CHEST Physician

New cases of COVID-19 increased in children for the third consecutive week, while vaccinations among 5- to 11-year-olds continued to steadily increase, according to new data.

There were almost 142,000 new cases reported during the week of Nov. 12-18, marking an increase of 16% over the previous week and the 15th straight week with a weekly total over 100,000, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said.

Regional data show that the Midwest has experienced the largest share of this latest surge, followed by the Northeast. Cases increased in the South during the week of Nov. 12-18 after holding steady over the previous 2 weeks, while new cases in the West dropped in the last week. At the state level, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont again reported the largest percent increases, with Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico also above average, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show similar trends for both emergency department visits and hospital admissions, as both have risen in November after declines that began in late August and early September.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is 6.77 million since the pandemic began, based on the AAP/CHA accounting of state cases, although Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer, suggesting the actual number is higher. The CDC puts the total number of COVID cases in children at 5.96 million, but there are age discrepancies between the CDC and the AAP/CHA’s state-based data.

The vaccine gap is closing

Vaccinations among the recently eligible 5- to 11-year-olds have steadily increased following a somewhat slow start. The initial pace was behind that of the 12- to 15-years-olds through the first postapproval week but has since closed the gap, based on data from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The tally of children who received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine among the 5- to 11-year-olds was behind the older group by almost 1.2 million on day 7 after the CDC’s Nov. 2 approval, but by day 18 the deficit was down to about 650,000, the CDC reported.

Altogether, just over 3 million children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, which is 10.7% of that age group’s total population. Among children aged 12-17, the proportions are 60.7% with at least one dose and 51.1% at full vaccination. Children aged 5-11, who make up 8.7% of the total U.S. population, represented 42.8% of all vaccinations initiated over the 2 weeks ending Nov. 21, compared with 4.2% for those aged 12-17, the CDC said.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 increased in children for the third consecutive week, while vaccinations among 5- to 11-year-olds continued to steadily increase, according to new data.

There were almost 142,000 new cases reported during the week of Nov. 12-18, marking an increase of 16% over the previous week and the 15th straight week with a weekly total over 100,000, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said.

Regional data show that the Midwest has experienced the largest share of this latest surge, followed by the Northeast. Cases increased in the South during the week of Nov. 12-18 after holding steady over the previous 2 weeks, while new cases in the West dropped in the last week. At the state level, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont again reported the largest percent increases, with Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico also above average, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show similar trends for both emergency department visits and hospital admissions, as both have risen in November after declines that began in late August and early September.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is 6.77 million since the pandemic began, based on the AAP/CHA accounting of state cases, although Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer, suggesting the actual number is higher. The CDC puts the total number of COVID cases in children at 5.96 million, but there are age discrepancies between the CDC and the AAP/CHA’s state-based data.

The vaccine gap is closing

Vaccinations among the recently eligible 5- to 11-year-olds have steadily increased following a somewhat slow start. The initial pace was behind that of the 12- to 15-years-olds through the first postapproval week but has since closed the gap, based on data from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The tally of children who received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine among the 5- to 11-year-olds was behind the older group by almost 1.2 million on day 7 after the CDC’s Nov. 2 approval, but by day 18 the deficit was down to about 650,000, the CDC reported.

Altogether, just over 3 million children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, which is 10.7% of that age group’s total population. Among children aged 12-17, the proportions are 60.7% with at least one dose and 51.1% at full vaccination. Children aged 5-11, who make up 8.7% of the total U.S. population, represented 42.8% of all vaccinations initiated over the 2 weeks ending Nov. 21, compared with 4.2% for those aged 12-17, the CDC said.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 increased in children for the third consecutive week, while vaccinations among 5- to 11-year-olds continued to steadily increase, according to new data.

There were almost 142,000 new cases reported during the week of Nov. 12-18, marking an increase of 16% over the previous week and the 15th straight week with a weekly total over 100,000, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said.

Regional data show that the Midwest has experienced the largest share of this latest surge, followed by the Northeast. Cases increased in the South during the week of Nov. 12-18 after holding steady over the previous 2 weeks, while new cases in the West dropped in the last week. At the state level, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont again reported the largest percent increases, with Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico also above average, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show similar trends for both emergency department visits and hospital admissions, as both have risen in November after declines that began in late August and early September.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is 6.77 million since the pandemic began, based on the AAP/CHA accounting of state cases, although Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer, suggesting the actual number is higher. The CDC puts the total number of COVID cases in children at 5.96 million, but there are age discrepancies between the CDC and the AAP/CHA’s state-based data.

