to rate the problem as “serious.” Opinions on solutions varied as well, with executives more likely to support redesign of EMR, while physicians favored reduction of documentation and clerical work. Obviously the physicians’ solution would be more costly to the corporation as the executives deflected the problem back to the EMR designers. Neither group favored the use of resilience/wellness programs as a primary solution.

Of all the remedies proposed, I find resilience training to be especially egregious. Studies consistently show a 40%-50% prevalence of burnout among physicians. How can this be an individual problem? Why train doctors to endure a broken system? This type of problem solving is why burnout continues to flourish. Doctors are not suffering from a disease but rather exhibiting a symptom.

To arrive at possible solutions, let’s look at the elite athlete analogy. What are you trained to do? What are your exceptional skills? For me it is clearly EMR documentation (just checking to see if any of my residents have read this far). How many of us would describe ourselves as expert at billing? Paperwork? Medication reconciliation? Discharge summaries? Should LeBron James hawk 16-ounce Miller Lites in the nosebleeds during halftime? This may sound like I am expressing a cocky attitude that these tasks are beneath us, but we now have concrete evidence that forcing physicians to perform these duties hurts patient care and literally kills us. Full stop. Physician burnout can lead to suicide in the absence of clinical depression.

 

While hopelessness is part and parcel of the burnout syndrome, there are now potential solutions within our grasp. Clearly a reduction in clerical duties will be a key component of any realistic plan. Our time must be proportioned. Few of us are asking to work less. Reducing patient interactions while increasing the average time of these encounters has been shown to reduce burnout without decreasing work hours. We want to do a good job. It is time to remove these barriers.

Our next steps have already been taken, and for me it represents the best example of the potential of Vascular Specialist and the SVS. Under the leadership of SVS President Clem Darling, MD, and Executive Director Ken Slaw, PhD, a task force was created to address this issue. Ably chaired by Dawn Coleman, MD, and including Sam Money, MD, from the SVS Executive Council and Past SVS President Julie Freischlag, MD, the task force has collaborated with actual burnout experts Tait Shanafelt, MD, and Susan Hallbeck, PhD, to create a survey designed to identify the causes, prevalence, and potential solutions to the burnout problem in vascular surgery.

The first survey has been completed and will be issued to all SVS members this month to coincide with the SCVS annual symposium. The second, which will focus more on physical issues, will be released during the VAM in June.

Look, no one hates surveys more than I do. We simply have to get this information. Each survey is designed to only take 10 minutes. Things are going to change one way or another. Let’s lead, not wait to follow. With your help this will be the last time I write this ignorantly on this crisis. Vascular surgeons are few in number but this gives us the potential to deliver the most comprehensive self-assessment any specialty has ever performed. Lend your voice to the coming change.

 

Finally, there are now innovations in use which have proved beneficial in mitigating burnout. A Stanford University School of Medicine program allows physicians to “bank” time spent on committees, teaching, or other administrative duties and exchange these credits for home delivery meals, cleaning services, or even work tasks such as grant applications and paper writing. While the physicians could certainly afford to pay for these assistances, the success of the program demonstrates it is the time saved in arranging the services that the doctors truly valued. Our happiness seems to excel when we spend our time performing the tasks for which we are best suited.

It is time to change. When a system reaches this point, something breaks. Let’s stop being the thing that breaks. Fill out the survey. Get involved. There is time to act before we all burn out on burnout. 

Dr. Sheahan is the Claude C. Craighead Jr. Professor and Chair, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans.

 

Herpes zoster, also known as shingles, is caused by a reactivation of varicella-zoster virus. Once an individual has been exposed to varicella-zoster virus, either from primary infection (chickenpox) or vaccination, the virus remains dormant in dorsal root ganglion cells. It may become reactivated at a later time, which results in herpes zoster. Typically, immunosuppression (hematologic malignancy and HIV infection) and age are factors that play a role in reactivation, although young people may develop shingles as well. Older age increases the incidence of herpes zoster.

Courtesy Dr. Donna Bilu Martin

Classically, herpes zoster occurs unilaterally within the distribution of a nerve and affects the dermatome of skin associated with the nerve. The trunk is most commonly involved.

More than 90% of patients will experience a prodrome of pain, burning, or tingling in the dermatome prior to the development of cutaneous lesions. Occasionally, there will be no symptoms prior. Papules and plaques begin to form, which quickly develop into vesicles and blisters. After a few days, lesions become crusted. Bullae or necrosis may occur in more severe cases. Typically, the condition resolves in 2-3 weeks, but can take 6 weeks or longer in elderly patients. In zoster sine herpete, patients have pain but no skin lesions.

In typical herpes zoster, lesions can be scattered outside the dermatome as well. When more than 20 lesions are scattered outside the area of primary or adjacent dermatomes, this is defined as disseminated herpes zoster. This occurs more commonly in debilitated or immune-compromised individuals. The outlying vesicles are often singular, not grouped, and resemble the “dew drop on a rose petal” look of varicella-zoster lesions. Dissemination necessitates systemic antiviral therapy, preferably intravenous followed by oral treatment once stable. Central nervous system and pulmonary involvement can occur.

Complications of zoster can occur. Postherpetic neuralgia and pain is more common in patients over the age of 50 and may become chronic. Ramsay Hunt syndrome may result in facial paralysis and hearing loss when there is involvement of the facial or auditory nerve. Occasionally, inflammatory lesions can occur within the affected area after the infection has resolved. Secondary bacterial infection, scarring, and motor paralysis can occur.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at edermatologynews.com. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected]. This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

 

Herpes zoster, also known as shingles, is caused by a reactivation of varicella-zoster virus. Once an individual has been exposed to varicella-zoster virus, either from primary infection (chickenpox) or vaccination, the virus remains dormant in dorsal root ganglion cells. It may become reactivated at a later time, which results in herpes zoster. Typically, immunosuppression (hematologic malignancy and HIV infection) and age are factors that play a role in reactivation, although young people may develop shingles as well. Older age increases the incidence of herpes zoster.

Courtesy Dr. Donna Bilu Martin

Classically, herpes zoster occurs unilaterally within the distribution of a nerve and affects the dermatome of skin associated with the nerve. The trunk is most commonly involved.

More than 90% of patients will experience a prodrome of pain, burning, or tingling in the dermatome prior to the development of cutaneous lesions. Occasionally, there will be no symptoms prior. Papules and plaques begin to form, which quickly develop into vesicles and blisters. After a few days, lesions become crusted. Bullae or necrosis may occur in more severe cases. Typically, the condition resolves in 2-3 weeks, but can take 6 weeks or longer in elderly patients. In zoster sine herpete, patients have pain but no skin lesions.

In typical herpes zoster, lesions can be scattered outside the dermatome as well. When more than 20 lesions are scattered outside the area of primary or adjacent dermatomes, this is defined as disseminated herpes zoster. This occurs more commonly in debilitated or immune-compromised individuals. The outlying vesicles are often singular, not grouped, and resemble the “dew drop on a rose petal” look of varicella-zoster lesions. Dissemination necessitates systemic antiviral therapy, preferably intravenous followed by oral treatment once stable. Central nervous system and pulmonary involvement can occur.

