Clinical Psychiatry News

The study covered in this summary was published in Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Focal cognitive deficits are more prevalent in hospitalized patients than ambulatory patients.
• Cognitive performance is related to neuropsychiatric symptoms in ambulatory but not hospitalized patients.
• Objective neurocognitive measures can supply crucial information to guide clinical decisions regarding the need for further imaging or neurologic workup and should be included as endpoints in clinical trials.

Why this matters

• Cognitive complaints commonly occur in patients convalescing from COVID-19, although their cause is frequently unclear.
• The researchers evaluated factors that play a role in cognitive impairment in ambulatory versus hospitalized patients during the subacute stage of recovery.
• These results underscore the significance of assessing both subjective and objective complaints in ascertaining the prevalence of cognitive impairment in recovering patients and research participants.
• The drivers of cognitive complaints are likely different in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in comparison with ambulatory COVID-19 patients, so it’s important to understand these factors in making treatment decisions.
• Biopsychosocial factors appear to be a powerful driver of cognitive complaints in recovering ambulatory patients. They can be treated with interventions targeting anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and pain, which may prove to be the most efficient and cost-effective approach to prevent disability in individuals with mild manifestations of COVID-19.
• Objective neurocognitive deficits were more prevalent in hospitalized patients – a marker of greater disease severity – with mainly deficits in memory and psychomotor speed. Factors that contribute to focal cognitive deficits in these individuals are emerging and represent a noteworthy realm for future investigation.

Study design

• The trial prospectively recruited patients from a hospital-wide registry at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
• All patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection on a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain-reaction assay between June 2020 and March 2021.
• Patients were 18 years of age or older.
• The researchers excluded those with a pre-existing major neurocognitive disorder.
• To participate, patients needed access to a desktop or laptop computer to complete a test and survey.
• They responded to a comprehensive neuropsychological questionnaire and a computerized cognitive screen using a remote telemedicine platform.
• The researchers compared rates of subjective and objective neuropsychological impairment between the ambulatory and hospitalized groups. Factors linked to impairment were analyzed separately within each group.

Key results

• After laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a total of 102 patients (76 ambulatory, 26 hospitalized) completed the symptom inventory and neurocognitive tests in 24 ± 22 days.
• Hospitalized and ambulatory patients self-reported high rates of cognitive impairment (27%-40%). There were no variations between the groups.
• However, hospitalized patients had more significant rates of objective impairment in visual memory (30% vs. 4%; P = .001) and psychomotor speed (41% vs. 15%; P = .008).
• Objective cognitive test performance was linked to anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain in the ambulatory but not the hospitalized group.

Limitations

• The sample size of hospitalized patients was small.
• A larger fraction of hospitalized patients in the sample completed outcome assessments, compared with ambulatory patients, indicating that remote computerized testing did not present a disproportionate access barrier for patients with more severe illness.
• Owing to limited instances of delirium, seizures, and stroke, it was not possible to directly consider the contributions of these events to post–COVID-19 subjective complaints and objective impairment.
• The researchers depended on a 45-minute computerized test battery, which eliminates exposure risk and is available to patients in remote locations, but it necessitates computer literacy and access to a home desktop computer. While this requirement may have skewed the sample toward a more socioeconomically advantaged and younger population, there were no differences in age, race, or ethnicity between those who completed the computerized outcome assessments and those who did not. For patients who are able to give consent electronically, computerized testing does not pose an additional barrier.
• As a result of this study’s cross-sectional nature, the researchers could not comment on the natural history and long-term risk of COVID-19 cognitive impairment. It will be crucial to monitor cognitive progression at future time points to assess the rate and predictors of cognitive normalization versus decline.

Study disclosures

• Gregory S. Day, a coauthor, owns stock (greater than $10,000) in ANI Pharmaceuticals, a generic pharmaceutical company. He serves as a topic editor for DynaMed (EBSCO), overseeing development of evidence-based educational content, a consultant for Parabon Nanolabs (advice relevant to National Institutes of Health small business grant submission), and as the clinical director of the Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation, Canada (uncompensated). The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Neurocognitive Screening in Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Tools for Triage,” written by Karen Blackmon from Mayo Clinic in Florida, on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Focal cognitive deficits are more prevalent in hospitalized patients than ambulatory patients.
• Cognitive performance is related to neuropsychiatric symptoms in ambulatory but not hospitalized patients.
• Objective neurocognitive measures can supply crucial information to guide clinical decisions regarding the need for further imaging or neurologic workup and should be included as endpoints in clinical trials.

Why this matters

• Cognitive complaints commonly occur in patients convalescing from COVID-19, although their cause is frequently unclear.
• The researchers evaluated factors that play a role in cognitive impairment in ambulatory versus hospitalized patients during the subacute stage of recovery.
• These results underscore the significance of assessing both subjective and objective complaints in ascertaining the prevalence of cognitive impairment in recovering patients and research participants.
• The drivers of cognitive complaints are likely different in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in comparison with ambulatory COVID-19 patients, so it’s important to understand these factors in making treatment decisions.
• Biopsychosocial factors appear to be a powerful driver of cognitive complaints in recovering ambulatory patients. They can be treated with interventions targeting anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and pain, which may prove to be the most efficient and cost-effective approach to prevent disability in individuals with mild manifestations of COVID-19.
• Objective neurocognitive deficits were more prevalent in hospitalized patients – a marker of greater disease severity – with mainly deficits in memory and psychomotor speed. Factors that contribute to focal cognitive deficits in these individuals are emerging and represent a noteworthy realm for future investigation.

Study design

• The trial prospectively recruited patients from a hospital-wide registry at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
• All patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection on a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain-reaction assay between June 2020 and March 2021.
• Patients were 18 years of age or older.
• The researchers excluded those with a pre-existing major neurocognitive disorder.
• To participate, patients needed access to a desktop or laptop computer to complete a test and survey.
• They responded to a comprehensive neuropsychological questionnaire and a computerized cognitive screen using a remote telemedicine platform.
• The researchers compared rates of subjective and objective neuropsychological impairment between the ambulatory and hospitalized groups. Factors linked to impairment were analyzed separately within each group.

Key results

• After laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a total of 102 patients (76 ambulatory, 26 hospitalized) completed the symptom inventory and neurocognitive tests in 24 ± 22 days.
• Hospitalized and ambulatory patients self-reported high rates of cognitive impairment (27%-40%). There were no variations between the groups.
• However, hospitalized patients had more significant rates of objective impairment in visual memory (30% vs. 4%; P = .001) and psychomotor speed (41% vs. 15%; P = .008).
• Objective cognitive test performance was linked to anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain in the ambulatory but not the hospitalized group.

Limitations

• The sample size of hospitalized patients was small.
• A larger fraction of hospitalized patients in the sample completed outcome assessments, compared with ambulatory patients, indicating that remote computerized testing did not present a disproportionate access barrier for patients with more severe illness.
• Owing to limited instances of delirium, seizures, and stroke, it was not possible to directly consider the contributions of these events to post–COVID-19 subjective complaints and objective impairment.
• The researchers depended on a 45-minute computerized test battery, which eliminates exposure risk and is available to patients in remote locations, but it necessitates computer literacy and access to a home desktop computer. While this requirement may have skewed the sample toward a more socioeconomically advantaged and younger population, there were no differences in age, race, or ethnicity between those who completed the computerized outcome assessments and those who did not. For patients who are able to give consent electronically, computerized testing does not pose an additional barrier.
• As a result of this study’s cross-sectional nature, the researchers could not comment on the natural history and long-term risk of COVID-19 cognitive impairment. It will be crucial to monitor cognitive progression at future time points to assess the rate and predictors of cognitive normalization versus decline.

