User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
COVID-19 update: Transmission 5% or less among close contacts
The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.
, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.
Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.
Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.
The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.
Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.
It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.
Meanwhile, there’s been no evidence of perinatal transmission; the virus has not been detected in amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swabs, or breast milk. Maternal morbidity appears to be similar to uninfected women. “The data around pregnancy are reassuring,” said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officers for HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, who has been involved with CDC’s containment efforts.
There’s no data yet for immunocompromised people, but for people with HIV, he said, “we think the risk of severe illness would be greater” with lower CD4 counts and unsuppressed viral loads. “People living with HIV should take precautions against this new virus,” including having at least a 30-day supply of HIV medications; keeping up flu and pneumonia vaccinations; and having a care plan if quarantined. Setting up telemedicine might be a good idea.
The usual incubation period for COVID-19 is 4-6 days but can be longer. Recovery time is about 2 weeks in mild cases and 3-6 weeks in more severe cases. People who die do so within 2 months of symptom onset.
The most common symptoms among hospitalized patients in China are fever, dry cough, fatigue, and headache. Truly asymptomatic cases are not common; most go on to develop symptoms. There have been reports of diarrhea before other symptoms by a day or two, but it’s probably a red herring. The virus has been isolated from stool, but there is no evidence of fecal-oral transmission, Dr. Wu said.
Eighty percent of COVID-19 cases are mild or moderate and most patients recover spontaneously, especially middle aged and younger people. There is no meaningful difference in distribution between the sexes.
There are limited pediatric data perhaps due to underreporting, “but we know [children] experience milder illness than adults,” the CDC’s Dr. Brooks said.
He pegged the latest case fatality estimate at 0.5% to 3.5%, which is considerably higher than seasonal flu, but might well drop as more mild cases are detected and added to the denominator, he said.
For now, death rates top 5% in adults over 60 years old and climb further with increasing age, approaching 16% in people 80 years or older. Patients with hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory illness are at increased risk. The ultimate cause of death is acute respiratory distress syndrome, said Ralph Baric, PhD, a coronavirus expert and epidemiology professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who also presented at the meeting.
Several drug and vaccine candidates are under study for the infection. An intriguing possibility is that angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors might help. Hypertension is a known risk factor for severe infection; the virus makes use of ACE receptor pathways to infect airway epithelial cells; and there have been reports of ACE inhibitors having effect against the virus that caused severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another coronavirus outbreak in 2003.
“I think it’s a very good idea to go back and re-explore use of these drugs,” Dr. Baric said.
The presenters didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.
, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.
Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.
Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.
The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.
Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.
It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.
Meanwhile, there’s been no evidence of perinatal transmission; the virus has not been detected in amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swabs, or breast milk. Maternal morbidity appears to be similar to uninfected women. “The data around pregnancy are reassuring,” said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officers for HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, who has been involved with CDC’s containment efforts.
There’s no data yet for immunocompromised people, but for people with HIV, he said, “we think the risk of severe illness would be greater” with lower CD4 counts and unsuppressed viral loads. “People living with HIV should take precautions against this new virus,” including having at least a 30-day supply of HIV medications; keeping up flu and pneumonia vaccinations; and having a care plan if quarantined. Setting up telemedicine might be a good idea.
The usual incubation period for COVID-19 is 4-6 days but can be longer. Recovery time is about 2 weeks in mild cases and 3-6 weeks in more severe cases. People who die do so within 2 months of symptom onset.
The most common symptoms among hospitalized patients in China are fever, dry cough, fatigue, and headache. Truly asymptomatic cases are not common; most go on to develop symptoms. There have been reports of diarrhea before other symptoms by a day or two, but it’s probably a red herring. The virus has been isolated from stool, but there is no evidence of fecal-oral transmission, Dr. Wu said.
Eighty percent of COVID-19 cases are mild or moderate and most patients recover spontaneously, especially middle aged and younger people. There is no meaningful difference in distribution between the sexes.
There are limited pediatric data perhaps due to underreporting, “but we know [children] experience milder illness than adults,” the CDC’s Dr. Brooks said.
He pegged the latest case fatality estimate at 0.5% to 3.5%, which is considerably higher than seasonal flu, but might well drop as more mild cases are detected and added to the denominator, he said.
For now, death rates top 5% in adults over 60 years old and climb further with increasing age, approaching 16% in people 80 years or older. Patients with hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory illness are at increased risk. The ultimate cause of death is acute respiratory distress syndrome, said Ralph Baric, PhD, a coronavirus expert and epidemiology professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who also presented at the meeting.
Several drug and vaccine candidates are under study for the infection. An intriguing possibility is that angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors might help. Hypertension is a known risk factor for severe infection; the virus makes use of ACE receptor pathways to infect airway epithelial cells; and there have been reports of ACE inhibitors having effect against the virus that caused severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another coronavirus outbreak in 2003.
“I think it’s a very good idea to go back and re-explore use of these drugs,” Dr. Baric said.
The presenters didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.
, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.
Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.
Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.
The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.
Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.
It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.
Meanwhile, there’s been no evidence of perinatal transmission; the virus has not been detected in amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swabs, or breast milk. Maternal morbidity appears to be similar to uninfected women. “The data around pregnancy are reassuring,” said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officers for HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, who has been involved with CDC’s containment efforts.
There’s no data yet for immunocompromised people, but for people with HIV, he said, “we think the risk of severe illness would be greater” with lower CD4 counts and unsuppressed viral loads. “People living with HIV should take precautions against this new virus,” including having at least a 30-day supply of HIV medications; keeping up flu and pneumonia vaccinations; and having a care plan if quarantined. Setting up telemedicine might be a good idea.
The usual incubation period for COVID-19 is 4-6 days but can be longer. Recovery time is about 2 weeks in mild cases and 3-6 weeks in more severe cases. People who die do so within 2 months of symptom onset.