The vaccine gap is closing

Vaccinations among the recently eligible 5- to 11-year-olds have steadily increased following a somewhat slow start. The initial pace was behind that of the 12- to 15-years-olds through the first postapproval week but has since closed the gap, based on data from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The tally of children who received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine among the 5- to 11-year-olds was behind the older group by almost 1.2 million on day 7 after the CDC’s Nov. 2 approval, but by day 18 the deficit was down to about 650,000, the CDC reported.

Altogether, just over 3 million children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, which is 10.7% of that age group’s total population. Among children aged 12-17, the proportions are 60.7% with at least one dose and 51.1% at full vaccination. Children aged 5-11, who make up 8.7% of the total U.S. population, represented 42.8% of all vaccinations initiated over the 2 weeks ending Nov. 21, compared with 4.2% for those aged 12-17, the CDC said.

[email protected]

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concomitant rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (RSsNP) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with a poorer, disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a Norwegian study is showing.

“Chronic rhinosinusitis has an impact on patients’ HRQoL,” lead author Marte Rystad Øie, Trondheim (Norway) University Hospital, said in an interview.

“We found that RSsNP in COPD was associated with more psychological issues, higher COPD symptom burden, and overall COPD-related HRQoL after adjusting for lung function, so RSsNP does have clinical relevance and [our findings] support previous studies that have suggested that rhinosinusitis should be recognized as a comorbidity in COPD,” she emphasized.

The study was published in the Nov. 1 issue of Respiratory Medicine.
 

Study sample

The study sample consisted of 90 patients with COPD and 93 control subjects, all age 40-80 years. “Generic HRQoL was measured with the Norwegian version of the SF-36v2 Health Survey Standard questionnaire,” the authors wrote, and responses were compared between patients with COPD and controls as well as between subgroups of patients who had COPD both with and without RSsNP.

Disease-specific HRQoL was assessed by the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22); the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and responses were again compared between patients who had COPD with and without RSsNP. In the COPD group, “severe” and “very severe” airflow obstruction was present in 56.5% of patients with RSsNP compared with 38.6% of patients without RSsNP, as Ms. Øie reported.

Furthermore, total SNOT-22 along with psychological subscale scores were both significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without RSsNP. Among those with RSsNP, the mean value of the total SNOT-22 score was 36.8 whereas the mean value of the psychological subscale score was 22.6. Comparable mean values among patients who had COPD without RSsNP were 9.5 and 6.5, respectively (P < .05).

Total scores on the SGRQ were again significantly greater in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 43.3 compared with a mean of 34 in those without RSsNP, investigators observe. Similarly, scores for the symptom and activity domains again on the SGRQ were significantly greater for patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without nasal polyps. As for the total CAT score, once again it was significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 18.8 compared with a mean of 13.5 in those without RSsNP (P < .05).

Indeed, patients with RSsNP were four times more likely to have CAT scores indicating the condition was having a high or very high impact on their HRQoL compared with patients without RSsNP (P < .001). As the authors pointed out, having a high impact on HRQoL translates into patients having to stop their desired activities and having no good days in the week.

“This suggests that having RSsNP substantially adds to the activity limitation experienced by patients with COPD,” they emphasized. The authors also found that RSsNP was significantly associated with poorer physical functioning after adjusting for COPD as reflected by SF-36v2 findings, again suggesting that patients who had COPD with concomitant RSsNP have an additional limitation in activity and a heavier symptom burden.

As Ms. Øie explained, rhinosinusitis has two clinical phenotypes: that with nasal polyps and that without nasal polyps, the latter being twice as prevalent. In fact, rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is associated with asthma, as she pointed out. Given, however, that rhinosinusitis without polyps is amenable to treatment with daily use of nasal steroids, it is possible to reduce the burden of symptoms and psychological stress associated with RSsNP in COPD.

Limitations of the study include the fact that investigators did not assess patients for the presence of any comorbidities that could contribute to poorer HRQoL in this patient population.

The study was funded by Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concomitant rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (RSsNP) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with a poorer, disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a Norwegian study is showing.

“Chronic rhinosinusitis has an impact on patients’ HRQoL,” lead author Marte Rystad Øie, Trondheim (Norway) University Hospital, said in an interview.