Study disclosures

• Gregory S. Day, a coauthor, owns stock (greater than $10,000) in ANI Pharmaceuticals, a generic pharmaceutical company. He serves as a topic editor for DynaMed (EBSCO), overseeing development of evidence-based educational content, a consultant for Parabon Nanolabs (advice relevant to National Institutes of Health small business grant submission), and as the clinical director of the Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation, Canada (uncompensated). The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Neurocognitive Screening in Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Tools for Triage,” written by Karen Blackmon from Mayo Clinic in Florida, on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Focal cognitive deficits are more prevalent in hospitalized patients than ambulatory patients.
• Cognitive performance is related to neuropsychiatric symptoms in ambulatory but not hospitalized patients.
• Objective neurocognitive measures can supply crucial information to guide clinical decisions regarding the need for further imaging or neurologic workup and should be included as endpoints in clinical trials.

Why this matters

• Cognitive complaints commonly occur in patients convalescing from COVID-19, although their cause is frequently unclear.
• The researchers evaluated factors that play a role in cognitive impairment in ambulatory versus hospitalized patients during the subacute stage of recovery.
• These results underscore the significance of assessing both subjective and objective complaints in ascertaining the prevalence of cognitive impairment in recovering patients and research participants.
• The drivers of cognitive complaints are likely different in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in comparison with ambulatory COVID-19 patients, so it’s important to understand these factors in making treatment decisions.
• Biopsychosocial factors appear to be a powerful driver of cognitive complaints in recovering ambulatory patients. They can be treated with interventions targeting anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and pain, which may prove to be the most efficient and cost-effective approach to prevent disability in individuals with mild manifestations of COVID-19.
• Objective neurocognitive deficits were more prevalent in hospitalized patients – a marker of greater disease severity – with mainly deficits in memory and psychomotor speed. Factors that contribute to focal cognitive deficits in these individuals are emerging and represent a noteworthy realm for future investigation.

Study design

• The trial prospectively recruited patients from a hospital-wide registry at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
• All patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection on a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain-reaction assay between June 2020 and March 2021.
• Patients were 18 years of age or older.
• The researchers excluded those with a pre-existing major neurocognitive disorder.
• To participate, patients needed access to a desktop or laptop computer to complete a test and survey.
• They responded to a comprehensive neuropsychological questionnaire and a computerized cognitive screen using a remote telemedicine platform.
• The researchers compared rates of subjective and objective neuropsychological impairment between the ambulatory and hospitalized groups. Factors linked to impairment were analyzed separately within each group.

Key results

• After laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a total of 102 patients (76 ambulatory, 26 hospitalized) completed the symptom inventory and neurocognitive tests in 24 ± 22 days.
• Hospitalized and ambulatory patients self-reported high rates of cognitive impairment (27%-40%). There were no variations between the groups.
• However, hospitalized patients had more significant rates of objective impairment in visual memory (30% vs. 4%; P = .001) and psychomotor speed (41% vs. 15%; P = .008).
• Objective cognitive test performance was linked to anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain in the ambulatory but not the hospitalized group.

Limitations

• The sample size of hospitalized patients was small.
• A larger fraction of hospitalized patients in the sample completed outcome assessments, compared with ambulatory patients, indicating that remote computerized testing did not present a disproportionate access barrier for patients with more severe illness.
• Owing to limited instances of delirium, seizures, and stroke, it was not possible to directly consider the contributions of these events to post–COVID-19 subjective complaints and objective impairment.
• The researchers depended on a 45-minute computerized test battery, which eliminates exposure risk and is available to patients in remote locations, but it necessitates computer literacy and access to a home desktop computer. While this requirement may have skewed the sample toward a more socioeconomically advantaged and younger population, there were no differences in age, race, or ethnicity between those who completed the computerized outcome assessments and those who did not. For patients who are able to give consent electronically, computerized testing does not pose an additional barrier.
• As a result of this study’s cross-sectional nature, the researchers could not comment on the natural history and long-term risk of COVID-19 cognitive impairment. It will be crucial to monitor cognitive progression at future time points to assess the rate and predictors of cognitive normalization versus decline.

Study disclosures

• Gregory S. Day, a coauthor, owns stock (greater than $10,000) in ANI Pharmaceuticals, a generic pharmaceutical company. He serves as a topic editor for DynaMed (EBSCO), overseeing development of evidence-based educational content, a consultant for Parabon Nanolabs (advice relevant to National Institutes of Health small business grant submission), and as the clinical director of the Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation, Canada (uncompensated). The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Neurocognitive Screening in Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Tools for Triage,” written by Karen Blackmon from Mayo Clinic in Florida, on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

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

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

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

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

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

For the first time, neuroscientists have recorded the brain activity of a dying person, revealing a brain wave pattern similar to that seen when memories are recalled. Although only a single case study, researchers say the recording raises the possibility that as we die, our lives really do flash before our eyes.

“The same neurophysiological activity patterns that occur in our brains when we dream, remember, meditate, concentrate – these same patterns also appear just before we die,” study investigator Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The research was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in the Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience.
 

Accidental finding

The recording of brain activity was captured inadvertently in 2016 when neuroscientists used continuous EEG to detect and treat seizures in an 87-year-old man who had developed epilepsy after a traumatic brain injury, While undergoing the EEG, the patient had a cardiac arrest and died.

In the 30 seconds before and after blood flow to the brain stopped, the EEG showed an increase in gamma oscillations. These are brain waves known to be involved in high cognitive functions, including conscious perception and memory flashbacks.

Researchers also noted changes in alpha, theta, delta, and beta wave activity just before and just after cardiac arrest, and that changes in one type modulated changes in others. That suggests a coordinated rhythm, which further suggests the activity is more than just the firing of neurons as they die.

“When you observe this and you observe the rhythmic oscillation, you are inclined to think this may be a coordinated activity pattern of the brain rather than a mere discharge when the brain dies,” Dr. Zemmar said.

Although they’ve had the data since 2016, Dr. Zemmar and colleagues held off on publishing in the hopes of finding similar recordings in other individuals. That their 5-year search yielded no results illustrates just how difficult a study like this is to conduct, Dr. Zemmar noted. “We’re trying to figure out how to do this in a predictable way, but obtaining datasets like this is going to be challenging,” he said.

Although Dr. Zemmar was unable to find recordings of activity in the dying brains of other humans, he did find a similar study conducted with rats in 2013. In that research, investigators reported a surge of brain activity in rats just prior to and immediately after experimental cardiac arrest. Changes in high- and low-frequency brain waves mirrored those documented in the current case study.
 

Bringing a picture together

Commenting on the new study, George Mashour, MD, PhD, professor and chair of anesthesiology and professor of neurosurgery and pharmacology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the results are eerily similar to a 2013 study that he coauthored.

Although the current research is just a single case study, Dr. Mashour said when taken with his team’s findings in rats and other work, the new findings are “starting to put a picture together of what might be going on in the dying brain.”

“They were able to record throughout the process of cardiac arrest and death and what they found was strikingly similar to what we found in our highly controlled animal study,” said Dr. Mashour, who is also the founding director of the Center for Consciousness Science at the University of Michigan.

“There was a surge of higher-frequency activity and there was coherence across different parts of the brain,” he added. “That suggests that what we found in the rigorous controlled setting of a laboratory actually translates to humans who are undergoing the clinical process of dying.”

What remains unclear is whether this brain activity explains the near-death experiences described in the literature, which include “life recall” of memories, Dr. Mashour said. “This higher-frequency surge that’s happening around the time of death, is that correlated with experiencing something like this near-death experience? Or is it just a neural feature that can just as easily happen in an unconscious brain?”