The most common symptoms among hospitalized patients in China are fever, dry cough, fatigue, and headache. Truly asymptomatic cases are not common; most go on to develop symptoms. There have been reports of diarrhea before other symptoms by a day or two, but it’s probably a red herring. The virus has been isolated from stool, but there is no evidence of fecal-oral transmission, Dr. Wu said.
Eighty percent of COVID-19 cases are mild or moderate and most patients recover spontaneously, especially middle aged and younger people. There is no meaningful difference in distribution between the sexes.
There are limited pediatric data perhaps due to underreporting, “but we know [children] experience milder illness than adults,” the CDC’s Dr. Brooks said.
He pegged the latest case fatality estimate at 0.5% to 3.5%, which is considerably higher than seasonal flu, but might well drop as more mild cases are detected and added to the denominator, he said.
For now, death rates top 5% in adults over 60 years old and climb further with increasing age, approaching 16% in people 80 years or older. Patients with hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory illness are at increased risk. The ultimate cause of death is acute respiratory distress syndrome, said Ralph Baric, PhD, a coronavirus expert and epidemiology professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who also presented at the meeting.
Several drug and vaccine candidates are under study for the infection. An intriguing possibility is that angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors might help. Hypertension is a known risk factor for severe infection; the virus makes use of ACE receptor pathways to infect airway epithelial cells; and there have been reports of ACE inhibitors having effect against the virus that caused severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another coronavirus outbreak in 2003.
“I think it’s a very good idea to go back and re-explore use of these drugs,” Dr. Baric said.
The presenters didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
FROM CROI 2020
FDA cancels or postpones meetings amid COVID-19 concerns
Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.
“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”
Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”
“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.
Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.
Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”
Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.
“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”
Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”
“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.
Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.
Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”
Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.
“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”
Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”
“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.
Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.
Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”
Know the 15% rule in scleroderma
MAUI, HAWAII – The 15% rule in scleroderma is a handy tool that raises awareness of the disease’s associated prevalence of various severe organ complications so clinicians can screen appropriately, Janet Pope, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Pope and colleagues in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group developed the 15% rule because they recognized that scleroderma is rare enough that most physicians practicing outside of a few specialized centers don’t see many affected patients. The systemic autoimmune disease is marked by numerous possible expressions of vascular inflammation and malfunction, fibrosis, and autoimmunity in different organ systems.
“A lot of clinicians do not know how common this stuff is,” according to Dr. Pope, professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario and head of the division of rheumatology at St. Joseph’s Health Center in London, Ont.
Basically, the 15% rule holds that, at any given time, a patient with scleroderma has roughly a 15% chance – or one in six – of having any of an extensive array of severe organ complications. That means a 15% chance of having prevalent clinically significant pulmonary hypertension as defined by a systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 45 mm Hg or more on Doppler echocardiography, a 15% likelihood of interstitial lung disease or clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis as suggested by a forced vital capacity less than 70% of predicted, a 15% prevalence of Sjögren’s syndrome, a 15% likelihood of having pulmonary artery hypertension upon right heart catheterization, a 15% chance of inflammatory arthritis, and a one-in-six chance of having a myopathy or myositis. Also, diastolic dysfunction, 15%. Ditto symptomatic arrhythmias.
“It’s a good little rule of thumb,” Dr. Pope commented.
The odds of having a current digital ulcer on any given day? Again, about 15%. In addition, scleroderma patients have a 15% lifetime risk of developing a complicated digital ulcer requiring hospitalization and/or amputation, she continued.
And while the prevalence of scleroderma renal crisis in the overall population with scleroderma is low, at 3%, in the subgroup with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, it climbs to 12%-15%.
Every rule has its exceptions. The 15% rule doesn’t apply to Raynaud’s phenomenon, which is present in nearly all patients with scleroderma, nor to gastroesophageal reflux disease or dysphagia, present in roughly 80% of patients.
Dr. Pope and coinvestigators developed the 15% rule pertaining to the prevalence of serious organ complications in scleroderma by conducting a systematic review of 69 published studies, each including a minimum of 50 scleroderma patients. The detailed results of the systematic review have been published.
Dr. Pope reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – The 15% rule in scleroderma is a handy tool that raises awareness of the disease’s associated prevalence of various severe organ complications so clinicians can screen appropriately, Janet Pope, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Pope and colleagues in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group developed the 15% rule because they recognized that scleroderma is rare enough that most physicians practicing outside of a few specialized centers don’t see many affected patients. The systemic autoimmune disease is marked by numerous possible expressions of vascular inflammation and malfunction, fibrosis, and autoimmunity in different organ systems.
“A lot of clinicians do not know how common this stuff is,” according to Dr. Pope, professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario and head of the division of rheumatology at St. Joseph’s Health Center in London, Ont.
Basically, the 15% rule holds that, at any given time, a patient with scleroderma has roughly a 15% chance – or one in six – of having any of an extensive array of severe organ complications. That means a 15% chance of having prevalent clinically significant pulmonary hypertension as defined by a systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 45 mm Hg or more on Doppler echocardiography, a 15% likelihood of interstitial lung disease or clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis as suggested by a forced vital capacity less than 70% of predicted, a 15% prevalence of Sjögren’s syndrome, a 15% likelihood of having pulmonary artery hypertension upon right heart catheterization, a 15% chance of inflammatory arthritis, and a one-in-six chance of having a myopathy or myositis. Also, diastolic dysfunction, 15%. Ditto symptomatic arrhythmias.
“It’s a good little rule of thumb,” Dr. Pope commented.
The odds of having a current digital ulcer on any given day? Again, about 15%. In addition, scleroderma patients have a 15% lifetime risk of developing a complicated digital ulcer requiring hospitalization and/or amputation, she continued.
And while the prevalence of scleroderma renal crisis in the overall population with scleroderma is low, at 3%, in the subgroup with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, it climbs to 12%-15%.