“We found that RSsNP in COPD was associated with more psychological issues, higher COPD symptom burden, and overall COPD-related HRQoL after adjusting for lung function, so RSsNP does have clinical relevance and [our findings] support previous studies that have suggested that rhinosinusitis should be recognized as a comorbidity in COPD,” she emphasized.

The study was published in the Nov. 1 issue of Respiratory Medicine.
 

Study sample

The study sample consisted of 90 patients with COPD and 93 control subjects, all age 40-80 years. “Generic HRQoL was measured with the Norwegian version of the SF-36v2 Health Survey Standard questionnaire,” the authors wrote, and responses were compared between patients with COPD and controls as well as between subgroups of patients who had COPD both with and without RSsNP.

Disease-specific HRQoL was assessed by the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22); the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and responses were again compared between patients who had COPD with and without RSsNP. In the COPD group, “severe” and “very severe” airflow obstruction was present in 56.5% of patients with RSsNP compared with 38.6% of patients without RSsNP, as Ms. Øie reported.

Furthermore, total SNOT-22 along with psychological subscale scores were both significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without RSsNP. Among those with RSsNP, the mean value of the total SNOT-22 score was 36.8 whereas the mean value of the psychological subscale score was 22.6. Comparable mean values among patients who had COPD without RSsNP were 9.5 and 6.5, respectively (P < .05).

Total scores on the SGRQ were again significantly greater in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 43.3 compared with a mean of 34 in those without RSsNP, investigators observe. Similarly, scores for the symptom and activity domains again on the SGRQ were significantly greater for patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without nasal polyps. As for the total CAT score, once again it was significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 18.8 compared with a mean of 13.5 in those without RSsNP (P < .05).

Indeed, patients with RSsNP were four times more likely to have CAT scores indicating the condition was having a high or very high impact on their HRQoL compared with patients without RSsNP (P < .001). As the authors pointed out, having a high impact on HRQoL translates into patients having to stop their desired activities and having no good days in the week.

“This suggests that having RSsNP substantially adds to the activity limitation experienced by patients with COPD,” they emphasized. The authors also found that RSsNP was significantly associated with poorer physical functioning after adjusting for COPD as reflected by SF-36v2 findings, again suggesting that patients who had COPD with concomitant RSsNP have an additional limitation in activity and a heavier symptom burden.

As Ms. Øie explained, rhinosinusitis has two clinical phenotypes: that with nasal polyps and that without nasal polyps, the latter being twice as prevalent. In fact, rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is associated with asthma, as she pointed out. Given, however, that rhinosinusitis without polyps is amenable to treatment with daily use of nasal steroids, it is possible to reduce the burden of symptoms and psychological stress associated with RSsNP in COPD.

Limitations of the study include the fact that investigators did not assess patients for the presence of any comorbidities that could contribute to poorer HRQoL in this patient population.

The study was funded by Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concomitant rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (RSsNP) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with a poorer, disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a Norwegian study is showing.

“Chronic rhinosinusitis has an impact on patients’ HRQoL,” lead author Marte Rystad Øie, Trondheim (Norway) University Hospital, said in an interview.

“We found that RSsNP in COPD was associated with more psychological issues, higher COPD symptom burden, and overall COPD-related HRQoL after adjusting for lung function, so RSsNP does have clinical relevance and [our findings] support previous studies that have suggested that rhinosinusitis should be recognized as a comorbidity in COPD,” she emphasized.

The study was published in the Nov. 1 issue of Respiratory Medicine.
 

Study sample

The study sample consisted of 90 patients with COPD and 93 control subjects, all age 40-80 years. “Generic HRQoL was measured with the Norwegian version of the SF-36v2 Health Survey Standard questionnaire,” the authors wrote, and responses were compared between patients with COPD and controls as well as between subgroups of patients who had COPD both with and without RSsNP.

Disease-specific HRQoL was assessed by the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22); the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and responses were again compared between patients who had COPD with and without RSsNP. In the COPD group, “severe” and “very severe” airflow obstruction was present in 56.5% of patients with RSsNP compared with 38.6% of patients without RSsNP, as Ms. Øie reported.

Furthermore, total SNOT-22 along with psychological subscale scores were both significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without RSsNP. Among those with RSsNP, the mean value of the total SNOT-22 score was 36.8 whereas the mean value of the psychological subscale score was 22.6. Comparable mean values among patients who had COPD without RSsNP were 9.5 and 6.5, respectively (P < .05).