The study was funded by the Heidi Demetriades Foundation, the ETH Zürich Foundation, and the Henan Provincial People’s Hospital Outstanding Talents Founding Grant Project. Dr. Zemmar and Dr. Mashour disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, neuroscientists have recorded the brain activity of a dying person, revealing a brain wave pattern similar to that seen when memories are recalled. Although only a single case study, researchers say the recording raises the possibility that as we die, our lives really do flash before our eyes.

“The same neurophysiological activity patterns that occur in our brains when we dream, remember, meditate, concentrate – these same patterns also appear just before we die,” study investigator Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The research was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in the Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience.
 

Accidental finding

The recording of brain activity was captured inadvertently in 2016 when neuroscientists used continuous EEG to detect and treat seizures in an 87-year-old man who had developed epilepsy after a traumatic brain injury, While undergoing the EEG, the patient had a cardiac arrest and died.

In the 30 seconds before and after blood flow to the brain stopped, the EEG showed an increase in gamma oscillations. These are brain waves known to be involved in high cognitive functions, including conscious perception and memory flashbacks.

Researchers also noted changes in alpha, theta, delta, and beta wave activity just before and just after cardiac arrest, and that changes in one type modulated changes in others. That suggests a coordinated rhythm, which further suggests the activity is more than just the firing of neurons as they die.

“When you observe this and you observe the rhythmic oscillation, you are inclined to think this may be a coordinated activity pattern of the brain rather than a mere discharge when the brain dies,” Dr. Zemmar said.

Although they’ve had the data since 2016, Dr. Zemmar and colleagues held off on publishing in the hopes of finding similar recordings in other individuals. That their 5-year search yielded no results illustrates just how difficult a study like this is to conduct, Dr. Zemmar noted. “We’re trying to figure out how to do this in a predictable way, but obtaining datasets like this is going to be challenging,” he said.

Although Dr. Zemmar was unable to find recordings of activity in the dying brains of other humans, he did find a similar study conducted with rats in 2013. In that research, investigators reported a surge of brain activity in rats just prior to and immediately after experimental cardiac arrest. Changes in high- and low-frequency brain waves mirrored those documented in the current case study.
 

Bringing a picture together

Commenting on the new study, George Mashour, MD, PhD, professor and chair of anesthesiology and professor of neurosurgery and pharmacology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the results are eerily similar to a 2013 study that he coauthored.

Although the current research is just a single case study, Dr. Mashour said when taken with his team’s findings in rats and other work, the new findings are “starting to put a picture together of what might be going on in the dying brain.”

“They were able to record throughout the process of cardiac arrest and death and what they found was strikingly similar to what we found in our highly controlled animal study,” said Dr. Mashour, who is also the founding director of the Center for Consciousness Science at the University of Michigan.

“There was a surge of higher-frequency activity and there was coherence across different parts of the brain,” he added. “That suggests that what we found in the rigorous controlled setting of a laboratory actually translates to humans who are undergoing the clinical process of dying.”

What remains unclear is whether this brain activity explains the near-death experiences described in the literature, which include “life recall” of memories, Dr. Mashour said. “This higher-frequency surge that’s happening around the time of death, is that correlated with experiencing something like this near-death experience? Or is it just a neural feature that can just as easily happen in an unconscious brain?”

The study was funded by the Heidi Demetriades Foundation, the ETH Zürich Foundation, and the Henan Provincial People’s Hospital Outstanding Talents Founding Grant Project. Dr. Zemmar and Dr. Mashour disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, neuroscientists have recorded the brain activity of a dying person, revealing a brain wave pattern similar to that seen when memories are recalled. Although only a single case study, researchers say the recording raises the possibility that as we die, our lives really do flash before our eyes.

“The same neurophysiological activity patterns that occur in our brains when we dream, remember, meditate, concentrate – these same patterns also appear just before we die,” study investigator Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The research was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in the Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience.
 

Accidental finding

The recording of brain activity was captured inadvertently in 2016 when neuroscientists used continuous EEG to detect and treat seizures in an 87-year-old man who had developed epilepsy after a traumatic brain injury, While undergoing the EEG, the patient had a cardiac arrest and died.

In the 30 seconds before and after blood flow to the brain stopped, the EEG showed an increase in gamma oscillations. These are brain waves known to be involved in high cognitive functions, including conscious perception and memory flashbacks.

Researchers also noted changes in alpha, theta, delta, and beta wave activity just before and just after cardiac arrest, and that changes in one type modulated changes in others. That suggests a coordinated rhythm, which further suggests the activity is more than just the firing of neurons as they die.

“When you observe this and you observe the rhythmic oscillation, you are inclined to think this may be a coordinated activity pattern of the brain rather than a mere discharge when the brain dies,” Dr. Zemmar said.

Although they’ve had the data since 2016, Dr. Zemmar and colleagues held off on publishing in the hopes of finding similar recordings in other individuals. That their 5-year search yielded no results illustrates just how difficult a study like this is to conduct, Dr. Zemmar noted. “We’re trying to figure out how to do this in a predictable way, but obtaining datasets like this is going to be challenging,” he said.

Although Dr. Zemmar was unable to find recordings of activity in the dying brains of other humans, he did find a similar study conducted with rats in 2013. In that research, investigators reported a surge of brain activity in rats just prior to and immediately after experimental cardiac arrest. Changes in high- and low-frequency brain waves mirrored those documented in the current case study.
 

Bringing a picture together

Commenting on the new study, George Mashour, MD, PhD, professor and chair of anesthesiology and professor of neurosurgery and pharmacology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the results are eerily similar to a 2013 study that he coauthored.

Although the current research is just a single case study, Dr. Mashour said when taken with his team’s findings in rats and other work, the new findings are “starting to put a picture together of what might be going on in the dying brain.”

“They were able to record throughout the process of cardiac arrest and death and what they found was strikingly similar to what we found in our highly controlled animal study,” said Dr. Mashour, who is also the founding director of the Center for Consciousness Science at the University of Michigan.

“There was a surge of higher-frequency activity and there was coherence across different parts of the brain,” he added. “That suggests that what we found in the rigorous controlled setting of a laboratory actually translates to humans who are undergoing the clinical process of dying.”

What remains unclear is whether this brain activity explains the near-death experiences described in the literature, which include “life recall” of memories, Dr. Mashour said. “This higher-frequency surge that’s happening around the time of death, is that correlated with experiencing something like this near-death experience? Or is it just a neural feature that can just as easily happen in an unconscious brain?”

The study was funded by the Heidi Demetriades Foundation, the ETH Zürich Foundation, and the Henan Provincial People’s Hospital Outstanding Talents Founding Grant Project. Dr. Zemmar and Dr. Mashour disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pandemic has significantly affected the mental health of family members of patients with COVID-19, including high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study of more than 500 individuals, those related to intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had a significantly higher prevalence of, and were at increased risk for, PTSD-related symptoms 90 days after discharge compared with their peers who were related to ICU patients with non-COVID ARDS.

They also had a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms.

The results illustrate how the mental health of families has been adversely affected by strict isolation measures instituted at the height of the COVID pandemic, lead author Elie Azoulay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Diderot University and director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, told this news organization.

Such restrictions were unnecessary, Dr. Azoulay noted, adding that everyone, including health care professionals, benefits when families are allowed to interact with their loved ones in the ICU.

He added the study findings also emphasize the importance of social supports.

“We need to develop and really increase what we can do for family members”  of patients staying in the ICU, said Dr. Azoulay.

The findings were published online Feb. 18 in JAMA.
 

Twenty-three ICUs in France

The study included adult family members of patients admitted with ARDS to 23 ICUs in France from January to October 2020.