Every rule has its exceptions. The 15% rule doesn’t apply to Raynaud’s phenomenon, which is present in nearly all patients with scleroderma, nor to gastroesophageal reflux disease or dysphagia, present in roughly 80% of patients.
Dr. Pope and coinvestigators developed the 15% rule pertaining to the prevalence of serious organ complications in scleroderma by conducting a systematic review of 69 published studies, each including a minimum of 50 scleroderma patients. The detailed results of the systematic review have been published.
Dr. Pope reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – The 15% rule in scleroderma is a handy tool that raises awareness of the disease’s associated prevalence of various severe organ complications so clinicians can screen appropriately, Janet Pope, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Pope and colleagues in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group developed the 15% rule because they recognized that scleroderma is rare enough that most physicians practicing outside of a few specialized centers don’t see many affected patients. The systemic autoimmune disease is marked by numerous possible expressions of vascular inflammation and malfunction, fibrosis, and autoimmunity in different organ systems.
“A lot of clinicians do not know how common this stuff is,” according to Dr. Pope, professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario and head of the division of rheumatology at St. Joseph’s Health Center in London, Ont.
Basically, the 15% rule holds that, at any given time, a patient with scleroderma has roughly a 15% chance – or one in six – of having any of an extensive array of severe organ complications. That means a 15% chance of having prevalent clinically significant pulmonary hypertension as defined by a systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 45 mm Hg or more on Doppler echocardiography, a 15% likelihood of interstitial lung disease or clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis as suggested by a forced vital capacity less than 70% of predicted, a 15% prevalence of Sjögren’s syndrome, a 15% likelihood of having pulmonary artery hypertension upon right heart catheterization, a 15% chance of inflammatory arthritis, and a one-in-six chance of having a myopathy or myositis. Also, diastolic dysfunction, 15%. Ditto symptomatic arrhythmias.
“It’s a good little rule of thumb,” Dr. Pope commented.
The odds of having a current digital ulcer on any given day? Again, about 15%. In addition, scleroderma patients have a 15% lifetime risk of developing a complicated digital ulcer requiring hospitalization and/or amputation, she continued.
And while the prevalence of scleroderma renal crisis in the overall population with scleroderma is low, at 3%, in the subgroup with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, it climbs to 12%-15%.
Every rule has its exceptions. The 15% rule doesn’t apply to Raynaud’s phenomenon, which is present in nearly all patients with scleroderma, nor to gastroesophageal reflux disease or dysphagia, present in roughly 80% of patients.
Dr. Pope and coinvestigators developed the 15% rule pertaining to the prevalence of serious organ complications in scleroderma by conducting a systematic review of 69 published studies, each including a minimum of 50 scleroderma patients. The detailed results of the systematic review have been published.
Dr. Pope reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2020
In Memoriam
CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.
We extend our sincere condolences.
Nana Sunarya, MD (2019)
Michael Grant Ehrie Jr., MD (2019)
Robert F. Dunton, MD, FCCP (2020)
CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.
We extend our sincere condolences.
Nana Sunarya, MD (2019)
Michael Grant Ehrie Jr., MD (2019)
Robert F. Dunton, MD, FCCP (2020)
CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.
We extend our sincere condolences.
Nana Sunarya, MD (2019)
Michael Grant Ehrie Jr., MD (2019)
Robert F. Dunton, MD, FCCP (2020)
Disaster response. Medicare billing. Lung transplantation. Asthma.
Disaster response and global health
Corona virus and disaster preparedness campaign
On January 28, 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a travel advisory recommending against all nonessential travel to China, in light of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak.
Shortly thereafter, a plane that flew out of China was directed to land on a US air force base in California on Friday, January 31. Since then, other US government flights have evacuated patients to military bases throughout the country. The CDC issued a federal quarantine order lasting the 14-day incubation period to these repatriated US citizens. Nearby hospitals were debriefed and command centers set up in anticipation of any required intervention.
Initial diagnostic testing for 2019-nCoV could only be conducted at the CDC, but testing has recently become available at a larger number of laboratories via the CDC’s International Reagent Resource (IRR) network. Signs and symptoms that would warrant diagnostic testing include fever, cough, respiratory symptoms, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties, in the context of travel to China within the prior 14 days or a high-risk contact with an ill patient. Severe cases can lead to pneumonia, kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress, and death, with an in-hospital mortality of approximately 4% reported by clinicians in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak (Wang D, et al. JAMA. Published online February 07, 2020. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585).
The influenza vaccine will not protect against 2019-nCoV, and, currently, there is no available vaccine. The best prevention is to cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when coughing or sneezing. Surgical masks are not currently recommended as protection against 2019-nCoV. Hospitalized patients should be in negative-pressure rooms under respiratory and contact precautions, with gowns, gloves, eye protection, and either N95 masks or a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) worn by clinical staff. Human-to human transmission is reported both within and outside of China (Rothe C, et al. N Engl J Med. Published online, Jan 30, 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2001468).
Clinical updates are available via the CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html. Clinicians are advised to check frequently, given the rapidly changing state of this epidemic.
John Agapian, MD, MS, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
Practice operations
New Medicare billing rules bring welcome documentation relief
At the end of 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released several changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which will go into effect starting January 1, 2021. Though the adjustments are substantial (the document outlining the revisions is nearly 2,500 pages!), there are a few that deserve highlighting.
The most significant modification contained within the policy involves revisions to E/M codes for office visits. While the changes eliminate 99201, they preserve other graded levels for visits, with increases to the relative value units (RVUs) for most levels.
The most welcome changes for clinicians are twofold. First, billing no longer needs to be based on the maddening practice of trying to meet a minimum number of points from the history and exam. Clinicians can instead now bill based on time spent. The second refreshing modification is that time-based billing need no longer be solely face-to-face but can now be based on the realities of clinical practice today, ie, reviewing information and coordinating care with others.