Complications of zoster can occur. Postherpetic neuralgia and pain is more common in patients over the age of 50 and may become chronic. Ramsay Hunt syndrome may result in facial paralysis and hearing loss when there is involvement of the facial or auditory nerve. Occasionally, inflammatory lesions can occur within the affected area after the infection has resolved. Secondary bacterial infection, scarring, and motor paralysis can occur.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at edermatologynews.com. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected]. This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

 

Herpes zoster, also known as shingles, is caused by a reactivation of varicella-zoster virus. Once an individual has been exposed to varicella-zoster virus, either from primary infection (chickenpox) or vaccination, the virus remains dormant in dorsal root ganglion cells. It may become reactivated at a later time, which results in herpes zoster. Typically, immunosuppression (hematologic malignancy and HIV infection) and age are factors that play a role in reactivation, although young people may develop shingles as well. Older age increases the incidence of herpes zoster.

Courtesy Dr. Donna Bilu Martin

Classically, herpes zoster occurs unilaterally within the distribution of a nerve and affects the dermatome of skin associated with the nerve. The trunk is most commonly involved.

More than 90% of patients will experience a prodrome of pain, burning, or tingling in the dermatome prior to the development of cutaneous lesions. Occasionally, there will be no symptoms prior. Papules and plaques begin to form, which quickly develop into vesicles and blisters. After a few days, lesions become crusted. Bullae or necrosis may occur in more severe cases. Typically, the condition resolves in 2-3 weeks, but can take 6 weeks or longer in elderly patients. In zoster sine herpete, patients have pain but no skin lesions.

In typical herpes zoster, lesions can be scattered outside the dermatome as well. When more than 20 lesions are scattered outside the area of primary or adjacent dermatomes, this is defined as disseminated herpes zoster. This occurs more commonly in debilitated or immune-compromised individuals. The outlying vesicles are often singular, not grouped, and resemble the “dew drop on a rose petal” look of varicella-zoster lesions. Dissemination necessitates systemic antiviral therapy, preferably intravenous followed by oral treatment once stable. Central nervous system and pulmonary involvement can occur.

Complications of zoster can occur. Postherpetic neuralgia and pain is more common in patients over the age of 50 and may become chronic. Ramsay Hunt syndrome may result in facial paralysis and hearing loss when there is involvement of the facial or auditory nerve. Occasionally, inflammatory lesions can occur within the affected area after the infection has resolved. Secondary bacterial infection, scarring, and motor paralysis can occur.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at edermatologynews.com. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected]. This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

 

I am pleased to once again submit an annual report for publication in ACS Surgery News. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) had a productive year in 2017 and looks forward to seeing a range of new programs evolve in 2018.
 

Physician payment

A health policy issue of considerable concern to ACS Fellows is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ efforts to implement the payment reforms in the Medicare Access and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015. Specifically, 2017 was the transition year for implementation of the Quality Payment Program’s (QPP’s) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and MIPS data collected in 2017 will be used to determine annual payment updates in 2019.

In 2018, the second year of MIPS, the penalty for nonparticipation has increased to 5 percent from 4 percent. Over time, the penalty for nonparticpation or poor performance will continue to rise. The College has created a variety of resources to assist Fellows in their efforts to comply with MIPS, which explain the purpose and structure of the MIPS program and help guide surgeons in choosing and achieving the goal that is right for their individual practice. These tools can be found on the ACS website at facs.org/qpp.

In addition to MIPS, the QPP calls for the establishment of Alternative Payment Models (APMs). The College has worked with thought leaders at Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, to develop the ACS-Brandeis Advanced APM. In 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed the proposal and made recommendations for improvement. Efforts to develop the model continue, and the ACS is working with private insurers and entities that may implement the APM model once available.
 

Education

The College is leading a significant effort to address the needs of surgeons who are looking to update their skills. The Steering Committee for Retraining and Retooling of Practicing Surgeons is working to define standards and establish a national infrastructure to achieve optimal outcomes. The ACS Accredited Education Institutes are at the core of this infrastructure.

At Clinical Congress 2017, we launched the ACS Academy of Master Surgeon Educators. The goals of the academy are to recognize master surgeon educators, advance the science and practice of leading-edge surgical education and training, foster innovation and collaboration, support faculty development and recognition, and underscore the importance of surgical education and training.

Also at Clinical Congress, the ACS Committee on Ethics unveiled Ethical Issues in Surgical Care, a landmark resource that defines a framework for the field of surgical ethics as it has evolved over the last decade. The book is organized into four sections that address the broad areas of general consideration, the surgeon-patient relationship, the surgeon and the surgical profession, and the surgeon and society.



Quality

The College released Optimal Resources for Surgical Quality and Safety, also known as the “red book,” in July 2017.This manual provides a guide for surgical quality leaders seeking to improve quality and safety in their institutions, departments, and practices. Efforts are under way to develop adjunctive or integrated resources/standards and to potentially establish a Surgical Quality Verification Program.

The red book was released at the 2017 ACS Quality and Safety Conference, formerly the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP®) Annual Conference, in New York, NY. The conference, which focused on a broad range of ACS Quality Programs, boasted a record-breaking attendance of more than 1,800 attendees.

The new Surgeon Specific Registry was the first ACS database to launch as part of the College’s integrated registry of the future, which ultimately will allow users to share relevant quality data across individual ACS Quality Programs, such as ACS NSQIP and the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP®).

Other new quality initiatives include the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery (ISCR), which the ACS is conducting in collaboration with Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore, MD. This program supports hospitals in implementing perioperative evidence-based pathways to improve clinical outcomes, reduce hospital length of stay, and improve the patient experience.

The ACS also has become the new home of Strong for Surgery, originally developed by surgeons in Washington State. This program empowers hospitals and clinics to integrate checklists into the preoperative phase of care.

In addition, the ACS was awarded a three-year, multimillion dollar R01 grant from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. ACS Past-President L.D. Britt, MD, MPH, DSc(Hon), FACS, FCCM, FRCSEng(Hon), FRCSEd(Hon), FWACS(Hon), FRCSI(Hon), FCS(SA)(Hon), FRCSGlasg(Hon), is the principal investigator on this award, which is aimed at eliminating variances in access to surgical care.
 

 

Trauma

The Committee on Trauma (COT), in collaboration with military partners and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), hosted a conference in April 2017 to advance the recommendations in the National Academies on Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, A National Trauma Care System: Integrating Military and Civilian Trauma Systems to Achieve Zero Preventable Deaths after Injury. The meeting brought together approximately 170 trauma care professionals with the goal of creating the framework for a National Trauma Care System Action Plan.

In light of recent tragedies and the ongoing public debate over how to stop the continuing violence at our nation’s schools, churches, and other public places, the COT Injury Prevention and Control Committee (IPCC) is advocating for a consensus-based, public health/trauma system approach to firearm injury prevention. Furthermore, at its February 2018 meeting the ACS Board of Regents unanimously approved a plan to expand the College’s focus from the successful Stop the Bleed® program to a broader prevention initiative focused on strategies that include research, advocacy, and strategic collaborations. An action plan was in development at press time.
 

ACS leadership

The ACS Board of Governors (B/G) continues to implement initiatives through its Pillars and Workgroups. Specific examples from this past year include the release of a white paper on out-of-network billing; production of the biannual e-newsletter, The Cutting Edge; conduct of the 2017 Board of Governors Annual Survey, which focuses on the Stop the Bleed campaign, the opioid crisis, work-related injuries/surgical ergonomics, and advanced practice providers in surgery; and development of a standardized letter of recommendation for applicants to surgery training programs.