Patients had a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) of less than 300, and bilateral opacities on chest radiography not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload.

Two trained clinical psychologists interviewed family members and patients by telephone a median of 112 days after ICU discharge. During this interview, participants completed the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

The IES-R score ranges from 0 (best) to 88 (worst) with a score of more than 22 indicating presence of PTSD-related symptoms of clinical concern. The HADS has separate subscales for anxiety and depression, with a score of 7 or greater on a 21-point scale indicating symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Family members also rated social supports on a scale from 0 (extremely limited) to 10 (extremely effective). Dr. Azoulay noted that social support is the subjective perception of the extent to which friends, mental health specialists, and others are available and helpful.

Investigators divided patients into two groups depending on whether or not the cause of ARDS was COVID-19. Causes other than COVID-19 mainly included community-acquired pneumonia and influenza.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of PTSD-related symptoms among family members. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety and depression in family members.

The analysis included 303 family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 214 family members of patients with non–COVID-19 ARDS. Almost half of the family members were spouses.

Those with family members with COVID-19 were younger than the non-COVID group (median age, 50 vs. 55 years). They were less frequently allowed to visit the ICU (35% vs. 88%) and more commonly received patient information by phone (84% vs. 20%).
 

Better strategies needed

Results showed PTSD symptoms were significantly more common in family members of patients with than without COVID-10 (35% vs. 19%; difference of 16%; 95% confidence interval, 8%-24%; P < .001).

Anxiety symptoms were significantly more common in the COVID-19 group (41% vs. 34%; difference of 8%; 95% CI, 0%-16%; P = .05), as were depression symptoms (31% vs. 18%; difference of 13%; 95% CI, 6%-21%; P < .001).

About 26% of the hospitalized relatives died. PTSD symptoms were more common among bereaved family members of patients who died from COVID-19 than of patients without COVID-19 (63% vs. 39%; difference of 24%; 95% CI, 7%-40%; P = .008).

In the COVID-19 group, significantly fewer family members reported having attended the funeral (77% vs. 91%, P = .04). This could be because of concerns over transmitting the virus, the investigators noted.

After adjustment for age, sex, and level of social support in a multivariable analysis, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk for PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.30-3.23; P =.002).

Other factors independently associated with PTSD symptoms were age, level of social support, and being male.

Factors associated with anxiety included having COVID-19 ARDS, age, being male, and level of social support. COVID-19 ARDS and level of social support were independently associated with depression.

Although isolation measures were implemented to prevent viral transmission during the pandemic, severely restricting family members from interacting with their sick loved ones in the ICU is “very destructive [and] deeply distressing,” said Dr. Azoulay. “It’s almost cruel.”

Fear may be at the heart of the “psycho-trauma” experienced by family members, he said.

“I would say one of the main sources is fear of getting infected, fear of abandoning family members, fear of leaving the kids alone without any support, and fear of infecting others,” he added.

Health care providers should develop strategies to better communicate with family members, who also feel a lot of guilt when they’re unable to be with their sick loved ones, said Dr. Azoulay.
 

‘Element of fear’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, O. Joseph Bienvenu, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, called the study “solid” and noted the lead author is “a well-recognized clinical researcher.”

It was “remarkable” that investigators were able to include a control group of family members of patients with ARDS not due to COVID-19, added Dr. Bienvenu, who was not involved with the research.

“It sounds like the bottom line is COVID adds an additional element of fear in loved ones,” he said.

Dr. Bienvenu added this fits with his own clinical experience – and noted that some COVID-19 follow-up clinics now include family members in their assessments and care.

“I think this study nicely illustrates the utility of this,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the French Ministry of Health. Dr. Azoulay reported receipt of personal fees from lectures from Pfizer, Gilead, Baxter, and Alexion, and institutional research grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion. Dr. Bienvenu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pandemic has significantly affected the mental health of family members of patients with COVID-19, including high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study of more than 500 individuals, those related to intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had a significantly higher prevalence of, and were at increased risk for, PTSD-related symptoms 90 days after discharge compared with their peers who were related to ICU patients with non-COVID ARDS.

They also had a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms.

The results illustrate how the mental health of families has been adversely affected by strict isolation measures instituted at the height of the COVID pandemic, lead author Elie Azoulay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Diderot University and director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, told this news organization.

Such restrictions were unnecessary, Dr. Azoulay noted, adding that everyone, including health care professionals, benefits when families are allowed to interact with their loved ones in the ICU.

He added the study findings also emphasize the importance of social supports.

“We need to develop and really increase what we can do for family members”  of patients staying in the ICU, said Dr. Azoulay.

The findings were published online Feb. 18 in JAMA.
 

Twenty-three ICUs in France

The study included adult family members of patients admitted with ARDS to 23 ICUs in France from January to October 2020.

Patients had a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) of less than 300, and bilateral opacities on chest radiography not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload.

Two trained clinical psychologists interviewed family members and patients by telephone a median of 112 days after ICU discharge. During this interview, participants completed the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

The IES-R score ranges from 0 (best) to 88 (worst) with a score of more than 22 indicating presence of PTSD-related symptoms of clinical concern. The HADS has separate subscales for anxiety and depression, with a score of 7 or greater on a 21-point scale indicating symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Family members also rated social supports on a scale from 0 (extremely limited) to 10 (extremely effective). Dr. Azoulay noted that social support is the subjective perception of the extent to which friends, mental health specialists, and others are available and helpful.

Investigators divided patients into two groups depending on whether or not the cause of ARDS was COVID-19. Causes other than COVID-19 mainly included community-acquired pneumonia and influenza.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of PTSD-related symptoms among family members. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety and depression in family members.

The analysis included 303 family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 214 family members of patients with non–COVID-19 ARDS. Almost half of the family members were spouses.

Those with family members with COVID-19 were younger than the non-COVID group (median age, 50 vs. 55 years). They were less frequently allowed to visit the ICU (35% vs. 88%) and more commonly received patient information by phone (84% vs. 20%).
 

Better strategies needed

Results showed PTSD symptoms were significantly more common in family members of patients with than without COVID-10 (35% vs. 19%; difference of 16%; 95% confidence interval, 8%-24%; P < .001).

Anxiety symptoms were significantly more common in the COVID-19 group (41% vs. 34%; difference of 8%; 95% CI, 0%-16%; P = .05), as were depression symptoms (31% vs. 18%; difference of 13%; 95% CI, 6%-21%; P < .001).

About 26% of the hospitalized relatives died. PTSD symptoms were more common among bereaved family members of patients who died from COVID-19 than of patients without COVID-19 (63% vs. 39%; difference of 24%; 95% CI, 7%-40%; P = .008).

In the COVID-19 group, significantly fewer family members reported having attended the funeral (77% vs. 91%, P = .04). This could be because of concerns over transmitting the virus, the investigators noted.

After adjustment for age, sex, and level of social support in a multivariable analysis, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk for PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.30-3.23; P =.002).

Other factors independently associated with PTSD symptoms were age, level of social support, and being male.

Factors associated with anxiety included having COVID-19 ARDS, age, being male, and level of social support. COVID-19 ARDS and level of social support were independently associated with depression.

Although isolation measures were implemented to prevent viral transmission during the pandemic, severely restricting family members from interacting with their sick loved ones in the ICU is “very destructive [and] deeply distressing,” said Dr. Azoulay. “It’s almost cruel.”

Fear may be at the heart of the “psycho-trauma” experienced by family members, he said.

“I would say one of the main sources is fear of getting infected, fear of abandoning family members, fear of leaving the kids alone without any support, and fear of infecting others,” he added.