Total scores on the SGRQ were again significantly greater in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 43.3 compared with a mean of 34 in those without RSsNP, investigators observe. Similarly, scores for the symptom and activity domains again on the SGRQ were significantly greater for patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without nasal polyps. As for the total CAT score, once again it was significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 18.8 compared with a mean of 13.5 in those without RSsNP (P < .05).

Indeed, patients with RSsNP were four times more likely to have CAT scores indicating the condition was having a high or very high impact on their HRQoL compared with patients without RSsNP (P < .001). As the authors pointed out, having a high impact on HRQoL translates into patients having to stop their desired activities and having no good days in the week.

“This suggests that having RSsNP substantially adds to the activity limitation experienced by patients with COPD,” they emphasized. The authors also found that RSsNP was significantly associated with poorer physical functioning after adjusting for COPD as reflected by SF-36v2 findings, again suggesting that patients who had COPD with concomitant RSsNP have an additional limitation in activity and a heavier symptom burden.

As Ms. Øie explained, rhinosinusitis has two clinical phenotypes: that with nasal polyps and that without nasal polyps, the latter being twice as prevalent. In fact, rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is associated with asthma, as she pointed out. Given, however, that rhinosinusitis without polyps is amenable to treatment with daily use of nasal steroids, it is possible to reduce the burden of symptoms and psychological stress associated with RSsNP in COPD.

Limitations of the study include the fact that investigators did not assess patients for the presence of any comorbidities that could contribute to poorer HRQoL in this patient population.

The study was funded by Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When you have to help a parent choose a nursing home or you need nursing home care yourself, you can consult a health care professional, talk to friends, or look at the Nursing Home Compare website of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The CMS website includes star ratings for each nursing home, both overall and on health inspections, staffing and certain quality measures.

But what you might not know is what financial incentives a particular nursing home might have to provide high-quality care, depending on what kind of entity owns the facility.

A study published Nov. 19 in JAMA Health Forum throws light on at least one aspect of the ownership question: What happens when a private equity (PE) firm acquires a nursing home? According to the study, you can expect a somewhat lower level of quality in a PE-owned nursing home than in other for-profit facilities.

The researchers compared CMS data on 302 nursing homes owned by 79 PE firms to data on 9,562 for-profit facilities not owned by such companies from 2013 to 2017. Among fee-for-service Medicare patients in long-term care, private equity acquisitions of nursing homes were associated with an 11.1% increase in ambulatory-care-sensitive (ACS) visits to the emergency department (ED) and an 8.7% increase in ACS hospitalizations per quarter, compared to the changes that occurred in the non-PE-owned facilities, they found.

What’s more, Medicare costs per beneficiary increased 3.9% more – or about $1,000 a year – in the PE-owned nursing homes than they did in the other cohort during the study period.

And when the acquired nursing homes were compared to the nursing homes prior to their acquisition by PE firms, there were no statistically significant differences in unadjusted outcomes, the researchers found. That means the two cohorts were broadly comparable.

The researchers adjusted the numbers in their study for various characteristics of the facilities and their residents. For example, the PE-acquired nursing homes were likely to have a higher percentage of patients covered by Medicare and a lower percentage covered by Medicaid than their non-PE counterparts.

The mean percentages of Black residents, female residents, and residents aged 85 or older were 12.4%, 65.4%, and 36.2%, respectively, for the PE-owned nursing homes and 15.7%, 67.8%, and 39%, respectively, for the non–PE-owned facilities.
 

Less than optimal outcomes

On average, the residents of non–PE-owned nursing homes had better outcomes than did the patients in the PE-owned facilities. But that doesn’t mean that the average for-profit nursing home had terrific outcomes.

For all the nursing homes in the study, the mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1%, and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3%.

“These events should be largely, although not completely, preventable with appropriate care,” the researchers pointed out.

To date, PE firms have invested about $750 billion in U.S. health care, with nursing homes being a major target of these companies, which currently own 5% of skilled nursing facilities, per the study. PE companies seek annual returns of 20% or more, the paper says, and thus feel pressure to generate high short-term profits. That could lead to reduced staffing, services, supplies, or equipment in their facilities.

Some nursing homes purchased by PE firms may be responsible for the debt incurred in their own leveraged buyouts, the researchers noted. There is also concern that PE firms may focus their properties disproportionately on short-term post-acute care, which is reimbursed at a higher rate than long-term care, the study says.