The ACS Board of Regents approved and updated a number of statements in the last 12 months. New statements cover several topics of concern to the Fellowship, including gender salary equity, the use of anesthetics and sedation drugs in children and pregnant women, the opioid abuse epidemic, lithium batteries, opioids and motor vehicle crash prevention, maintaining surgical access with a locum tenens surgeon, social media, the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act, credentialing and privileging, and medical students and the electronic health record.

As these few examples demonstrate, the ACS is constantly moving forward to offer surgeons and the other members of the patient care team the tools, resources, and educational opportunities they need to succeed in practice and to provide optimal patient care. As always, you are encouraged to contact the ACS leadership, and let us know how we can best serve you.

Dr. Hoyt is the Executive Director of the ACS, Chicago, IL.
 

 

I am pleased to once again submit an annual report for publication in ACS Surgery News. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) had a productive year in 2017 and looks forward to seeing a range of new programs evolve in 2018.
 

Physician payment

A health policy issue of considerable concern to ACS Fellows is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ efforts to implement the payment reforms in the Medicare Access and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015. Specifically, 2017 was the transition year for implementation of the Quality Payment Program’s (QPP’s) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and MIPS data collected in 2017 will be used to determine annual payment updates in 2019.

In 2018, the second year of MIPS, the penalty for nonparticipation has increased to 5 percent from 4 percent. Over time, the penalty for nonparticpation or poor performance will continue to rise. The College has created a variety of resources to assist Fellows in their efforts to comply with MIPS, which explain the purpose and structure of the MIPS program and help guide surgeons in choosing and achieving the goal that is right for their individual practice. These tools can be found on the ACS website at facs.org/qpp.

In addition to MIPS, the QPP calls for the establishment of Alternative Payment Models (APMs). The College has worked with thought leaders at Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, to develop the ACS-Brandeis Advanced APM. In 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed the proposal and made recommendations for improvement. Efforts to develop the model continue, and the ACS is working with private insurers and entities that may implement the APM model once available.
 

Education

The College is leading a significant effort to address the needs of surgeons who are looking to update their skills. The Steering Committee for Retraining and Retooling of Practicing Surgeons is working to define standards and establish a national infrastructure to achieve optimal outcomes. The ACS Accredited Education Institutes are at the core of this infrastructure.

At Clinical Congress 2017, we launched the ACS Academy of Master Surgeon Educators. The goals of the academy are to recognize master surgeon educators, advance the science and practice of leading-edge surgical education and training, foster innovation and collaboration, support faculty development and recognition, and underscore the importance of surgical education and training.

Also at Clinical Congress, the ACS Committee on Ethics unveiled Ethical Issues in Surgical Care, a landmark resource that defines a framework for the field of surgical ethics as it has evolved over the last decade. The book is organized into four sections that address the broad areas of general consideration, the surgeon-patient relationship, the surgeon and the surgical profession, and the surgeon and society.



Quality

The College released Optimal Resources for Surgical Quality and Safety, also known as the “red book,” in July 2017.This manual provides a guide for surgical quality leaders seeking to improve quality and safety in their institutions, departments, and practices. Efforts are under way to develop adjunctive or integrated resources/standards and to potentially establish a Surgical Quality Verification Program.

The red book was released at the 2017 ACS Quality and Safety Conference, formerly the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP®) Annual Conference, in New York, NY. The conference, which focused on a broad range of ACS Quality Programs, boasted a record-breaking attendance of more than 1,800 attendees.

The new Surgeon Specific Registry was the first ACS database to launch as part of the College’s integrated registry of the future, which ultimately will allow users to share relevant quality data across individual ACS Quality Programs, such as ACS NSQIP and the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP®).

Other new quality initiatives include the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery (ISCR), which the ACS is conducting in collaboration with Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore, MD. This program supports hospitals in implementing perioperative evidence-based pathways to improve clinical outcomes, reduce hospital length of stay, and improve the patient experience.

The ACS also has become the new home of Strong for Surgery, originally developed by surgeons in Washington State. This program empowers hospitals and clinics to integrate checklists into the preoperative phase of care.

In addition, the ACS was awarded a three-year, multimillion dollar R01 grant from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. ACS Past-President L.D. Britt, MD, MPH, DSc(Hon), FACS, FCCM, FRCSEng(Hon), FRCSEd(Hon), FWACS(Hon), FRCSI(Hon), FCS(SA)(Hon), FRCSGlasg(Hon), is the principal investigator on this award, which is aimed at eliminating variances in access to surgical care.
 

 

Trauma

The Committee on Trauma (COT), in collaboration with military partners and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), hosted a conference in April 2017 to advance the recommendations in the National Academies on Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, A National Trauma Care System: Integrating Military and Civilian Trauma Systems to Achieve Zero Preventable Deaths after Injury. The meeting brought together approximately 170 trauma care professionals with the goal of creating the framework for a National Trauma Care System Action Plan.

In light of recent tragedies and the ongoing public debate over how to stop the continuing violence at our nation’s schools, churches, and other public places, the COT Injury Prevention and Control Committee (IPCC) is advocating for a consensus-based, public health/trauma system approach to firearm injury prevention. Furthermore, at its February 2018 meeting the ACS Board of Regents unanimously approved a plan to expand the College’s focus from the successful Stop the Bleed® program to a broader prevention initiative focused on strategies that include research, advocacy, and strategic collaborations. An action plan was in development at press time.
 

ACS leadership

The ACS Board of Governors (B/G) continues to implement initiatives through its Pillars and Workgroups. Specific examples from this past year include the release of a white paper on out-of-network billing; production of the biannual e-newsletter, The Cutting Edge; conduct of the 2017 Board of Governors Annual Survey, which focuses on the Stop the Bleed campaign, the opioid crisis, work-related injuries/surgical ergonomics, and advanced practice providers in surgery; and development of a standardized letter of recommendation for applicants to surgery training programs.

The ACS Board of Regents approved and updated a number of statements in the last 12 months. New statements cover several topics of concern to the Fellowship, including gender salary equity, the use of anesthetics and sedation drugs in children and pregnant women, the opioid abuse epidemic, lithium batteries, opioids and motor vehicle crash prevention, maintaining surgical access with a locum tenens surgeon, social media, the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act, credentialing and privileging, and medical students and the electronic health record.

As these few examples demonstrate, the ACS is constantly moving forward to offer surgeons and the other members of the patient care team the tools, resources, and educational opportunities they need to succeed in practice and to provide optimal patient care. As always, you are encouraged to contact the ACS leadership, and let us know how we can best serve you.

Dr. Hoyt is the Executive Director of the ACS, Chicago, IL.
 

 

I am pleased to once again submit an annual report for publication in ACS Surgery News. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) had a productive year in 2017 and looks forward to seeing a range of new programs evolve in 2018.
 

Physician payment

A health policy issue of considerable concern to ACS Fellows is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ efforts to implement the payment reforms in the Medicare Access and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015. Specifically, 2017 was the transition year for implementation of the Quality Payment Program’s (QPP’s) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and MIPS data collected in 2017 will be used to determine annual payment updates in 2019.