Health care providers should develop strategies to better communicate with family members, who also feel a lot of guilt when they’re unable to be with their sick loved ones, said Dr. Azoulay.
 

‘Element of fear’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, O. Joseph Bienvenu, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, called the study “solid” and noted the lead author is “a well-recognized clinical researcher.”

It was “remarkable” that investigators were able to include a control group of family members of patients with ARDS not due to COVID-19, added Dr. Bienvenu, who was not involved with the research.

“It sounds like the bottom line is COVID adds an additional element of fear in loved ones,” he said.

Dr. Bienvenu added this fits with his own clinical experience – and noted that some COVID-19 follow-up clinics now include family members in their assessments and care.

“I think this study nicely illustrates the utility of this,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the French Ministry of Health. Dr. Azoulay reported receipt of personal fees from lectures from Pfizer, Gilead, Baxter, and Alexion, and institutional research grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion. Dr. Bienvenu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pandemic has significantly affected the mental health of family members of patients with COVID-19, including high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study of more than 500 individuals, those related to intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had a significantly higher prevalence of, and were at increased risk for, PTSD-related symptoms 90 days after discharge compared with their peers who were related to ICU patients with non-COVID ARDS.

They also had a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms.

The results illustrate how the mental health of families has been adversely affected by strict isolation measures instituted at the height of the COVID pandemic, lead author Elie Azoulay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Diderot University and director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, told this news organization.

Such restrictions were unnecessary, Dr. Azoulay noted, adding that everyone, including health care professionals, benefits when families are allowed to interact with their loved ones in the ICU.

He added the study findings also emphasize the importance of social supports.

“We need to develop and really increase what we can do for family members”  of patients staying in the ICU, said Dr. Azoulay.

The findings were published online Feb. 18 in JAMA.
 

Twenty-three ICUs in France

The study included adult family members of patients admitted with ARDS to 23 ICUs in France from January to October 2020.

Patients had a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) of less than 300, and bilateral opacities on chest radiography not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload.

Two trained clinical psychologists interviewed family members and patients by telephone a median of 112 days after ICU discharge. During this interview, participants completed the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

The IES-R score ranges from 0 (best) to 88 (worst) with a score of more than 22 indicating presence of PTSD-related symptoms of clinical concern. The HADS has separate subscales for anxiety and depression, with a score of 7 or greater on a 21-point scale indicating symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Family members also rated social supports on a scale from 0 (extremely limited) to 10 (extremely effective). Dr. Azoulay noted that social support is the subjective perception of the extent to which friends, mental health specialists, and others are available and helpful.

Investigators divided patients into two groups depending on whether or not the cause of ARDS was COVID-19. Causes other than COVID-19 mainly included community-acquired pneumonia and influenza.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of PTSD-related symptoms among family members. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety and depression in family members.

The analysis included 303 family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 214 family members of patients with non–COVID-19 ARDS. Almost half of the family members were spouses.

Those with family members with COVID-19 were younger than the non-COVID group (median age, 50 vs. 55 years). They were less frequently allowed to visit the ICU (35% vs. 88%) and more commonly received patient information by phone (84% vs. 20%).
 

Better strategies needed

Results showed PTSD symptoms were significantly more common in family members of patients with than without COVID-10 (35% vs. 19%; difference of 16%; 95% confidence interval, 8%-24%; P < .001).

Anxiety symptoms were significantly more common in the COVID-19 group (41% vs. 34%; difference of 8%; 95% CI, 0%-16%; P = .05), as were depression symptoms (31% vs. 18%; difference of 13%; 95% CI, 6%-21%; P < .001).

About 26% of the hospitalized relatives died. PTSD symptoms were more common among bereaved family members of patients who died from COVID-19 than of patients without COVID-19 (63% vs. 39%; difference of 24%; 95% CI, 7%-40%; P = .008).

In the COVID-19 group, significantly fewer family members reported having attended the funeral (77% vs. 91%, P = .04). This could be because of concerns over transmitting the virus, the investigators noted.

After adjustment for age, sex, and level of social support in a multivariable analysis, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk for PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.30-3.23; P =.002).

Other factors independently associated with PTSD symptoms were age, level of social support, and being male.

Factors associated with anxiety included having COVID-19 ARDS, age, being male, and level of social support. COVID-19 ARDS and level of social support were independently associated with depression.

Although isolation measures were implemented to prevent viral transmission during the pandemic, severely restricting family members from interacting with their sick loved ones in the ICU is “very destructive [and] deeply distressing,” said Dr. Azoulay. “It’s almost cruel.”

Fear may be at the heart of the “psycho-trauma” experienced by family members, he said.

“I would say one of the main sources is fear of getting infected, fear of abandoning family members, fear of leaving the kids alone without any support, and fear of infecting others,” he added.

Health care providers should develop strategies to better communicate with family members, who also feel a lot of guilt when they’re unable to be with their sick loved ones, said Dr. Azoulay.
 

‘Element of fear’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, O. Joseph Bienvenu, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, called the study “solid” and noted the lead author is “a well-recognized clinical researcher.”

It was “remarkable” that investigators were able to include a control group of family members of patients with ARDS not due to COVID-19, added Dr. Bienvenu, who was not involved with the research.

“It sounds like the bottom line is COVID adds an additional element of fear in loved ones,” he said.

Dr. Bienvenu added this fits with his own clinical experience – and noted that some COVID-19 follow-up clinics now include family members in their assessments and care.

“I think this study nicely illustrates the utility of this,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the French Ministry of Health. Dr. Azoulay reported receipt of personal fees from lectures from Pfizer, Gilead, Baxter, and Alexion, and institutional research grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion. Dr. Bienvenu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

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

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

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

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

The calls kept coming into the National Runaway Safeline during the pandemic: the desperate kids who wanted to bike away from home in the middle of the night, the isolated youths who felt suicidal, the teens whose parents had forced them out of the house.

To the surprise of experts who help runaway youths, the pandemic didn’t appear to produce a big rise or fall in the numbers of children and teens who had left home. Still, the crisis hit hard. As schools closed and households sheltered in place, youths reached out to the National Runaway Safeline to report heightened family conflicts and worsening mental health.

The Safeline, based in Chicago, is the country’s 24/7, federally designated communications system for runaway and homeless youths. Each year, it makes about 125,000 connections with young people and their family members through its hotline and other services.

In a typical year, teens aged 15-17 years are the main group that gets in touch by phone, live chat, email, or an online crisis forum, according to Jeff Stern, chief engagement officer at the Safeline.

But in the past 2 years, “contacts have skewed younger,” including many more children under age 12.

“I think this is showing what a hit this is taking on young children,” he said.

Without school, sports, and other activities, younger children might be reaching out because they’ve lost trusted sources of support. Callers have been as young as 9.

“Those ones stand out,” said a crisis center supervisor who asked to go by Michael, which is not his real name, to protect the privacy of his clients.

In November 2020, a child posted in the crisis forum: “I’m 11 and my parents treat me poorly. They have told me many times to ‘kill myself’ and I didn’t let that settle well with me. ... I have tried to run away one time from my house, but they found out, so they took my phone away and put screws on my windows so I couldn’t leave.”

Increasing numbers of children told Safeline counselors that their parents were emotionally or verbally abusive, while others reported physical abuse. Some said they experienced neglect, while others had been thrown out.

“We absolutely have had youths who have either been physically kicked out of the house or just verbally told to leave,” Michael said, “and then the kid does.”
 

Heightened family conflicts

The Safeline partners with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which, despite widespread public perception, doesn’t work mainly with child abduction cases. Each year, the center assists with 29,000-31,000 cases, and 92% involve “endangered runaways,” said John Bischoff, vice president of the Missing Children Division. These children could be running away from home or foster care.