Thus, these re-valued levels will allow outpatient physicians to bill based on time spent on things other than the office visit, such as time to review lab work and coordinate care with other specialties.
There will also be small changes to billing for pulmonary function testing, bronchoscopy (including the option for new indications for endobronchial valves), and for “brief communications via technology.” For a recap of these and other changes coming in January 2021, CHEST and ATS have produced a free webinar which is found online at: http://www.chestnet.org/Guidelines-and-Resources/Resources/Clinical-Practice-Resources.
Timothy Dempsey, MD, MPH
Steering Committee Fellow-in-Training
Deep Ramachandran, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
Transplant
Investigating clinical practice of lung transplantation in systemic sclerosis
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) as a sequela of systemic sclerosis (SSc) poses a significant health concern. Patients with SSc-ILD experience symptoms of shortness of breath, reduced exercise capacity, and limited activities of daily living. Inducing fibrotic parenchymal change and pulmonary hypertension, SSc-ILD presents as both the most common extra-cutaneous manifestation and cause for mortality in this cohort (Mathai et al. Springer. 2014;139). Although rare, the prognosis of SSc-ILD is both difficult to understand and complex to manage.
With lung transplant being a treatment for end stage pulmonary disease, the role for lung transplantation in SSc-ILD is considered; however, remains controversial. Published literature exist without consensus. According to the recommendations of ISHLT, SSc is to be “carefully selected,” however, for some institutions, SSc remains a relative contraindication for lung transplant as definitive therapy (Weill et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;34[1]:1). Disease-specific concerns for SSc patients following lung transplant are esophageal dysmotility, dysphagia, gastroparesis, aspiration, and reflux disease. These comorbidities are associated with worsening prognosis in transplant survival (De Cruz, et al. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013;25[6]:714).
As clinical practices vary significantly in the management of SSc-ILD, we will survey transplant pulmonologist and surgeons from programs listed in Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). We will evaluate transplant candidacy, preoperative transplant testing, postoperative transplant care, and outcomes. With this survey, we plan to determine the key practices of lung transplant programs regarding candidacy of patients with SSc-ILD perioperative management.
Clauden Louis, MD
Fellow-in-Training Member
Women’s lung health
Asthma and sex hormones
Overall asthma prevalence, severity, exacerbation rate, hospitalizations, and mortality are higher among women than men. Population studies show that asthma becomes more prevalent and severe in women following puberty, particularly in women with early menarche or multiple gestations. These findings suggest that sex hormones are important to the development and severity of asthma. Additional confounding variables include obesity, exposures, atopy, and age (Zien, et al. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015;15[6]:28).
Recent studies further define the gender disparity by detailing sex hormone differences in men and women with asthma. Han and colleagues recently reported on a cross-sectional study of serum-free testosterone and estradiol levels in over 7,000 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2013-2016) (Han, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201[2]:158).
Elevated free testosterone levels were associated with lower odds of current asthma in women. After stratification for obesity, elevated free testosterone and estradiol levels were associated with reduced odds of current asthma in obese women, and elevated estradiol was associated with lower odds of asthma in non-obese men. It should be noted that increased luteal phase progesterone levels have also been implicated in increasing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in asthmatics (Lipworth, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; Oct 22, 2019).
In summary, testosterone is suggested to provide a protective, anti-inflammatory effect in women with asthma (Sathish, et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2015;150:94). Obesity interaction with sex hormones highlights its role as an important risk factor and disease modifier (Peters, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141:1169). Future studies should continue to expand upon the role of sex hormones in relationship to multiple confounders. These insights will continue to define mechanisms that can be manipulated leading to novel pathway targeted therapies.
Candace Huebert, MD, FCCP
Margaret Pisani, MD, MPH, FCCP
Jill Poole, MD
Steering Committee Members
Disaster response and global health
Corona virus and disaster preparedness campaign
On January 28, 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a travel advisory recommending against all nonessential travel to China, in light of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak.
Shortly thereafter, a plane that flew out of China was directed to land on a US air force base in California on Friday, January 31. Since then, other US government flights have evacuated patients to military bases throughout the country. The CDC issued a federal quarantine order lasting the 14-day incubation period to these repatriated US citizens. Nearby hospitals were debriefed and command centers set up in anticipation of any required intervention.
Initial diagnostic testing for 2019-nCoV could only be conducted at the CDC, but testing has recently become available at a larger number of laboratories via the CDC’s International Reagent Resource (IRR) network. Signs and symptoms that would warrant diagnostic testing include fever, cough, respiratory symptoms, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties, in the context of travel to China within the prior 14 days or a high-risk contact with an ill patient. Severe cases can lead to pneumonia, kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress, and death, with an in-hospital mortality of approximately 4% reported by clinicians in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak (Wang D, et al. JAMA. Published online February 07, 2020. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585).
The influenza vaccine will not protect against 2019-nCoV, and, currently, there is no available vaccine. The best prevention is to cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when coughing or sneezing. Surgical masks are not currently recommended as protection against 2019-nCoV. Hospitalized patients should be in negative-pressure rooms under respiratory and contact precautions, with gowns, gloves, eye protection, and either N95 masks or a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) worn by clinical staff. Human-to human transmission is reported both within and outside of China (Rothe C, et al. N Engl J Med. Published online, Jan 30, 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2001468).
Clinical updates are available via the CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html. Clinicians are advised to check frequently, given the rapidly changing state of this epidemic.
John Agapian, MD, MS, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
Practice operations
New Medicare billing rules bring welcome documentation relief
At the end of 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released several changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which will go into effect starting January 1, 2021. Though the adjustments are substantial (the document outlining the revisions is nearly 2,500 pages!), there are a few that deserve highlighting.
The most significant modification contained within the policy involves revisions to E/M codes for office visits. While the changes eliminate 99201, they preserve other graded levels for visits, with increases to the relative value units (RVUs) for most levels.