In 2018, the second year of MIPS, the penalty for nonparticipation has increased to 5 percent from 4 percent. Over time, the penalty for nonparticpation or poor performance will continue to rise. The College has created a variety of resources to assist Fellows in their efforts to comply with MIPS, which explain the purpose and structure of the MIPS program and help guide surgeons in choosing and achieving the goal that is right for their individual practice. These tools can be found on the ACS website at facs.org/qpp.

In addition to MIPS, the QPP calls for the establishment of Alternative Payment Models (APMs). The College has worked with thought leaders at Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, to develop the ACS-Brandeis Advanced APM. In 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed the proposal and made recommendations for improvement. Efforts to develop the model continue, and the ACS is working with private insurers and entities that may implement the APM model once available.
 

Education

The College is leading a significant effort to address the needs of surgeons who are looking to update their skills. The Steering Committee for Retraining and Retooling of Practicing Surgeons is working to define standards and establish a national infrastructure to achieve optimal outcomes. The ACS Accredited Education Institutes are at the core of this infrastructure.

At Clinical Congress 2017, we launched the ACS Academy of Master Surgeon Educators. The goals of the academy are to recognize master surgeon educators, advance the science and practice of leading-edge surgical education and training, foster innovation and collaboration, support faculty development and recognition, and underscore the importance of surgical education and training.

Also at Clinical Congress, the ACS Committee on Ethics unveiled Ethical Issues in Surgical Care, a landmark resource that defines a framework for the field of surgical ethics as it has evolved over the last decade. The book is organized into four sections that address the broad areas of general consideration, the surgeon-patient relationship, the surgeon and the surgical profession, and the surgeon and society.



Quality

The College released Optimal Resources for Surgical Quality and Safety, also known as the “red book,” in July 2017.This manual provides a guide for surgical quality leaders seeking to improve quality and safety in their institutions, departments, and practices. Efforts are under way to develop adjunctive or integrated resources/standards and to potentially establish a Surgical Quality Verification Program.

The red book was released at the 2017 ACS Quality and Safety Conference, formerly the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP®) Annual Conference, in New York, NY. The conference, which focused on a broad range of ACS Quality Programs, boasted a record-breaking attendance of more than 1,800 attendees.

The new Surgeon Specific Registry was the first ACS database to launch as part of the College’s integrated registry of the future, which ultimately will allow users to share relevant quality data across individual ACS Quality Programs, such as ACS NSQIP and the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP®).

Other new quality initiatives include the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery (ISCR), which the ACS is conducting in collaboration with Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore, MD. This program supports hospitals in implementing perioperative evidence-based pathways to improve clinical outcomes, reduce hospital length of stay, and improve the patient experience.

The ACS also has become the new home of Strong for Surgery, originally developed by surgeons in Washington State. This program empowers hospitals and clinics to integrate checklists into the preoperative phase of care.

In addition, the ACS was awarded a three-year, multimillion dollar R01 grant from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. ACS Past-President L.D. Britt, MD, MPH, DSc(Hon), FACS, FCCM, FRCSEng(Hon), FRCSEd(Hon), FWACS(Hon), FRCSI(Hon), FCS(SA)(Hon), FRCSGlasg(Hon), is the principal investigator on this award, which is aimed at eliminating variances in access to surgical care.
 

 

Trauma

The Committee on Trauma (COT), in collaboration with military partners and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), hosted a conference in April 2017 to advance the recommendations in the National Academies on Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, A National Trauma Care System: Integrating Military and Civilian Trauma Systems to Achieve Zero Preventable Deaths after Injury. The meeting brought together approximately 170 trauma care professionals with the goal of creating the framework for a National Trauma Care System Action Plan.

In light of recent tragedies and the ongoing public debate over how to stop the continuing violence at our nation’s schools, churches, and other public places, the COT Injury Prevention and Control Committee (IPCC) is advocating for a consensus-based, public health/trauma system approach to firearm injury prevention. Furthermore, at its February 2018 meeting the ACS Board of Regents unanimously approved a plan to expand the College’s focus from the successful Stop the Bleed® program to a broader prevention initiative focused on strategies that include research, advocacy, and strategic collaborations. An action plan was in development at press time.
 

ACS leadership

The ACS Board of Governors (B/G) continues to implement initiatives through its Pillars and Workgroups. Specific examples from this past year include the release of a white paper on out-of-network billing; production of the biannual e-newsletter, The Cutting Edge; conduct of the 2017 Board of Governors Annual Survey, which focuses on the Stop the Bleed campaign, the opioid crisis, work-related injuries/surgical ergonomics, and advanced practice providers in surgery; and development of a standardized letter of recommendation for applicants to surgery training programs.

The ACS Board of Regents approved and updated a number of statements in the last 12 months. New statements cover several topics of concern to the Fellowship, including gender salary equity, the use of anesthetics and sedation drugs in children and pregnant women, the opioid abuse epidemic, lithium batteries, opioids and motor vehicle crash prevention, maintaining surgical access with a locum tenens surgeon, social media, the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act, credentialing and privileging, and medical students and the electronic health record.

As these few examples demonstrate, the ACS is constantly moving forward to offer surgeons and the other members of the patient care team the tools, resources, and educational opportunities they need to succeed in practice and to provide optimal patient care. As always, you are encouraged to contact the ACS leadership, and let us know how we can best serve you.

Dr. Hoyt is the Executive Director of the ACS, Chicago, IL.
 

 

This past fall, I had the honor of being invited to speak at a hospitalist physician conference in Tokyo. The conference was hosted by the Japanese Society of Hospital General Medicine (JSHGM) and was attended by over 800 hospitalists, including some from other East Asian countries.

The JSHGM is 7 years old and has 1,400 members; its growth mirroring the growth of practicing hospitalists in Japan. They wanted me to speak about the evolution of the hospitalist model in the United States and to learn more about their efforts to grow the nascent specialty in Japan. We also jointly wanted to discuss the opportunity for the JSHGM and the Society of Hospital Medicine to work together to benefit the hospitalist model in both countries.

This emerging partnership of the two societies is only the latest of a growing series of efforts on the part of SHM to support the growth of the hospitalist specialty internationally. It started with Canada in 2001, when a contingent of Canadian hospitalists requested to form their own chapter of SHM. They wanted to become the first international chapter and to join a group that has now grown to 56 state and regional chapters. Within a few years, the Canadian Chapter evolved to become its own independent and flourishing Canadian Society of Hospital Medicine.

More recently, SHM has helped develop chapters in Brazil and the Middle East, with more chapters being planned. The International Special Interest Forum at Hospital Medicine 2018 in Orlando in April expects attendees from Holland, Germany, Spain, Chile, Taiwan, China and more.

 

So why all of this activity by hospitalists in countries whose health systems are so different from ours and from each other’s? What is it about our specialty that has captured the interest of physicians, health systems, and governments from around the globe?

Talking to hospitalists from abroad, the answer is very consistent and very simple. It is the desire to lower cost and improve the quality of care. It turns out that the American health care system is not the only one that struggles with these issues. It seems that health care costs are too high everywhere and that the quest for higher quality, lower cost health care is a universal struggle. As Scottish-born health care economist Ian Morrison jokes, “Every health care system sucks in its own way.”