For all these reasons, some health policy makers are concerned about the long-term impact of private-equity nursing home acquisitions, according to the study.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

When you have to help a parent choose a nursing home or you need nursing home care yourself, you can consult a health care professional, talk to friends, or look at the Nursing Home Compare website of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The CMS website includes star ratings for each nursing home, both overall and on health inspections, staffing and certain quality measures.

But what you might not know is what financial incentives a particular nursing home might have to provide high-quality care, depending on what kind of entity owns the facility.

A study published Nov. 19 in JAMA Health Forum throws light on at least one aspect of the ownership question: What happens when a private equity (PE) firm acquires a nursing home? According to the study, you can expect a somewhat lower level of quality in a PE-owned nursing home than in other for-profit facilities.

The researchers compared CMS data on 302 nursing homes owned by 79 PE firms to data on 9,562 for-profit facilities not owned by such companies from 2013 to 2017. Among fee-for-service Medicare patients in long-term care, private equity acquisitions of nursing homes were associated with an 11.1% increase in ambulatory-care-sensitive (ACS) visits to the emergency department (ED) and an 8.7% increase in ACS hospitalizations per quarter, compared to the changes that occurred in the non-PE-owned facilities, they found.

What’s more, Medicare costs per beneficiary increased 3.9% more – or about $1,000 a year – in the PE-owned nursing homes than they did in the other cohort during the study period.

And when the acquired nursing homes were compared to the nursing homes prior to their acquisition by PE firms, there were no statistically significant differences in unadjusted outcomes, the researchers found. That means the two cohorts were broadly comparable.

The researchers adjusted the numbers in their study for various characteristics of the facilities and their residents. For example, the PE-acquired nursing homes were likely to have a higher percentage of patients covered by Medicare and a lower percentage covered by Medicaid than their non-PE counterparts.

The mean percentages of Black residents, female residents, and residents aged 85 or older were 12.4%, 65.4%, and 36.2%, respectively, for the PE-owned nursing homes and 15.7%, 67.8%, and 39%, respectively, for the non–PE-owned facilities.
 

Less than optimal outcomes

On average, the residents of non–PE-owned nursing homes had better outcomes than did the patients in the PE-owned facilities. But that doesn’t mean that the average for-profit nursing home had terrific outcomes.

For all the nursing homes in the study, the mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1%, and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3%.

“These events should be largely, although not completely, preventable with appropriate care,” the researchers pointed out.

To date, PE firms have invested about $750 billion in U.S. health care, with nursing homes being a major target of these companies, which currently own 5% of skilled nursing facilities, per the study. PE companies seek annual returns of 20% or more, the paper says, and thus feel pressure to generate high short-term profits. That could lead to reduced staffing, services, supplies, or equipment in their facilities.

Some nursing homes purchased by PE firms may be responsible for the debt incurred in their own leveraged buyouts, the researchers noted. There is also concern that PE firms may focus their properties disproportionately on short-term post-acute care, which is reimbursed at a higher rate than long-term care, the study says.

For all these reasons, some health policy makers are concerned about the long-term impact of private-equity nursing home acquisitions, according to the study.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

When you have to help a parent choose a nursing home or you need nursing home care yourself, you can consult a health care professional, talk to friends, or look at the Nursing Home Compare website of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The CMS website includes star ratings for each nursing home, both overall and on health inspections, staffing and certain quality measures.

But what you might not know is what financial incentives a particular nursing home might have to provide high-quality care, depending on what kind of entity owns the facility.

A study published Nov. 19 in JAMA Health Forum throws light on at least one aspect of the ownership question: What happens when a private equity (PE) firm acquires a nursing home? According to the study, you can expect a somewhat lower level of quality in a PE-owned nursing home than in other for-profit facilities.

The researchers compared CMS data on 302 nursing homes owned by 79 PE firms to data on 9,562 for-profit facilities not owned by such companies from 2013 to 2017. Among fee-for-service Medicare patients in long-term care, private equity acquisitions of nursing homes were associated with an 11.1% increase in ambulatory-care-sensitive (ACS) visits to the emergency department (ED) and an 8.7% increase in ACS hospitalizations per quarter, compared to the changes that occurred in the non-PE-owned facilities, they found.

What’s more, Medicare costs per beneficiary increased 3.9% more – or about $1,000 a year – in the PE-owned nursing homes than they did in the other cohort during the study period.

And when the acquired nursing homes were compared to the nursing homes prior to their acquisition by PE firms, there were no statistically significant differences in unadjusted outcomes, the researchers found. That means the two cohorts were broadly comparable.