The most welcome changes for clinicians are twofold. First, billing no longer needs to be based on the maddening practice of trying to meet a minimum number of points from the history and exam. Clinicians can instead now bill based on time spent. The second refreshing modification is that time-based billing need no longer be solely face-to-face but can now be based on the realities of clinical practice today, ie, reviewing information and coordinating care with others.
Thus, these re-valued levels will allow outpatient physicians to bill based on time spent on things other than the office visit, such as time to review lab work and coordinate care with other specialties.
There will also be small changes to billing for pulmonary function testing, bronchoscopy (including the option for new indications for endobronchial valves), and for “brief communications via technology.” For a recap of these and other changes coming in January 2021, CHEST and ATS have produced a free webinar which is found online at: http://www.chestnet.org/Guidelines-and-Resources/Resources/Clinical-Practice-Resources.
Timothy Dempsey, MD, MPH
Steering Committee Fellow-in-Training
Deep Ramachandran, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
Transplant
Investigating clinical practice of lung transplantation in systemic sclerosis
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) as a sequela of systemic sclerosis (SSc) poses a significant health concern. Patients with SSc-ILD experience symptoms of shortness of breath, reduced exercise capacity, and limited activities of daily living. Inducing fibrotic parenchymal change and pulmonary hypertension, SSc-ILD presents as both the most common extra-cutaneous manifestation and cause for mortality in this cohort (Mathai et al. Springer. 2014;139). Although rare, the prognosis of SSc-ILD is both difficult to understand and complex to manage.
With lung transplant being a treatment for end stage pulmonary disease, the role for lung transplantation in SSc-ILD is considered; however, remains controversial. Published literature exist without consensus. According to the recommendations of ISHLT, SSc is to be “carefully selected,” however, for some institutions, SSc remains a relative contraindication for lung transplant as definitive therapy (Weill et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;34[1]:1). Disease-specific concerns for SSc patients following lung transplant are esophageal dysmotility, dysphagia, gastroparesis, aspiration, and reflux disease. These comorbidities are associated with worsening prognosis in transplant survival (De Cruz, et al. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013;25[6]:714).
As clinical practices vary significantly in the management of SSc-ILD, we will survey transplant pulmonologist and surgeons from programs listed in Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). We will evaluate transplant candidacy, preoperative transplant testing, postoperative transplant care, and outcomes. With this survey, we plan to determine the key practices of lung transplant programs regarding candidacy of patients with SSc-ILD perioperative management.
Clauden Louis, MD
Fellow-in-Training Member
Women’s lung health
Asthma and sex hormones
Overall asthma prevalence, severity, exacerbation rate, hospitalizations, and mortality are higher among women than men. Population studies show that asthma becomes more prevalent and severe in women following puberty, particularly in women with early menarche or multiple gestations. These findings suggest that sex hormones are important to the development and severity of asthma. Additional confounding variables include obesity, exposures, atopy, and age (Zien, et al. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015;15[6]:28).
Recent studies further define the gender disparity by detailing sex hormone differences in men and women with asthma. Han and colleagues recently reported on a cross-sectional study of serum-free testosterone and estradiol levels in over 7,000 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2013-2016) (Han, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201[2]:158).
Elevated free testosterone levels were associated with lower odds of current asthma in women. After stratification for obesity, elevated free testosterone and estradiol levels were associated with reduced odds of current asthma in obese women, and elevated estradiol was associated with lower odds of asthma in non-obese men. It should be noted that increased luteal phase progesterone levels have also been implicated in increasing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in asthmatics (Lipworth, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; Oct 22, 2019).
In summary, testosterone is suggested to provide a protective, anti-inflammatory effect in women with asthma (Sathish, et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2015;150:94). Obesity interaction with sex hormones highlights its role as an important risk factor and disease modifier (Peters, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141:1169). Future studies should continue to expand upon the role of sex hormones in relationship to multiple confounders. These insights will continue to define mechanisms that can be manipulated leading to novel pathway targeted therapies.
Candace Huebert, MD, FCCP
Margaret Pisani, MD, MPH, FCCP
Jill Poole, MD
Steering Committee Members
Disaster response and global health
Corona virus and disaster preparedness campaign
On January 28, 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a travel advisory recommending against all nonessential travel to China, in light of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak.
Shortly thereafter, a plane that flew out of China was directed to land on a US air force base in California on Friday, January 31. Since then, other US government flights have evacuated patients to military bases throughout the country. The CDC issued a federal quarantine order lasting the 14-day incubation period to these repatriated US citizens. Nearby hospitals were debriefed and command centers set up in anticipation of any required intervention.
Initial diagnostic testing for 2019-nCoV could only be conducted at the CDC, but testing has recently become available at a larger number of laboratories via the CDC’s International Reagent Resource (IRR) network. Signs and symptoms that would warrant diagnostic testing include fever, cough, respiratory symptoms, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties, in the context of travel to China within the prior 14 days or a high-risk contact with an ill patient. Severe cases can lead to pneumonia, kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress, and death, with an in-hospital mortality of approximately 4% reported by clinicians in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak (Wang D, et al. JAMA. Published online February 07, 2020. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585).
The influenza vaccine will not protect against 2019-nCoV, and, currently, there is no available vaccine. The best prevention is to cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when coughing or sneezing. Surgical masks are not currently recommended as protection against 2019-nCoV. Hospitalized patients should be in negative-pressure rooms under respiratory and contact precautions, with gowns, gloves, eye protection, and either N95 masks or a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) worn by clinical staff. Human-to human transmission is reported both within and outside of China (Rothe C, et al. N Engl J Med. Published online, Jan 30, 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2001468).
Clinical updates are available via the CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html. Clinicians are advised to check frequently, given the rapidly changing state of this epidemic.
John Agapian, MD, MS, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
Practice operations
New Medicare billing rules bring welcome documentation relief
At the end of 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released several changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which will go into effect starting January 1, 2021. Though the adjustments are substantial (the document outlining the revisions is nearly 2,500 pages!), there are a few that deserve highlighting.