During the pandemic, the center didn’t spot major changes in its missing child numbers, “which honestly was shocking,” Mr. Bischoff said. “We figured we were either going to see an extreme rise or a decrease.

“But the reasons for the run were changing,” he said.

Many youths were fleeing out of frustration with quarantine restrictions, Mr. Bischoff said, as well as frustration with the unknown and their own lack of control over many situations.

At the runaway hotline, calls have been longer and more intense, with family problems topping the list of concerns. In 2019, about 57% of all contacts mentioned family dynamics. In 2020, that number jumped to 88%, according to Mr. Stern.

Some kids sought support for family problems that involved school. In October 2020, one 13-year-old wrote in the Safeline forum: “My mom constantly yells at me for no reason. I want to leave, but I don’t know how. I have also been really stressed about school because they haven’t been giving me the grades I would normally receive during actual school. She thinks I’m lying and that I don’t care. I just need somebody to help me.”

Many adults are under tremendous strain, too, Michael said.

“Parents might have gotten COVID last month and haven’t been able to work for 2 weeks, and they’re missing a paycheck now. Money is tight, there might not be food, everyone’s angry at everything.”

During the pandemic, the National Runaway Safeline found a 16% increase in contacts citing financial challenges.

Some children have felt confined in unsafe homes or have endured violence, as one 15-year-old reported in the forum: “I am the scapegoat out of four kids. Unfortunately, my mom has always been a toxic person. ... I’m the only kid she still hits really hard. She’s left bruises and scratches recently. ... I just have no solution to this.”
 

Worsening mental health

Besides family dynamics, mental health emerged as a top concern that youths reported in 2020. “This is something notable. It increased by 30% just in 1 year,” Mr. Stern said.

In November 2020, a 16-year-old wrote: “I can’t ever go outside. I’ve been stuck in the house for a very long time now since quarantine started. I’m scared. ... My mother has been taking her anger out on me emotionally. ... I have severe depression and I need help. Please, if there’s any way I can get out of here, let me know.”

The Safeline also has seen a rise in suicide-related contacts. Among children and teens who had cited a mental health concern, 18% said they were suicidal, Stern said. Most were between ages 12 and 16, but some were younger than 12.

When children couldn’t hang out with peers, they felt even more isolated if parents confiscated their phones, a common punishment, Michael said.

During the winter of 2020-21, “It felt like almost every digital contact was a youth reaching out on their Chromebook because they had gotten their phone taken away and they were either suicidal or considering running away,” he said. “That’s kind of their entire social sphere getting taken away.”
 

Reality check

Roughly 7 in 10 youths report still being at home when they reach out to the Safeline. Among those who do leave, Michael said, “They’re going sometimes to friends’ houses, oftentimes to a significant other’s house, sometimes to extended family members’ houses. Often, they don’t have a place that they’re planning to go. They just left, and that’s why they’re calling us.”

While some youths have been afraid of catching COVID-19 in general, the coronavirus threat hasn’t deterred those who have decided to run away, Michael said. “Usually, they’re more worried about being returned home.”

Many can’t comprehend the risks of setting off on their own.

In October 2021, a 15-year-old boy posted on the forum that his verbally abusive parents had called him a mistake and said they couldn’t wait for him to move out.

“So I’m going to make their dreams come true,” he wrote. “I’m going to go live in California with my friend who is a young YouTuber. I need help getting money to either fly or get a bus ticket, even though I’m all right with trying to ride a bike or fixing my dirt bike and getting the wagon to pull my stuff. But I’m looking for apartments in Los Angeles so I’m not living on the streets and I’m looking for a job. Please help me. My friend can’t send me money because I don’t have a bank account.”

“Often,” Michael said, “we’re reality-checking kids who want to hitchhike 5 hours away to either a friend’s or the closest shelter that we could find them. Or walk for 5 hours at 3 a.m. or bike, so we try to safety-check that.”

Another concern: online enticement by predators. During the pandemic, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children saw cases in which children ran away from home “to go meet with someone who may not be who they thought they were talking to online,” Mr. Bischoff said. “It’s certainly something we’re keeping a close eye on.”
 

Fewer resources in the pandemic

The National Runaway Safeline provides information and referrals to other hotlines and services, including suicide prevention and mental health organizations. When youths have already run away and have no place to go, Michael said, the Safeline tries to find shelter options or seek out a relative who can provide a safe place to stay.

But finding shelters became tougher during the pandemic, when many had no room or shelter supply was limited. Some had to shut down for COVID-19–related deep cleanings, Michael said. Helping youths find transportation, especially with public transportation shutdowns, also was tough.

The Huckleberry House, a six-bed youth shelter in San Francisco, has stayed open throughout the pandemic with limited staffing, said Douglas Styles, PsyD. He’s the executive director of the Huckleberry Youth Programs, which runs the house.

The shelter, which serves Bay Area runaway and homeless youths ages 12-17, hasn’t seen an overall spike in demand, Dr. Styles said. But “what’s expanded is undocumented [youths] and young people who don’t have any family connections in the area, so they’re unaccompanied as well. We’ve seen that here and there throughout the years, but during the pandemic, that population has actually increased quite a bit.”

The Huckleberry House has sheltered children and teens who have run away from all kinds of homes, including affluent ones, Dr. Styles said.

Once children leave home, the lack of adult supervision leaves them vulnerable. They face multiple dangers, including child sex trafficking and exploitation, substance abuse, gang involvement, and violence. “As an organization, that scares us,” Mr. Bischoff said. “What’s happening at home, we’ll sort that out. The biggest thing we as an organization are trying to do is locate them and ensure their safety.”

To help runaways and their families get in touch, the National Runaway Safeline provides a message service and conference calling. “We can play the middleman, really acting on behalf of the young person – not because they’re right or wrong, but to ensure that their voice is really heard,” Mr. Stern said.

Through its national Home Free program, the Safeline partners with Greyhound to bring children back home or into an alternative, safe living environment by providing a free bus ticket.

These days, technology can expose children to harm online, but it can also speed their return home.

“When I was growing up, if you weren’t home by 5 o’clock, Mom would start to worry, but she really didn’t have any way of reaching you,” Mr. Bischoff said. “More children today have cellphones. More children are easily reachable. That’s a benefit.”

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

The calls kept coming into the National Runaway Safeline during the pandemic: the desperate kids who wanted to bike away from home in the middle of the night, the isolated youths who felt suicidal, the teens whose parents had forced them out of the house.

To the surprise of experts who help runaway youths, the pandemic didn’t appear to produce a big rise or fall in the numbers of children and teens who had left home. Still, the crisis hit hard. As schools closed and households sheltered in place, youths reached out to the National Runaway Safeline to report heightened family conflicts and worsening mental health.

The Safeline, based in Chicago, is the country’s 24/7, federally designated communications system for runaway and homeless youths. Each year, it makes about 125,000 connections with young people and their family members through its hotline and other services.

In a typical year, teens aged 15-17 years are the main group that gets in touch by phone, live chat, email, or an online crisis forum, according to Jeff Stern, chief engagement officer at the Safeline.

But in the past 2 years, “contacts have skewed younger,” including many more children under age 12.

“I think this is showing what a hit this is taking on young children,” he said.

Without school, sports, and other activities, younger children might be reaching out because they’ve lost trusted sources of support. Callers have been as young as 9.

“Those ones stand out,” said a crisis center supervisor who asked to go by Michael, which is not his real name, to protect the privacy of his clients.