Let’s look at Japan. They have the longest average life expectancy in the world at 84 years, with about a quarter of their population over 65 years of age. On any given day, almost 14% of the population has a physician visit. Historically, they also have long hospital length of stays with current average length of stay anywhere between 14 and 21 days. This, of course, is very costly. … and in their single-payer system, the entire cost of this care falls on the Japanese government. And as birth rates in Japan have decreased, there are fewer taxpayers to bear the financial burden of the progressively aging and sicker population.

Canada has a different challenge. Also a single-payer system, their largest issue for the acutely ill is the availability of an open hospital bed. Although the system varies somewhat from province to province, it is typical that hospitals are given a total annual budget that must cover all expenses for the year, independent of the volume of patients. Since most hospitals are perpetually full, the discharge of a patient results in another new admission, which in turn actually costs the hospital more money. This perverse incentive keeps hospital beds full as patients wait for one to open (especially for any elective procedure). Adding to the problem, physicians are paid fee for service and therefore also have no incentive to discharge patients.

 

As Canadian citizens clamor for more access to care, the government looks for ways to lower excessively long length of stays. Wait times for elective surgeries are unacceptable with some patients coming to the United States for surgery that they must then pay for themselves. The result is mounting pressure to move to models of care that are more efficient and less wasteful.

It is no wonder that physicians and health care planners from Japan, Canada, and around the world have viewed with great interest what hospitalists have accomplished in the American health care system. They recognize the potential of this relatively new model to decrease hospital length of stays, lower health care costs, and improve outcomes. After all, this is what the hospitalist model was invented to accomplish – to create value not through high production, but by improving the efficiency of care delivery, overall quality of care, and contributing to improved hospital operations.

As unrelenting economic forces continue to put pressure on health care systems worldwide, it will be fascinating to follow and continue assessing the impact of the hospitalist model in nations where it is implemented. That includes, of course, in the United States, where the model is still very young and continually evolving.

In the meantime, SHM will continue to learn about and work with our international partners. This certainly will be the focus of a special “Hospital Medicine in Japan” session at Hospital Medicine 2018 along with the International Special Interest Forum. And for the first time, we will also have an International Lounge where our international members can meet with each other and our American members to share ideas and enthusiasm for the future of our specialty.

 

These are just the first steps to expanding the hospital medicine movement across the globe. SHM is optimistic about the future opportunities for international collaboration and is committed to supporting the growth of the specialty and its practitioners, not only in the United States, but worldwide.

Dr. Greeno is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and senior adviser for medical affairs, TeamHealth.

 

This past fall, I had the honor of being invited to speak at a hospitalist physician conference in Tokyo. The conference was hosted by the Japanese Society of Hospital General Medicine (JSHGM) and was attended by over 800 hospitalists, including some from other East Asian countries.

The JSHGM is 7 years old and has 1,400 members; its growth mirroring the growth of practicing hospitalists in Japan. They wanted me to speak about the evolution of the hospitalist model in the United States and to learn more about their efforts to grow the nascent specialty in Japan. We also jointly wanted to discuss the opportunity for the JSHGM and the Society of Hospital Medicine to work together to benefit the hospitalist model in both countries.

This emerging partnership of the two societies is only the latest of a growing series of efforts on the part of SHM to support the growth of the hospitalist specialty internationally. It started with Canada in 2001, when a contingent of Canadian hospitalists requested to form their own chapter of SHM. They wanted to become the first international chapter and to join a group that has now grown to 56 state and regional chapters. Within a few years, the Canadian Chapter evolved to become its own independent and flourishing Canadian Society of Hospital Medicine.

More recently, SHM has helped develop chapters in Brazil and the Middle East, with more chapters being planned. The International Special Interest Forum at Hospital Medicine 2018 in Orlando in April expects attendees from Holland, Germany, Spain, Chile, Taiwan, China and more.

 

So why all of this activity by hospitalists in countries whose health systems are so different from ours and from each other’s? What is it about our specialty that has captured the interest of physicians, health systems, and governments from around the globe?

Talking to hospitalists from abroad, the answer is very consistent and very simple. It is the desire to lower cost and improve the quality of care. It turns out that the American health care system is not the only one that struggles with these issues. It seems that health care costs are too high everywhere and that the quest for higher quality, lower cost health care is a universal struggle. As Scottish-born health care economist Ian Morrison jokes, “Every health care system sucks in its own way.”

Let’s look at Japan. They have the longest average life expectancy in the world at 84 years, with about a quarter of their population over 65 years of age. On any given day, almost 14% of the population has a physician visit. Historically, they also have long hospital length of stays with current average length of stay anywhere between 14 and 21 days. This, of course, is very costly. … and in their single-payer system, the entire cost of this care falls on the Japanese government. And as birth rates in Japan have decreased, there are fewer taxpayers to bear the financial burden of the progressively aging and sicker population.

Canada has a different challenge. Also a single-payer system, their largest issue for the acutely ill is the availability of an open hospital bed. Although the system varies somewhat from province to province, it is typical that hospitals are given a total annual budget that must cover all expenses for the year, independent of the volume of patients. Since most hospitals are perpetually full, the discharge of a patient results in another new admission, which in turn actually costs the hospital more money. This perverse incentive keeps hospital beds full as patients wait for one to open (especially for any elective procedure). Adding to the problem, physicians are paid fee for service and therefore also have no incentive to discharge patients.

 

As Canadian citizens clamor for more access to care, the government looks for ways to lower excessively long length of stays. Wait times for elective surgeries are unacceptable with some patients coming to the United States for surgery that they must then pay for themselves. The result is mounting pressure to move to models of care that are more efficient and less wasteful.

It is no wonder that physicians and health care planners from Japan, Canada, and around the world have viewed with great interest what hospitalists have accomplished in the American health care system. They recognize the potential of this relatively new model to decrease hospital length of stays, lower health care costs, and improve outcomes. After all, this is what the hospitalist model was invented to accomplish – to create value not through high production, but by improving the efficiency of care delivery, overall quality of care, and contributing to improved hospital operations.

As unrelenting economic forces continue to put pressure on health care systems worldwide, it will be fascinating to follow and continue assessing the impact of the hospitalist model in nations where it is implemented. That includes, of course, in the United States, where the model is still very young and continually evolving.

In the meantime, SHM will continue to learn about and work with our international partners. This certainly will be the focus of a special “Hospital Medicine in Japan” session at Hospital Medicine 2018 along with the International Special Interest Forum. And for the first time, we will also have an International Lounge where our international members can meet with each other and our American members to share ideas and enthusiasm for the future of our specialty.

 

These are just the first steps to expanding the hospital medicine movement across the globe. SHM is optimistic about the future opportunities for international collaboration and is committed to supporting the growth of the specialty and its practitioners, not only in the United States, but worldwide.

Dr. Greeno is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and senior adviser for medical affairs, TeamHealth.

 

This past fall, I had the honor of being invited to speak at a hospitalist physician conference in Tokyo. The conference was hosted by the Japanese Society of Hospital General Medicine (JSHGM) and was attended by over 800 hospitalists, including some from other East Asian countries.

The JSHGM is 7 years old and has 1,400 members; its growth mirroring the growth of practicing hospitalists in Japan. They wanted me to speak about the evolution of the hospitalist model in the United States and to learn more about their efforts to grow the nascent specialty in Japan. We also jointly wanted to discuss the opportunity for the JSHGM and the Society of Hospital Medicine to work together to benefit the hospitalist model in both countries.