The most significant modification contained within the policy involves revisions to E/M codes for office visits. While the changes eliminate 99201, they preserve other graded levels for visits, with increases to the relative value units (RVUs) for most levels.
The most welcome changes for clinicians are twofold. First, billing no longer needs to be based on the maddening practice of trying to meet a minimum number of points from the history and exam. Clinicians can instead now bill based on time spent. The second refreshing modification is that time-based billing need no longer be solely face-to-face but can now be based on the realities of clinical practice today, ie, reviewing information and coordinating care with others.
Thus, these re-valued levels will allow outpatient physicians to bill based on time spent on things other than the office visit, such as time to review lab work and coordinate care with other specialties.
There will also be small changes to billing for pulmonary function testing, bronchoscopy (including the option for new indications for endobronchial valves), and for “brief communications via technology.” For a recap of these and other changes coming in January 2021, CHEST and ATS have produced a free webinar which is found online at: http://www.chestnet.org/Guidelines-and-Resources/Resources/Clinical-Practice-Resources.
Timothy Dempsey, MD, MPH
Steering Committee Fellow-in-Training
Deep Ramachandran, MD, FCCP
Steering Committee Member
Transplant
Investigating clinical practice of lung transplantation in systemic sclerosis
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) as a sequela of systemic sclerosis (SSc) poses a significant health concern. Patients with SSc-ILD experience symptoms of shortness of breath, reduced exercise capacity, and limited activities of daily living. Inducing fibrotic parenchymal change and pulmonary hypertension, SSc-ILD presents as both the most common extra-cutaneous manifestation and cause for mortality in this cohort (Mathai et al. Springer. 2014;139). Although rare, the prognosis of SSc-ILD is both difficult to understand and complex to manage.
With lung transplant being a treatment for end stage pulmonary disease, the role for lung transplantation in SSc-ILD is considered; however, remains controversial. Published literature exist without consensus. According to the recommendations of ISHLT, SSc is to be “carefully selected,” however, for some institutions, SSc remains a relative contraindication for lung transplant as definitive therapy (Weill et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;34[1]:1). Disease-specific concerns for SSc patients following lung transplant are esophageal dysmotility, dysphagia, gastroparesis, aspiration, and reflux disease. These comorbidities are associated with worsening prognosis in transplant survival (De Cruz, et al. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013;25[6]:714).
As clinical practices vary significantly in the management of SSc-ILD, we will survey transplant pulmonologist and surgeons from programs listed in Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). We will evaluate transplant candidacy, preoperative transplant testing, postoperative transplant care, and outcomes. With this survey, we plan to determine the key practices of lung transplant programs regarding candidacy of patients with SSc-ILD perioperative management.
Clauden Louis, MD
Fellow-in-Training Member
Women’s lung health
Asthma and sex hormones
Overall asthma prevalence, severity, exacerbation rate, hospitalizations, and mortality are higher among women than men. Population studies show that asthma becomes more prevalent and severe in women following puberty, particularly in women with early menarche or multiple gestations. These findings suggest that sex hormones are important to the development and severity of asthma. Additional confounding variables include obesity, exposures, atopy, and age (Zien, et al. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015;15[6]:28).
Recent studies further define the gender disparity by detailing sex hormone differences in men and women with asthma. Han and colleagues recently reported on a cross-sectional study of serum-free testosterone and estradiol levels in over 7,000 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2013-2016) (Han, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201[2]:158).
Elevated free testosterone levels were associated with lower odds of current asthma in women. After stratification for obesity, elevated free testosterone and estradiol levels were associated with reduced odds of current asthma in obese women, and elevated estradiol was associated with lower odds of asthma in non-obese men. It should be noted that increased luteal phase progesterone levels have also been implicated in increasing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in asthmatics (Lipworth, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; Oct 22, 2019).
In summary, testosterone is suggested to provide a protective, anti-inflammatory effect in women with asthma (Sathish, et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2015;150:94). Obesity interaction with sex hormones highlights its role as an important risk factor and disease modifier (Peters, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141:1169). Future studies should continue to expand upon the role of sex hormones in relationship to multiple confounders. These insights will continue to define mechanisms that can be manipulated leading to novel pathway targeted therapies.
Candace Huebert, MD, FCCP
Margaret Pisani, MD, MPH, FCCP
Jill Poole, MD
Steering Committee Members
Meet the FISH Bowl Finalists
CHEST 2019 marked the inaugural FISH Bowl competition for attendees. Inspired by Shark Tank, our kinder, gentler, yet still competitive and cutting-edge FISH Bowl (Furthering Innovation and Science for Health) featured CHEST members disrupting our beliefs about how clinical care and education are performed. As health-care providers, they presented innovative ideas pertaining to education and clinical disease for pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Six finalists were chosen from dozens of submissions, and three emerged winners. In this new Meet the FISH Bowl Finalists series, CHEST introduces you to many of them – including Clinical Disease Category Winner Dr. Gao.
Name: Catherine Gao, MD
Institutional Affiliation: Northwestern University
Position: Pulmonary & Critical Care Fellow
Title: Time to Vent: A Blended Learning Experience
Brief Summary: It is difficult for ventilated patients to communicate, and this is cited by patients as one of the most stressful parts of their ICU stays. Brain-computer interface technology allows for communication to happen directly from brain wave activity and represents a potential tool to fix this problem.
1. What inspired your innovation? Every clinician has had the frustrating experience of difficulty communicating with their ventilated patients, and it is even more challenging for patients and their families. I read about recent advances in communication methods from the neurology literature and thought about expanding this technology to the ICU.
2. What do you see as challenges to your innovation gaining widespread acceptance? How can they be overcome? This is still an early idea with technology still being developed – there have been investments by the military and large tech companies, as well as universities – it will take time for the technology to be ready for clinical use, and there will be troubleshooting needed as with all new technologies.