The researchers adjusted the numbers in their study for various characteristics of the facilities and their residents. For example, the PE-acquired nursing homes were likely to have a higher percentage of patients covered by Medicare and a lower percentage covered by Medicaid than their non-PE counterparts.

The mean percentages of Black residents, female residents, and residents aged 85 or older were 12.4%, 65.4%, and 36.2%, respectively, for the PE-owned nursing homes and 15.7%, 67.8%, and 39%, respectively, for the non–PE-owned facilities.
 

Less than optimal outcomes

On average, the residents of non–PE-owned nursing homes had better outcomes than did the patients in the PE-owned facilities. But that doesn’t mean that the average for-profit nursing home had terrific outcomes.

For all the nursing homes in the study, the mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1%, and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3%.

“These events should be largely, although not completely, preventable with appropriate care,” the researchers pointed out.

To date, PE firms have invested about $750 billion in U.S. health care, with nursing homes being a major target of these companies, which currently own 5% of skilled nursing facilities, per the study. PE companies seek annual returns of 20% or more, the paper says, and thus feel pressure to generate high short-term profits. That could lead to reduced staffing, services, supplies, or equipment in their facilities.

Some nursing homes purchased by PE firms may be responsible for the debt incurred in their own leveraged buyouts, the researchers noted. There is also concern that PE firms may focus their properties disproportionately on short-term post-acute care, which is reimbursed at a higher rate than long-term care, the study says.

For all these reasons, some health policy makers are concerned about the long-term impact of private-equity nursing home acquisitions, according to the study.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Everyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to receive a booster of their COVID-19 vaccines, according to a panel of experts that advises CDC on its vaccine recommendations.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.

They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.

The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.

More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one.  About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.

In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.

Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older.  But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own.  Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.

Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.

He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.

Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”

“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.

The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.

Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine.   Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.

The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick.  Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster.  Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.

The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary.  Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot.  Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.

Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given.  There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS.  So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination.  Most of the reported cases are still being studied.

Everyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to receive a booster of their COVID-19 vaccines, according to a panel of experts that advises CDC on its vaccine recommendations.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.

They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.

The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.

More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one.  About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.

In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.

Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older.  But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own.  Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.

Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.

He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.

Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”

“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.

The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.

Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine.   Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.

The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick.  Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster.  Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.

The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary.  Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot.  Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.

Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given.  There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS.  So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination.  Most of the reported cases are still being studied.

Everyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to receive a booster of their COVID-19 vaccines, according to a panel of experts that advises CDC on its vaccine recommendations.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.

They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.

The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.

More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one.  About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.

In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.

Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older.  But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own.  Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.

Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.

He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.

Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”

“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.

The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.

Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine.   Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.

The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick.  Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster.  Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.

The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary.  Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot.  Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.

Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given.  There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS.  So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination.  Most of the reported cases are still being studied.

Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.

Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.

“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.

Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.

“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.

Discrimination can lead to particularly harmful outcomes for young adults entering college or starting off their careers, according to a new University of California, Los Angeles, study.

Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.

Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.

“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”

Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.

When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
 

Acknowledge the impact

Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).

Many Black people even normalize it.

“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.

And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.

“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.

It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.

“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
 

Embrace your emotions

Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.

He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.

“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.

“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”

This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.

“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.

It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.

This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.

Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.

Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.

“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.

“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
 

Utilize unique

If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.

Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.

“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.

Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.

No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.

“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.

“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.

Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.

“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.

Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.

“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.

Discrimination can lead to particularly harmful outcomes for young adults entering college or starting off their careers, according to a new University of California, Los Angeles, study.

Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.

Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.

“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”

Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.

When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
 

Acknowledge the impact

Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).

Many Black people even normalize it.

“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.

And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.

“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.

It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.

“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
 

Embrace your emotions

Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.

He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.

“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.

“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”

This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.

“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.

It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.

This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.

Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.

Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.

“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.

“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
 

Utilize unique

If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.

Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.

“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.

Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.

No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.

“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.

“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.

Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.

“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.

Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.

“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.

Discrimination can lead to particularly harmful outcomes for young adults entering college or starting off their careers, according to a new University of California, Los Angeles, study.

Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.

Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.

“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”

Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.

When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
 

Acknowledge the impact

Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).

Many Black people even normalize it.

“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.

And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.

“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.

It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.

“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
 

Embrace your emotions

Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.

He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.

“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.

“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”

This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.

“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.

It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.

This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.

Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.

Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.

“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.

“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
 

Utilize unique

If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.

Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.

“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.

Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.

No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.

“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.

“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.