This emerging partnership of the two societies is only the latest of a growing series of efforts on the part of SHM to support the growth of the hospitalist specialty internationally. It started with Canada in 2001, when a contingent of Canadian hospitalists requested to form their own chapter of SHM. They wanted to become the first international chapter and to join a group that has now grown to 56 state and regional chapters. Within a few years, the Canadian Chapter evolved to become its own independent and flourishing Canadian Society of Hospital Medicine.

More recently, SHM has helped develop chapters in Brazil and the Middle East, with more chapters being planned. The International Special Interest Forum at Hospital Medicine 2018 in Orlando in April expects attendees from Holland, Germany, Spain, Chile, Taiwan, China and more.

 

So why all of this activity by hospitalists in countries whose health systems are so different from ours and from each other’s? What is it about our specialty that has captured the interest of physicians, health systems, and governments from around the globe?

Talking to hospitalists from abroad, the answer is very consistent and very simple. It is the desire to lower cost and improve the quality of care. It turns out that the American health care system is not the only one that struggles with these issues. It seems that health care costs are too high everywhere and that the quest for higher quality, lower cost health care is a universal struggle. As Scottish-born health care economist Ian Morrison jokes, “Every health care system sucks in its own way.”

Let’s look at Japan. They have the longest average life expectancy in the world at 84 years, with about a quarter of their population over 65 years of age. On any given day, almost 14% of the population has a physician visit. Historically, they also have long hospital length of stays with current average length of stay anywhere between 14 and 21 days. This, of course, is very costly. … and in their single-payer system, the entire cost of this care falls on the Japanese government. And as birth rates in Japan have decreased, there are fewer taxpayers to bear the financial burden of the progressively aging and sicker population.

Canada has a different challenge. Also a single-payer system, their largest issue for the acutely ill is the availability of an open hospital bed. Although the system varies somewhat from province to province, it is typical that hospitals are given a total annual budget that must cover all expenses for the year, independent of the volume of patients. Since most hospitals are perpetually full, the discharge of a patient results in another new admission, which in turn actually costs the hospital more money. This perverse incentive keeps hospital beds full as patients wait for one to open (especially for any elective procedure). Adding to the problem, physicians are paid fee for service and therefore also have no incentive to discharge patients.

 

As Canadian citizens clamor for more access to care, the government looks for ways to lower excessively long length of stays. Wait times for elective surgeries are unacceptable with some patients coming to the United States for surgery that they must then pay for themselves. The result is mounting pressure to move to models of care that are more efficient and less wasteful.

It is no wonder that physicians and health care planners from Japan, Canada, and around the world have viewed with great interest what hospitalists have accomplished in the American health care system. They recognize the potential of this relatively new model to decrease hospital length of stays, lower health care costs, and improve outcomes. After all, this is what the hospitalist model was invented to accomplish – to create value not through high production, but by improving the efficiency of care delivery, overall quality of care, and contributing to improved hospital operations.

As unrelenting economic forces continue to put pressure on health care systems worldwide, it will be fascinating to follow and continue assessing the impact of the hospitalist model in nations where it is implemented. That includes, of course, in the United States, where the model is still very young and continually evolving.

In the meantime, SHM will continue to learn about and work with our international partners. This certainly will be the focus of a special “Hospital Medicine in Japan” session at Hospital Medicine 2018 along with the International Special Interest Forum. And for the first time, we will also have an International Lounge where our international members can meet with each other and our American members to share ideas and enthusiasm for the future of our specialty.

 

These are just the first steps to expanding the hospital medicine movement across the globe. SHM is optimistic about the future opportunities for international collaboration and is committed to supporting the growth of the specialty and its practitioners, not only in the United States, but worldwide.

Dr. Greeno is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and senior adviser for medical affairs, TeamHealth.

 

As I stepped from an exam room one recent busy morning, my office manager pulled me aside. “Someone from the county courthouse is on the phone and needs to talk to you,” she whispered.

“You know better than that,” I said. “While I’m seeing patients, I don’t take calls from anyone except colleagues and immediate family.”

artisteer/Thinkstock

“He says he has a warrant for your arrest.”

I took the call.

“You failed to appear for jury duty,” the official-sounding voice said. “That’s a violation of state law, as you were warned when you received your summons. You’ll have to come down here and surrender yourself immediately, or else we’ll have to send deputies to your office. I don’t think you’ll want to be led through your waiting room in handcuffs.”

“Wait a minute,” I replied nervously. “I haven’t received a jury summons for 2 years, at least. There must be some mistake.”

“Perhaps we’ve confused you with a citizen with the same or a similar name,” he said. “Let me have your Social Security number and birth date.”

Alarm bells! “You should have that information already,” I replied. “Why don’t you read me what you have?”

A short silence, and then … click.

I immediately called the courthouse. “Citizens who fail to appear receive a warning letter and a new questionnaire, not a phone call,” said the jury manager. “And we use driver license numbers to keep track of jurors.”

The phone company traced the call, which dead-ended at a VoIP circuit, to no one’s surprise. The downside of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and similar technologies is that unscrupulous individuals can use them to appear to be calling you from a legitimate business when they are not.

Like most other supposedly affluent professionals, doctors have always been popular targets for scam artists and con men. Those of us of a certain age remember phony office calls offering great deals on supplies or waiting room magazine subscriptions. Those capers eventually disappeared; but scam artists are endlessly creative. This is especially true since the Internet took over, well, everything. There’s a real dark side to the information age.

The jury duty scheme, I learned, is an increasingly popular one. Others involve calls or e-mails from the “fraud department” of your bank, claiming to be investigating a breach of your account, or one of your credit or debit cards. Another purports to be a “Customs official” informing you that you owe a big duty payment on an overseas shipment. Victims of power outages due to natural disasters are hearing from crooks claiming to be from the local power company; the power won’t be restored, they say, without an advance payment.

 

In most cases, the common denominator – and the biggest red flag – is a request for a social security number, a birth date, a credit card number, or other private information that could be used to steal your identity or empty your accounts.

You may think you would never be fooled by any of these schemes, but trust me: These guys are good. They sound very authentic – particularly when they surprise you in the midst of your office hours.

Here’s a summary of what my recent experience taught (or reminded) me:

• Never give out a bank account, social security, or credit card number online or over the telephone if you didn’t initiate the contact, no matter how legitimate the caller sounds. This is true of anyone claiming to be from a bank, a service company, or a government office, as well as anyone trying to sell you anything.
• No federal or state court will call to say you’ve missed jury duty – or that they are assembling jury pools and need to “prescreen” those who might be selected to serve on them. The jury manager I spoke with said she knew of no reason why anyone in my state would ever be called about jury service before mailing back a completed questionnaire, and even then, such a call would be extraordinary.
• Never send anyone a “commission” or “finder’s fee” as a condition of receiving funds. In legitimate transactions, such fees are merely deducted from the money being paid out.
• Examine your credit card and bank account statements each month. Immediately challenge any charges you don’t recognize.

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].

 

As I stepped from an exam room one recent busy morning, my office manager pulled me aside. “Someone from the county courthouse is on the phone and needs to talk to you,” she whispered.

“You know better than that,” I said. “While I’m seeing patients, I don’t take calls from anyone except colleagues and immediate family.”

artisteer/Thinkstock

“He says he has a warrant for your arrest.”

I took the call.