In November 2020, a child posted in the crisis forum: “I’m 11 and my parents treat me poorly. They have told me many times to ‘kill myself’ and I didn’t let that settle well with me. ... I have tried to run away one time from my house, but they found out, so they took my phone away and put screws on my windows so I couldn’t leave.”

Increasing numbers of children told Safeline counselors that their parents were emotionally or verbally abusive, while others reported physical abuse. Some said they experienced neglect, while others had been thrown out.

“We absolutely have had youths who have either been physically kicked out of the house or just verbally told to leave,” Michael said, “and then the kid does.”
 

Heightened family conflicts

The Safeline partners with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which, despite widespread public perception, doesn’t work mainly with child abduction cases. Each year, the center assists with 29,000-31,000 cases, and 92% involve “endangered runaways,” said John Bischoff, vice president of the Missing Children Division. These children could be running away from home or foster care.

During the pandemic, the center didn’t spot major changes in its missing child numbers, “which honestly was shocking,” Mr. Bischoff said. “We figured we were either going to see an extreme rise or a decrease.

“But the reasons for the run were changing,” he said.

Many youths were fleeing out of frustration with quarantine restrictions, Mr. Bischoff said, as well as frustration with the unknown and their own lack of control over many situations.

At the runaway hotline, calls have been longer and more intense, with family problems topping the list of concerns. In 2019, about 57% of all contacts mentioned family dynamics. In 2020, that number jumped to 88%, according to Mr. Stern.

Some kids sought support for family problems that involved school. In October 2020, one 13-year-old wrote in the Safeline forum: “My mom constantly yells at me for no reason. I want to leave, but I don’t know how. I have also been really stressed about school because they haven’t been giving me the grades I would normally receive during actual school. She thinks I’m lying and that I don’t care. I just need somebody to help me.”

Many adults are under tremendous strain, too, Michael said.

“Parents might have gotten COVID last month and haven’t been able to work for 2 weeks, and they’re missing a paycheck now. Money is tight, there might not be food, everyone’s angry at everything.”

During the pandemic, the National Runaway Safeline found a 16% increase in contacts citing financial challenges.

Some children have felt confined in unsafe homes or have endured violence, as one 15-year-old reported in the forum: “I am the scapegoat out of four kids. Unfortunately, my mom has always been a toxic person. ... I’m the only kid she still hits really hard. She’s left bruises and scratches recently. ... I just have no solution to this.”
 

Worsening mental health

Besides family dynamics, mental health emerged as a top concern that youths reported in 2020. “This is something notable. It increased by 30% just in 1 year,” Mr. Stern said.

In November 2020, a 16-year-old wrote: “I can’t ever go outside. I’ve been stuck in the house for a very long time now since quarantine started. I’m scared. ... My mother has been taking her anger out on me emotionally. ... I have severe depression and I need help. Please, if there’s any way I can get out of here, let me know.”

The Safeline also has seen a rise in suicide-related contacts. Among children and teens who had cited a mental health concern, 18% said they were suicidal, Stern said. Most were between ages 12 and 16, but some were younger than 12.

When children couldn’t hang out with peers, they felt even more isolated if parents confiscated their phones, a common punishment, Michael said.

During the winter of 2020-21, “It felt like almost every digital contact was a youth reaching out on their Chromebook because they had gotten their phone taken away and they were either suicidal or considering running away,” he said. “That’s kind of their entire social sphere getting taken away.”
 

Reality check

Roughly 7 in 10 youths report still being at home when they reach out to the Safeline. Among those who do leave, Michael said, “They’re going sometimes to friends’ houses, oftentimes to a significant other’s house, sometimes to extended family members’ houses. Often, they don’t have a place that they’re planning to go. They just left, and that’s why they’re calling us.”

While some youths have been afraid of catching COVID-19 in general, the coronavirus threat hasn’t deterred those who have decided to run away, Michael said. “Usually, they’re more worried about being returned home.”

Many can’t comprehend the risks of setting off on their own.

In October 2021, a 15-year-old boy posted on the forum that his verbally abusive parents had called him a mistake and said they couldn’t wait for him to move out.

“So I’m going to make their dreams come true,” he wrote. “I’m going to go live in California with my friend who is a young YouTuber. I need help getting money to either fly or get a bus ticket, even though I’m all right with trying to ride a bike or fixing my dirt bike and getting the wagon to pull my stuff. But I’m looking for apartments in Los Angeles so I’m not living on the streets and I’m looking for a job. Please help me. My friend can’t send me money because I don’t have a bank account.”

“Often,” Michael said, “we’re reality-checking kids who want to hitchhike 5 hours away to either a friend’s or the closest shelter that we could find them. Or walk for 5 hours at 3 a.m. or bike, so we try to safety-check that.”

Another concern: online enticement by predators. During the pandemic, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children saw cases in which children ran away from home “to go meet with someone who may not be who they thought they were talking to online,” Mr. Bischoff said. “It’s certainly something we’re keeping a close eye on.”
 

Fewer resources in the pandemic

The National Runaway Safeline provides information and referrals to other hotlines and services, including suicide prevention and mental health organizations. When youths have already run away and have no place to go, Michael said, the Safeline tries to find shelter options or seek out a relative who can provide a safe place to stay.

But finding shelters became tougher during the pandemic, when many had no room or shelter supply was limited. Some had to shut down for COVID-19–related deep cleanings, Michael said. Helping youths find transportation, especially with public transportation shutdowns, also was tough.

The Huckleberry House, a six-bed youth shelter in San Francisco, has stayed open throughout the pandemic with limited staffing, said Douglas Styles, PsyD. He’s the executive director of the Huckleberry Youth Programs, which runs the house.

The shelter, which serves Bay Area runaway and homeless youths ages 12-17, hasn’t seen an overall spike in demand, Dr. Styles said. But “what’s expanded is undocumented [youths] and young people who don’t have any family connections in the area, so they’re unaccompanied as well. We’ve seen that here and there throughout the years, but during the pandemic, that population has actually increased quite a bit.”

The Huckleberry House has sheltered children and teens who have run away from all kinds of homes, including affluent ones, Dr. Styles said.

Once children leave home, the lack of adult supervision leaves them vulnerable. They face multiple dangers, including child sex trafficking and exploitation, substance abuse, gang involvement, and violence. “As an organization, that scares us,” Mr. Bischoff said. “What’s happening at home, we’ll sort that out. The biggest thing we as an organization are trying to do is locate them and ensure their safety.”

To help runaways and their families get in touch, the National Runaway Safeline provides a message service and conference calling. “We can play the middleman, really acting on behalf of the young person – not because they’re right or wrong, but to ensure that their voice is really heard,” Mr. Stern said.

Through its national Home Free program, the Safeline partners with Greyhound to bring children back home or into an alternative, safe living environment by providing a free bus ticket.

These days, technology can expose children to harm online, but it can also speed their return home.

“When I was growing up, if you weren’t home by 5 o’clock, Mom would start to worry, but she really didn’t have any way of reaching you,” Mr. Bischoff said. “More children today have cellphones. More children are easily reachable. That’s a benefit.”

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

The calls kept coming into the National Runaway Safeline during the pandemic: the desperate kids who wanted to bike away from home in the middle of the night, the isolated youths who felt suicidal, the teens whose parents had forced them out of the house.

To the surprise of experts who help runaway youths, the pandemic didn’t appear to produce a big rise or fall in the numbers of children and teens who had left home. Still, the crisis hit hard. As schools closed and households sheltered in place, youths reached out to the National Runaway Safeline to report heightened family conflicts and worsening mental health.

The Safeline, based in Chicago, is the country’s 24/7, federally designated communications system for runaway and homeless youths. Each year, it makes about 125,000 connections with young people and their family members through its hotline and other services.