3. What impact has winning FISH Bowl 2019 had on your vision for the innovation? The judges gave great feedback and had wonderful suggestions and questions. This is just the beginning.
4. How do you think your success at FISH Bowl 2019 will continue to impact your career overall in the months and years to come? This was a great experience to talk about interesting ideas, and I had the opportunity to talk to many people with similar interests after the presentation. I thank CHEST for this amazing opportunity and look forward to the years to come!
CHEST 2019 marked the inaugural FISH Bowl competition for attendees. Inspired by Shark Tank, our kinder, gentler, yet still competitive and cutting-edge FISH Bowl (Furthering Innovation and Science for Health) featured CHEST members disrupting our beliefs about how clinical care and education are performed. As health-care providers, they presented innovative ideas pertaining to education and clinical disease for pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Six finalists were chosen from dozens of submissions, and three emerged winners. In this new Meet the FISH Bowl Finalists series, CHEST introduces you to many of them – including Clinical Disease Category Winner Dr. Gao.
Name: Catherine Gao, MD
Institutional Affiliation: Northwestern University
Position: Pulmonary & Critical Care Fellow
Title: Time to Vent: A Blended Learning Experience
Brief Summary: It is difficult for ventilated patients to communicate, and this is cited by patients as one of the most stressful parts of their ICU stays. Brain-computer interface technology allows for communication to happen directly from brain wave activity and represents a potential tool to fix this problem.
1. What inspired your innovation? Every clinician has had the frustrating experience of difficulty communicating with their ventilated patients, and it is even more challenging for patients and their families. I read about recent advances in communication methods from the neurology literature and thought about expanding this technology to the ICU.
2. What do you see as challenges to your innovation gaining widespread acceptance? How can they be overcome? This is still an early idea with technology still being developed – there have been investments by the military and large tech companies, as well as universities – it will take time for the technology to be ready for clinical use, and there will be troubleshooting needed as with all new technologies.
3. What impact has winning FISH Bowl 2019 had on your vision for the innovation? The judges gave great feedback and had wonderful suggestions and questions. This is just the beginning.
4. How do you think your success at FISH Bowl 2019 will continue to impact your career overall in the months and years to come? This was a great experience to talk about interesting ideas, and I had the opportunity to talk to many people with similar interests after the presentation. I thank CHEST for this amazing opportunity and look forward to the years to come!
CHEST 2019 marked the inaugural FISH Bowl competition for attendees. Inspired by Shark Tank, our kinder, gentler, yet still competitive and cutting-edge FISH Bowl (Furthering Innovation and Science for Health) featured CHEST members disrupting our beliefs about how clinical care and education are performed. As health-care providers, they presented innovative ideas pertaining to education and clinical disease for pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Six finalists were chosen from dozens of submissions, and three emerged winners. In this new Meet the FISH Bowl Finalists series, CHEST introduces you to many of them – including Clinical Disease Category Winner Dr. Gao.
Name: Catherine Gao, MD
Institutional Affiliation: Northwestern University
Position: Pulmonary & Critical Care Fellow
Title: Time to Vent: A Blended Learning Experience
Brief Summary: It is difficult for ventilated patients to communicate, and this is cited by patients as one of the most stressful parts of their ICU stays. Brain-computer interface technology allows for communication to happen directly from brain wave activity and represents a potential tool to fix this problem.
1. What inspired your innovation? Every clinician has had the frustrating experience of difficulty communicating with their ventilated patients, and it is even more challenging for patients and their families. I read about recent advances in communication methods from the neurology literature and thought about expanding this technology to the ICU.
2. What do you see as challenges to your innovation gaining widespread acceptance? How can they be overcome? This is still an early idea with technology still being developed – there have been investments by the military and large tech companies, as well as universities – it will take time for the technology to be ready for clinical use, and there will be troubleshooting needed as with all new technologies.
3. What impact has winning FISH Bowl 2019 had on your vision for the innovation? The judges gave great feedback and had wonderful suggestions and questions. This is just the beginning.
4. How do you think your success at FISH Bowl 2019 will continue to impact your career overall in the months and years to come? This was a great experience to talk about interesting ideas, and I had the opportunity to talk to many people with similar interests after the presentation. I thank CHEST for this amazing opportunity and look forward to the years to come!
Cultivating resilience against nurse burnout
From AACN Bold Voices
Developing resilient nurses and work environments can help organizations prevent burnout.
The Joint Commission released an advisory urging health-care organizations to promote resilience as a way to combat and prevent nurse burnout.
“Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout,” in The Joint Commission’s Quick Safety newsletter, notes that 15.6% of all nurses in a survey of more than 2,000 healthcare partners reported experiencing burnout “with emergency room nurses being at a higher risk,” which can affect the physical and emotional health of staff, as well as patient safety, mortality, and satisfaction.
According to data presented in the article, omitting nurses from the decision-making process, security risks, a need for more autonomy, and staffing challenges are the most common factors associated with nurse burnout.
To promote resilience in nurses and in the work environment, which can help prevent and reduce burnout among nurses and other front-line staff, health-care organizations should consider a number of strategies, including the following:
• Teach nurses and nurse leaders the elements of resilience, such as empowerment and colleague support, and how to identify symptoms of burnout.
• Provide positive role models and mentors.
• “Engage nursing input in staff meetings by posting an agenda and asking for additional items the nurses would like to discuss or present.”
• Measure the well-being of health-care providers; try interventions and then assess their effectiveness.
The article also notes that “mindfulness and resilience training alone cannot effectively address burnout unless the leadership is simultaneously reducing and eliminating barriers and impediments to nursing workflow, such as staffing and workplace environment concerns.”
Reference
The Joint Commission. Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout. Quick Safety. 2019;(50):1-4.
From AACN Bold Voices
From AACN Bold Voices
Developing resilient nurses and work environments can help organizations prevent burnout.