“You failed to appear for jury duty,” the official-sounding voice said. “That’s a violation of state law, as you were warned when you received your summons. You’ll have to come down here and surrender yourself immediately, or else we’ll have to send deputies to your office. I don’t think you’ll want to be led through your waiting room in handcuffs.”

“Wait a minute,” I replied nervously. “I haven’t received a jury summons for 2 years, at least. There must be some mistake.”

“Perhaps we’ve confused you with a citizen with the same or a similar name,” he said. “Let me have your Social Security number and birth date.”

Alarm bells! “You should have that information already,” I replied. “Why don’t you read me what you have?”

A short silence, and then … click.

I immediately called the courthouse. “Citizens who fail to appear receive a warning letter and a new questionnaire, not a phone call,” said the jury manager. “And we use driver license numbers to keep track of jurors.”

The phone company traced the call, which dead-ended at a VoIP circuit, to no one’s surprise. The downside of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and similar technologies is that unscrupulous individuals can use them to appear to be calling you from a legitimate business when they are not.

Like most other supposedly affluent professionals, doctors have always been popular targets for scam artists and con men. Those of us of a certain age remember phony office calls offering great deals on supplies or waiting room magazine subscriptions. Those capers eventually disappeared; but scam artists are endlessly creative. This is especially true since the Internet took over, well, everything. There’s a real dark side to the information age.

The jury duty scheme, I learned, is an increasingly popular one. Others involve calls or e-mails from the “fraud department” of your bank, claiming to be investigating a breach of your account, or one of your credit or debit cards. Another purports to be a “Customs official” informing you that you owe a big duty payment on an overseas shipment. Victims of power outages due to natural disasters are hearing from crooks claiming to be from the local power company; the power won’t be restored, they say, without an advance payment.

 

In most cases, the common denominator – and the biggest red flag – is a request for a social security number, a birth date, a credit card number, or other private information that could be used to steal your identity or empty your accounts.

You may think you would never be fooled by any of these schemes, but trust me: These guys are good. They sound very authentic – particularly when they surprise you in the midst of your office hours.

Here’s a summary of what my recent experience taught (or reminded) me:

• Never give out a bank account, social security, or credit card number online or over the telephone if you didn’t initiate the contact, no matter how legitimate the caller sounds. This is true of anyone claiming to be from a bank, a service company, or a government office, as well as anyone trying to sell you anything.
• No federal or state court will call to say you’ve missed jury duty – or that they are assembling jury pools and need to “prescreen” those who might be selected to serve on them. The jury manager I spoke with said she knew of no reason why anyone in my state would ever be called about jury service before mailing back a completed questionnaire, and even then, such a call would be extraordinary.
• Never send anyone a “commission” or “finder’s fee” as a condition of receiving funds. In legitimate transactions, such fees are merely deducted from the money being paid out.
• Examine your credit card and bank account statements each month. Immediately challenge any charges you don’t recognize.

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].

 

As I stepped from an exam room one recent busy morning, my office manager pulled me aside. “Someone from the county courthouse is on the phone and needs to talk to you,” she whispered.

“You know better than that,” I said. “While I’m seeing patients, I don’t take calls from anyone except colleagues and immediate family.”

artisteer/Thinkstock

“He says he has a warrant for your arrest.”

I took the call.

“You failed to appear for jury duty,” the official-sounding voice said. “That’s a violation of state law, as you were warned when you received your summons. You’ll have to come down here and surrender yourself immediately, or else we’ll have to send deputies to your office. I don’t think you’ll want to be led through your waiting room in handcuffs.”

“Wait a minute,” I replied nervously. “I haven’t received a jury summons for 2 years, at least. There must be some mistake.”

“Perhaps we’ve confused you with a citizen with the same or a similar name,” he said. “Let me have your Social Security number and birth date.”

Alarm bells! “You should have that information already,” I replied. “Why don’t you read me what you have?”

A short silence, and then … click.

I immediately called the courthouse. “Citizens who fail to appear receive a warning letter and a new questionnaire, not a phone call,” said the jury manager. “And we use driver license numbers to keep track of jurors.”

The phone company traced the call, which dead-ended at a VoIP circuit, to no one’s surprise. The downside of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and similar technologies is that unscrupulous individuals can use them to appear to be calling you from a legitimate business when they are not.

Like most other supposedly affluent professionals, doctors have always been popular targets for scam artists and con men. Those of us of a certain age remember phony office calls offering great deals on supplies or waiting room magazine subscriptions. Those capers eventually disappeared; but scam artists are endlessly creative. This is especially true since the Internet took over, well, everything. There’s a real dark side to the information age.

The jury duty scheme, I learned, is an increasingly popular one. Others involve calls or e-mails from the “fraud department” of your bank, claiming to be investigating a breach of your account, or one of your credit or debit cards. Another purports to be a “Customs official” informing you that you owe a big duty payment on an overseas shipment. Victims of power outages due to natural disasters are hearing from crooks claiming to be from the local power company; the power won’t be restored, they say, without an advance payment.

 

In most cases, the common denominator – and the biggest red flag – is a request for a social security number, a birth date, a credit card number, or other private information that could be used to steal your identity or empty your accounts.

You may think you would never be fooled by any of these schemes, but trust me: These guys are good. They sound very authentic – particularly when they surprise you in the midst of your office hours.

Here’s a summary of what my recent experience taught (or reminded) me:

• Never give out a bank account, social security, or credit card number online or over the telephone if you didn’t initiate the contact, no matter how legitimate the caller sounds. This is true of anyone claiming to be from a bank, a service company, or a government office, as well as anyone trying to sell you anything.
• No federal or state court will call to say you’ve missed jury duty – or that they are assembling jury pools and need to “prescreen” those who might be selected to serve on them. The jury manager I spoke with said she knew of no reason why anyone in my state would ever be called about jury service before mailing back a completed questionnaire, and even then, such a call would be extraordinary.
• Never send anyone a “commission” or “finder’s fee” as a condition of receiving funds. In legitimate transactions, such fees are merely deducted from the money being paid out.
• Examine your credit card and bank account statements each month. Immediately challenge any charges you don’t recognize.

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].

 

This is the seventh in a series of articles from the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This series introduces sets of tools and resources designed to help your practice.

Thus far, this series has discussed topics such as shared decision making, team-based care, and integrating behavioral health and primary care. All of these are important topics, but this raises the question, “How do I make the changes to my practice?” This month’s article discusses AHRQ’s resources for transforming your practice to be able to better introduce these advances.

A good place to start is AHRQ’s Improving Primary Care Practice page, which offers a wide range of resources designed to help practices improve their care. Here are some of the improvement topics for which resources are available:

Building capacity for quality improvement in primary care. Primary care practices often benefit from external support and assistance while they develop the capacity to carry out quality improvement activities as an integral part of their work. These resources describe approaches and supports that are needed to build QI capacity in primary care.

 

Care coordination. The main goal of care coordination is to meet patients’ needs and preferences in the delivery of high-quality, high-value health care. This means that the patient’s needs and preferences are known and communicated at the right time to the right people, which results in safe, appropriate, and effective care. AHRQ’s resources in this area offer examples of care coordination approaches and activities, as well as guidance and models for understanding and measuring patients’ perceptions of care coordination.

