MDedge Emergency Medicine

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

For mid-career oncologist Tanya Wildes, MD, the pandemic was the last straw. In late September, she tweeted: “I have done the academically unfathomable: I am resigning my faculty position without another job lined up.”

She wasn’t burned out, she insisted. She loved her patients and her research. But she was also “100% confident” in her decision and “also 100% sad. This did not have to happen,” she lamented, asking not to disclose her workplace for fear of retribution.

Being a woman in medicine “is a hard life to start with,” Dr. Wildes said in an interview. “We all have that tenuous balance going on and the pandemic made everything just a little bit harder.”

She describes her prepandemic work-life balance as a “Jenga tower, with everything only just in place.” But she realized that the balance had tipped, when after a difficult clinic she felt emotionally wrung out. Her 11-year-old son had asked her to help him fly his model airplane. “I told him, ‘Honey, I can’t do it because if it crashes or gets stuck in a tree ... you’re going to be devastated and I have nothing left for you.’ “

This was a eureka moment, as “I realized, this is not who I want to be,” she said, holding back tears. “Seventy years from now my son is going to tell his grandchildren about the pandemic and I don’t want his memory of his mom to be that she couldn’t be there for him because she was too spent.”

When Dr. Wildes shared her story on Twitter, other female oncologists and physicians responded that they too have felt they’re under increased pressure this year, with the extra stress of the pandemic leading others to quit as well.

The trend of doctors leaving medicine has been noticeable. A July survey from the Physicians Foundation found that roughly 16,000 medical practices had already closed during the pandemic, with another 8,000 predicted to close within the next year.

“Similar patterns” were evident in another analysis by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative, as reported in The New York Times. In that survey, nearly one-fifth of primary care clinicians said “someone in their practice plans to retire early or has already retired because of COVID-19,” and 15% say “someone has left or plans to leave the practice.” About half said their mental exhaustion was at an all-time high, the survey found.

“COVID-19 is a burden, and that added burden has tipped people over the edge of many things,” said Monica Bertagnolli, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It has illustrated that we do have a lot of people who are working kind of on the edge of not being able to handle everything,” she said.

While many in medicine are struggling, the pandemic seems to be pushing more women to leave, highlighting longtime gender disparities and increased caregiving burdens. And their absence may be felt for years to come.

Firm numbers are hard to come by, said Julie Silver, MD, associate professor, associate chair, and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an expert in gender equity in medicine. But she sees some troubling trends.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” Dr. Silver said in an interview. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

A survey of 1,809 women conducted in mid-April with the Physician Moms Facebook Group and accepted for online publication by the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 41% scored over the cutoff points for moderate or severe anxiety, with 46% meeting these criteria among front-line workers.

“It’s really important for society to recognize the extraordinary impact this pandemic is having on physician mothers, as there will be profound ripple effects on the ability of this key segment of the health care workforce to serve others if we do not address this problem urgently,” co-senior author Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Women weighed in on Twitter, in response to Dr. Silver’s tweet to #WomenInMedicine: “If you are thinking of leaving #medicine & need a reason to stay: we value you & need you.”

In reply, Emmy Betz, MD, MPH, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said via Twitter, “I’ve had lots of conversations with women considering leaving medicine.”

“I have thought about leaving many times. I love what I do, but medicine can be an unkind world at times,” responded Valerie Fitzhugh MD, associate professor and pathologist at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“Too late. Left at the end of July and it was the best decision ever,” wrote Michelle Gordon, DO, who was previously a board-certified general surgeon at Northern Westchester Surgical Associates in Putnam Valley, N.Y.


 

Prepandemic disparities accentuated

The pandemic “has merely accentuated – or made more apparent – some of the longstanding issues and struggles of women in oncology, women in medicine, women in academia,” said Sarah Holstein, MD, PhD, another mid-career oncologist and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“There are disparities in first-author/last-author publications, disparities in being asked to give speaking engagements, disparities in leadership,” Dr. Holstein said in an interview. “And then ... put on top of that the various surges with the pandemic where you are being asked to do clinical responsibilities you don’t normally do, perhaps some things you haven’t done since your training 10 or 20 years ago.”

This is backed up with data: There is already a “robust” body of prepandemic literature demonstrating pay gaps for female physicians and scientists, noted Dr. Silver, who founded the Her Time Is Now campaign for gender equity in medicine and runs a women’s leadership course at Harvard.

In addition, female physicians are more likely to be involved in “nonpromotable” work, group projects and educator roles that are often underappreciated and undercompensated, she said.

Writing recently in a blog post for the BMJ, Dr. Silver and colleagues predict that as a result of the pandemic, female physicians will “face disadvantages from unconscious bias in decisions about whose pay should be cut, whose operating schedules should take priority when resources are limited, and whose contributions merit retention ... The ground that women lose now will likely have a profound effect for many years to come, perhaps putting them at a disadvantage for the rest of their careers.”

There is already evidence of reduced publishing by female scientists during the pandemic, something that “could undermine the careers of an entire generation of women scholars,” noted Caitlyn Collins, PhD, assistant professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Science needs to address the culture of overwork,” Dr. Collins said in an interview. “Parents and other caregivers deserve support. The stress and ‘overwhelm’ they feel is not inevitable. A more fair, just, and humane approach to combining work and family is possible – what we need is the political will to pass better policies and a massive shift in our cultural understandings about how work should fit into family life, not the other way around.”