The Joint Commission released an advisory urging health-care organizations to promote resilience as a way to combat and prevent nurse burnout.
“Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout,” in The Joint Commission’s Quick Safety newsletter, notes that 15.6% of all nurses in a survey of more than 2,000 healthcare partners reported experiencing burnout “with emergency room nurses being at a higher risk,” which can affect the physical and emotional health of staff, as well as patient safety, mortality, and satisfaction.
According to data presented in the article, omitting nurses from the decision-making process, security risks, a need for more autonomy, and staffing challenges are the most common factors associated with nurse burnout.
To promote resilience in nurses and in the work environment, which can help prevent and reduce burnout among nurses and other front-line staff, health-care organizations should consider a number of strategies, including the following:
• Teach nurses and nurse leaders the elements of resilience, such as empowerment and colleague support, and how to identify symptoms of burnout.
• Provide positive role models and mentors.
• “Engage nursing input in staff meetings by posting an agenda and asking for additional items the nurses would like to discuss or present.”
• Measure the well-being of health-care providers; try interventions and then assess their effectiveness.
The article also notes that “mindfulness and resilience training alone cannot effectively address burnout unless the leadership is simultaneously reducing and eliminating barriers and impediments to nursing workflow, such as staffing and workplace environment concerns.”
Reference
The Joint Commission. Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout. Quick Safety. 2019;(50):1-4.
Developing resilient nurses and work environments can help organizations prevent burnout.
The Joint Commission released an advisory urging health-care organizations to promote resilience as a way to combat and prevent nurse burnout.
“Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout,” in The Joint Commission’s Quick Safety newsletter, notes that 15.6% of all nurses in a survey of more than 2,000 healthcare partners reported experiencing burnout “with emergency room nurses being at a higher risk,” which can affect the physical and emotional health of staff, as well as patient safety, mortality, and satisfaction.
According to data presented in the article, omitting nurses from the decision-making process, security risks, a need for more autonomy, and staffing challenges are the most common factors associated with nurse burnout.
To promote resilience in nurses and in the work environment, which can help prevent and reduce burnout among nurses and other front-line staff, health-care organizations should consider a number of strategies, including the following:
• Teach nurses and nurse leaders the elements of resilience, such as empowerment and colleague support, and how to identify symptoms of burnout.
• Provide positive role models and mentors.
• “Engage nursing input in staff meetings by posting an agenda and asking for additional items the nurses would like to discuss or present.”
• Measure the well-being of health-care providers; try interventions and then assess their effectiveness.
The article also notes that “mindfulness and resilience training alone cannot effectively address burnout unless the leadership is simultaneously reducing and eliminating barriers and impediments to nursing workflow, such as staffing and workplace environment concerns.”
Reference
The Joint Commission. Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout. Quick Safety. 2019;(50):1-4.
This month in the journal CHEST®
Editor’s Picks
Original Research
Safety and Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty When FEV1 Is Less Than 50%.
By Dr. D. Langton, et al.
Utilization and Outcomes of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Cohort Study.
By S. E. Beyer, et al.
An Individualized Prediction Model for Long-term Lung Function Trajectory and Risk of COPD in the General Population.
By Dr. W. Chen, et al.
CHEST Review
Six-Minute Walk Test: Clinical Role, Technique, Coding, and Reimbursement.
By Dr. P. Agarwala, et al.
How I Do It
An Algorithmic Approach to the Interpretation of Diffuse Lung Disease on Chest CT Imaging: A Theory of Almost Everything.
By Dr. J. F. Gruden, et al.
Editor’s Picks
Editor’s Picks
Original Research
Safety and Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty When FEV1 Is Less Than 50%.
By Dr. D. Langton, et al.
Utilization and Outcomes of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Cohort Study.
By S. E. Beyer, et al.
An Individualized Prediction Model for Long-term Lung Function Trajectory and Risk of COPD in the General Population.
By Dr. W. Chen, et al.
CHEST Review
Six-Minute Walk Test: Clinical Role, Technique, Coding, and Reimbursement.
By Dr. P. Agarwala, et al.
How I Do It
An Algorithmic Approach to the Interpretation of Diffuse Lung Disease on Chest CT Imaging: A Theory of Almost Everything.
By Dr. J. F. Gruden, et al.
Original Research
Safety and Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty When FEV1 Is Less Than 50%.
By Dr. D. Langton, et al.
Utilization and Outcomes of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Cohort Study.
By S. E. Beyer, et al.
An Individualized Prediction Model for Long-term Lung Function Trajectory and Risk of COPD in the General Population.
By Dr. W. Chen, et al.
CHEST Review
Six-Minute Walk Test: Clinical Role, Technique, Coding, and Reimbursement.
By Dr. P. Agarwala, et al.
How I Do It
An Algorithmic Approach to the Interpretation of Diffuse Lung Disease on Chest CT Imaging: A Theory of Almost Everything.
By Dr. J. F. Gruden, et al.
Some infected patients could show COVID-19 symptoms after quarantine
Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.
However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.
“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.
The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.
The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.
Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.
Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.
In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.
“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.
Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.
“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.
“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.
The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.
Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.
However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.
“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.
The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.
The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.
Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.
Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.
In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.
“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.
Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.
“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.
“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.
The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.
Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.
However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.
“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.
The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.
The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.
Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.
Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.
In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.
“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.
Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.
“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.
“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.
The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Key clinical point: Some individuals who are infected with the novel coronavirus could become symptomatic after the active 14-day quarantine period.
Major finding: The median incubation period was 5.1 days, with 97.5% of patients developing symptoms within 11.5 days, implying that 101 of every 10,000 cases (99th percentile) would develop symptoms beyond the quarantine period.
Study details: Analysis of 181 confirmed COVID-19 cases identified outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
Source: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.
Is there empathy erosion?
You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.
The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.
There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.
Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?
Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.
What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.
For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.
The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.
There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.
Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?
Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.
What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.
For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.
The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.
There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.
Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?
Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.
What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.
For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].