Improvement approaches related to patient engagement and support. Several different types of resources related to patient engagement are available. These include the what, why, and how of self-management support, implementing health literacy universal precautions, and engaging patients and families in patient safety efforts.

AHRQ’s Primary Care YouTube channel offers videos from clinical staff, researchers, and others describing their work in many of these areas.

Other resources also are available. One of the most popular approaches to transformation involves taking steps to make your practice a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). AHRQ’s Patient-Centered Medical Home Resource Center website features evidence, examples, and lessons learned from primary care practices that have transformed their approach to the organization and delivery of care. Policymakers, researchers, practices, and practice facilitators can access evidence-based resources about the medical home and its potential to transform primary care and improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of U.S. health care.

 

While the goal of practice transformation is the improvement of patient care and patient outcomes, patient and staff satisfaction (including issues regarding provider burnout) must not be lost in the process. The Clinician & Group Survey of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems assesses patient experiences with health care providers and staff in doctors’ offices. Survey results can be used to improve care provided by individual providers, sites of care, medical groups, or provider networks, as well as equip consumers with information they can use to choose physicians and other health care providers, physician practices, or medical groups. The survey includes standardized questionnaires for adults and children. The adult questionnaire can be used in both primary care and specialty care settings; the child questionnaire is designed for primary care settings but could be adapted for specialty care. Users can also add supplemental items to customize their questionnaires.

For many practices, working with a practice facilitator will be a big part of the transformation. Practice facilitation is an evidence-based approach to quality improvement in primary care practices. It will be discussed at length next month. In addition, in July and August, we will discuss optimizing health information technology and workflow in your practice.

Dr. Genevro is a health scientist at AHRQ. Dr. Ganiats is the director of the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research at AHRQ.

 

This is the seventh in a series of articles from the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This series introduces sets of tools and resources designed to help your practice.

Thus far, this series has discussed topics such as shared decision making, team-based care, and integrating behavioral health and primary care. All of these are important topics, but this raises the question, “How do I make the changes to my practice?” This month’s article discusses AHRQ’s resources for transforming your practice to be able to better introduce these advances.

A good place to start is AHRQ’s Improving Primary Care Practice page, which offers a wide range of resources designed to help practices improve their care. Here are some of the improvement topics for which resources are available:

Building capacity for quality improvement in primary care. Primary care practices often benefit from external support and assistance while they develop the capacity to carry out quality improvement activities as an integral part of their work. These resources describe approaches and supports that are needed to build QI capacity in primary care.

 

Care coordination. The main goal of care coordination is to meet patients’ needs and preferences in the delivery of high-quality, high-value health care. This means that the patient’s needs and preferences are known and communicated at the right time to the right people, which results in safe, appropriate, and effective care. AHRQ’s resources in this area offer examples of care coordination approaches and activities, as well as guidance and models for understanding and measuring patients’ perceptions of care coordination.

Improvement approaches related to patient engagement and support. Several different types of resources related to patient engagement are available. These include the what, why, and how of self-management support, implementing health literacy universal precautions, and engaging patients and families in patient safety efforts.

AHRQ’s Primary Care YouTube channel offers videos from clinical staff, researchers, and others describing their work in many of these areas.

Other resources also are available. One of the most popular approaches to transformation involves taking steps to make your practice a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). AHRQ’s Patient-Centered Medical Home Resource Center website features evidence, examples, and lessons learned from primary care practices that have transformed their approach to the organization and delivery of care. Policymakers, researchers, practices, and practice facilitators can access evidence-based resources about the medical home and its potential to transform primary care and improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of U.S. health care.

 

While the goal of practice transformation is the improvement of patient care and patient outcomes, patient and staff satisfaction (including issues regarding provider burnout) must not be lost in the process. The Clinician & Group Survey of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems assesses patient experiences with health care providers and staff in doctors’ offices. Survey results can be used to improve care provided by individual providers, sites of care, medical groups, or provider networks, as well as equip consumers with information they can use to choose physicians and other health care providers, physician practices, or medical groups. The survey includes standardized questionnaires for adults and children. The adult questionnaire can be used in both primary care and specialty care settings; the child questionnaire is designed for primary care settings but could be adapted for specialty care. Users can also add supplemental items to customize their questionnaires.

For many practices, working with a practice facilitator will be a big part of the transformation. Practice facilitation is an evidence-based approach to quality improvement in primary care practices. It will be discussed at length next month. In addition, in July and August, we will discuss optimizing health information technology and workflow in your practice.

Dr. Genevro is a health scientist at AHRQ. Dr. Ganiats is the director of the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research at AHRQ.

 

This is the seventh in a series of articles from the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This series introduces sets of tools and resources designed to help your practice.

Thus far, this series has discussed topics such as shared decision making, team-based care, and integrating behavioral health and primary care. All of these are important topics, but this raises the question, “How do I make the changes to my practice?” This month’s article discusses AHRQ’s resources for transforming your practice to be able to better introduce these advances.

A good place to start is AHRQ’s Improving Primary Care Practice page, which offers a wide range of resources designed to help practices improve their care. Here are some of the improvement topics for which resources are available:

Building capacity for quality improvement in primary care. Primary care practices often benefit from external support and assistance while they develop the capacity to carry out quality improvement activities as an integral part of their work. These resources describe approaches and supports that are needed to build QI capacity in primary care.

 

Care coordination. The main goal of care coordination is to meet patients’ needs and preferences in the delivery of high-quality, high-value health care. This means that the patient’s needs and preferences are known and communicated at the right time to the right people, which results in safe, appropriate, and effective care. AHRQ’s resources in this area offer examples of care coordination approaches and activities, as well as guidance and models for understanding and measuring patients’ perceptions of care coordination.

Improvement approaches related to patient engagement and support. Several different types of resources related to patient engagement are available. These include the what, why, and how of self-management support, implementing health literacy universal precautions, and engaging patients and families in patient safety efforts.

AHRQ’s Primary Care YouTube channel offers videos from clinical staff, researchers, and others describing their work in many of these areas.

Other resources also are available. One of the most popular approaches to transformation involves taking steps to make your practice a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). AHRQ’s Patient-Centered Medical Home Resource Center website features evidence, examples, and lessons learned from primary care practices that have transformed their approach to the organization and delivery of care. Policymakers, researchers, practices, and practice facilitators can access evidence-based resources about the medical home and its potential to transform primary care and improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of U.S. health care.

 

While the goal of practice transformation is the improvement of patient care and patient outcomes, patient and staff satisfaction (including issues regarding provider burnout) must not be lost in the process. The Clinician & Group Survey of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems assesses patient experiences with health care providers and staff in doctors’ offices. Survey results can be used to improve care provided by individual providers, sites of care, medical groups, or provider networks, as well as equip consumers with information they can use to choose physicians and other health care providers, physician practices, or medical groups. The survey includes standardized questionnaires for adults and children. The adult questionnaire can be used in both primary care and specialty care settings; the child questionnaire is designed for primary care settings but could be adapted for specialty care. Users can also add supplemental items to customize their questionnaires.

For many practices, working with a practice facilitator will be a big part of the transformation. Practice facilitation is an evidence-based approach to quality improvement in primary care practices. It will be discussed at length next month. In addition, in July and August, we will discuss optimizing health information technology and workflow in your practice.

Dr. Genevro is a health scientist at AHRQ. Dr. Ganiats is the director of the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research at AHRQ.