In a typical year, teens aged 15-17 years are the main group that gets in touch by phone, live chat, email, or an online crisis forum, according to Jeff Stern, chief engagement officer at the Safeline.

But in the past 2 years, “contacts have skewed younger,” including many more children under age 12.

“I think this is showing what a hit this is taking on young children,” he said.

Without school, sports, and other activities, younger children might be reaching out because they’ve lost trusted sources of support. Callers have been as young as 9.

“Those ones stand out,” said a crisis center supervisor who asked to go by Michael, which is not his real name, to protect the privacy of his clients.

In November 2020, a child posted in the crisis forum: “I’m 11 and my parents treat me poorly. They have told me many times to ‘kill myself’ and I didn’t let that settle well with me. ... I have tried to run away one time from my house, but they found out, so they took my phone away and put screws on my windows so I couldn’t leave.”

Increasing numbers of children told Safeline counselors that their parents were emotionally or verbally abusive, while others reported physical abuse. Some said they experienced neglect, while others had been thrown out.

“We absolutely have had youths who have either been physically kicked out of the house or just verbally told to leave,” Michael said, “and then the kid does.”
 

Heightened family conflicts

The Safeline partners with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which, despite widespread public perception, doesn’t work mainly with child abduction cases. Each year, the center assists with 29,000-31,000 cases, and 92% involve “endangered runaways,” said John Bischoff, vice president of the Missing Children Division. These children could be running away from home or foster care.

During the pandemic, the center didn’t spot major changes in its missing child numbers, “which honestly was shocking,” Mr. Bischoff said. “We figured we were either going to see an extreme rise or a decrease.

“But the reasons for the run were changing,” he said.

Many youths were fleeing out of frustration with quarantine restrictions, Mr. Bischoff said, as well as frustration with the unknown and their own lack of control over many situations.

At the runaway hotline, calls have been longer and more intense, with family problems topping the list of concerns. In 2019, about 57% of all contacts mentioned family dynamics. In 2020, that number jumped to 88%, according to Mr. Stern.

Some kids sought support for family problems that involved school. In October 2020, one 13-year-old wrote in the Safeline forum: “My mom constantly yells at me for no reason. I want to leave, but I don’t know how. I have also been really stressed about school because they haven’t been giving me the grades I would normally receive during actual school. She thinks I’m lying and that I don’t care. I just need somebody to help me.”

Many adults are under tremendous strain, too, Michael said.

“Parents might have gotten COVID last month and haven’t been able to work for 2 weeks, and they’re missing a paycheck now. Money is tight, there might not be food, everyone’s angry at everything.”

During the pandemic, the National Runaway Safeline found a 16% increase in contacts citing financial challenges.

Some children have felt confined in unsafe homes or have endured violence, as one 15-year-old reported in the forum: “I am the scapegoat out of four kids. Unfortunately, my mom has always been a toxic person. ... I’m the only kid she still hits really hard. She’s left bruises and scratches recently. ... I just have no solution to this.”
 

Worsening mental health

Besides family dynamics, mental health emerged as a top concern that youths reported in 2020. “This is something notable. It increased by 30% just in 1 year,” Mr. Stern said.

In November 2020, a 16-year-old wrote: “I can’t ever go outside. I’ve been stuck in the house for a very long time now since quarantine started. I’m scared. ... My mother has been taking her anger out on me emotionally. ... I have severe depression and I need help. Please, if there’s any way I can get out of here, let me know.”

The Safeline also has seen a rise in suicide-related contacts. Among children and teens who had cited a mental health concern, 18% said they were suicidal, Stern said. Most were between ages 12 and 16, but some were younger than 12.

When children couldn’t hang out with peers, they felt even more isolated if parents confiscated their phones, a common punishment, Michael said.

During the winter of 2020-21, “It felt like almost every digital contact was a youth reaching out on their Chromebook because they had gotten their phone taken away and they were either suicidal or considering running away,” he said. “That’s kind of their entire social sphere getting taken away.”
 

Reality check

Roughly 7 in 10 youths report still being at home when they reach out to the Safeline. Among those who do leave, Michael said, “They’re going sometimes to friends’ houses, oftentimes to a significant other’s house, sometimes to extended family members’ houses. Often, they don’t have a place that they’re planning to go. They just left, and that’s why they’re calling us.”

While some youths have been afraid of catching COVID-19 in general, the coronavirus threat hasn’t deterred those who have decided to run away, Michael said. “Usually, they’re more worried about being returned home.”

Many can’t comprehend the risks of setting off on their own.

In October 2021, a 15-year-old boy posted on the forum that his verbally abusive parents had called him a mistake and said they couldn’t wait for him to move out.

“So I’m going to make their dreams come true,” he wrote. “I’m going to go live in California with my friend who is a young YouTuber. I need help getting money to either fly or get a bus ticket, even though I’m all right with trying to ride a bike or fixing my dirt bike and getting the wagon to pull my stuff. But I’m looking for apartments in Los Angeles so I’m not living on the streets and I’m looking for a job. Please help me. My friend can’t send me money because I don’t have a bank account.”

“Often,” Michael said, “we’re reality-checking kids who want to hitchhike 5 hours away to either a friend’s or the closest shelter that we could find them. Or walk for 5 hours at 3 a.m. or bike, so we try to safety-check that.”

Another concern: online enticement by predators. During the pandemic, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children saw cases in which children ran away from home “to go meet with someone who may not be who they thought they were talking to online,” Mr. Bischoff said. “It’s certainly something we’re keeping a close eye on.”
 

Fewer resources in the pandemic

The National Runaway Safeline provides information and referrals to other hotlines and services, including suicide prevention and mental health organizations. When youths have already run away and have no place to go, Michael said, the Safeline tries to find shelter options or seek out a relative who can provide a safe place to stay.

But finding shelters became tougher during the pandemic, when many had no room or shelter supply was limited. Some had to shut down for COVID-19–related deep cleanings, Michael said. Helping youths find transportation, especially with public transportation shutdowns, also was tough.

The Huckleberry House, a six-bed youth shelter in San Francisco, has stayed open throughout the pandemic with limited staffing, said Douglas Styles, PsyD. He’s the executive director of the Huckleberry Youth Programs, which runs the house.

The shelter, which serves Bay Area runaway and homeless youths ages 12-17, hasn’t seen an overall spike in demand, Dr. Styles said. But “what’s expanded is undocumented [youths] and young people who don’t have any family connections in the area, so they’re unaccompanied as well. We’ve seen that here and there throughout the years, but during the pandemic, that population has actually increased quite a bit.”

The Huckleberry House has sheltered children and teens who have run away from all kinds of homes, including affluent ones, Dr. Styles said.

Once children leave home, the lack of adult supervision leaves them vulnerable. They face multiple dangers, including child sex trafficking and exploitation, substance abuse, gang involvement, and violence. “As an organization, that scares us,” Mr. Bischoff said. “What’s happening at home, we’ll sort that out. The biggest thing we as an organization are trying to do is locate them and ensure their safety.”

To help runaways and their families get in touch, the National Runaway Safeline provides a message service and conference calling. “We can play the middleman, really acting on behalf of the young person – not because they’re right or wrong, but to ensure that their voice is really heard,” Mr. Stern said.

Through its national Home Free program, the Safeline partners with Greyhound to bring children back home or into an alternative, safe living environment by providing a free bus ticket.

These days, technology can expose children to harm online, but it can also speed their return home.

“When I was growing up, if you weren’t home by 5 o’clock, Mom would start to worry, but she really didn’t have any way of reaching you,” Mr. Bischoff said. “More children today have cellphones. More children are easily reachable. That’s a benefit.”

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