Lack of support for “vulnerable scientists,” particularly “junior scientists who are parents, women, or minorities” could lead to “severe attrition in cancer research in the coming years,” Cullen Taniguchi, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, warned in a recent letter to the journal Cancer Cell.

“The biggest worries of attrition will come from young faculty who started just before or after the pandemic,” Dr. Taniguchi said in an interview. “The first year in an academic setting is incredibly challenging but also important for establishing research efforts and building networks of colleagues to collaborate with. While completely necessary, the restrictions put in place during the pandemic made doing these things even more difficult.”
 

Another stressor: Caregiving at home

Another reason female physicians may be marginalized during the pandemic is that they are more often the primary caregivers at home.

“Anyone who is a caregiver, be it to kids, parents, or spouses, can relate to the challenges brought [on] by the pandemic,” said Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a palliative care physician and medical oncologist at MD Anderson.

“Most of us work toward meeting our responsibilities by engaging a network of support, whether it’s home care workers, center-based or at-home child care, schools, or activities outside of school. The pandemic led to a level of disruption that brought most (if not all) of those responsibilities onto the caregivers themselves,” she said in an interview.

As the mother of an adult son with severe epilepsy, Dr. Bertagnolli has certainly experienced the challenges of parenting during the pandemic. “Our son is now 24 but he is handicapped, and lives with us. The care issues we have to deal with as professionals have been enormously magnified by COVID,” she said.

But she cautions against making gender distinctions when it comes to caregiving. “Has it fallen on the women? Well, this kind of stuff generally falls on the women, but I am certain it has fallen on an awful lot of men as well, because I think the world is changing that way, so it’s fallen on all of us.”

There is no question that female oncologists are bearing the brunt, both at work and at home, contended Dr. Taniguchi. “Absolutely. I have seen this first-hand,” he said.

“If it was difficult for women, underrepresented minorities, and junior faculty to find a voice in the room prepandemic, I think it can be harder in the times of virtual meetings when it is difficult to engage audiences,” he said. 

Dr. Holstein said she is lucky to be well-supported at her institution, with both a female chief of hematology/oncology and a female chair of internal medicine, but still, she worries about the long-term consequences of the pandemic on the gender landscape of medicine.

“If you’re having to put aside research projects because you have extra responsibilities – again because women just tend to have a lot of other things going on – that might not be a big deal for 3 months, 6 months, but this is going to be a year or 2 years before ‘normal’ comes back,” she says. “One to two years of underpublishing or not getting the grants could be career killers for women in academic oncology.”
 

Cancer COVID-19 combo

As Dr. Wildes completed her final weeks of seeing cancer patients, she received an outpouring of support, which she says convinced her of the shared experience of all doctors, and especially female doctors, during the pandemic. But even more specifically, she feels that she has tapped into the unique burden shouldered by oncologists during this time.

“It’s intimidating being an oncologist; we are literally giving people poison for a living. Then throw into it a pandemic where early in March we had so little data. I was helping my patients make decisions about their cancer care based on a case series of four patients in China. The burden of those conversations is something I never want to have to live through again,” she said.

“Oncology is a particularly intense subspecialty within medicine,” agreed Dr. Subbiah. “The people we care for have received a life-altering and potentially life-limiting diagnosis. Coupled with that, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented cloud of uncertainty ... Whether the patients can see it overtly or not, oncologists carry the weight of this worry with them for not just one but all of their patients.”

Dr. Wildes said she plans to return to academic medicine and clinical care “in time,” but for now, the gap that she and others like her leave is troubling to those who have stayed on.

“We need these women in medicine,” said Dr. Holstein. “We have data suggesting that women take more time with their patients than men, that patient outcomes are better if they have a female physician. But also for the generations coming up, we need the mid-career and senior women to be in place to mentor and guide and make sure we continue to increase women in leadership.”

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

For mid-career oncologist Tanya Wildes, MD, the pandemic was the last straw. In late September, she tweeted: “I have done the academically unfathomable: I am resigning my faculty position without another job lined up.”

She wasn’t burned out, she insisted. She loved her patients and her research. But she was also “100% confident” in her decision and “also 100% sad. This did not have to happen,” she lamented, asking not to disclose her workplace for fear of retribution.

Being a woman in medicine “is a hard life to start with,” Dr. Wildes said in an interview. “We all have that tenuous balance going on and the pandemic made everything just a little bit harder.”

She describes her prepandemic work-life balance as a “Jenga tower, with everything only just in place.” But she realized that the balance had tipped, when after a difficult clinic she felt emotionally wrung out. Her 11-year-old son had asked her to help him fly his model airplane. “I told him, ‘Honey, I can’t do it because if it crashes or gets stuck in a tree ... you’re going to be devastated and I have nothing left for you.’ “

This was a eureka moment, as “I realized, this is not who I want to be,” she said, holding back tears. “Seventy years from now my son is going to tell his grandchildren about the pandemic and I don’t want his memory of his mom to be that she couldn’t be there for him because she was too spent.”

When Dr. Wildes shared her story on Twitter, other female oncologists and physicians responded that they too have felt they’re under increased pressure this year, with the extra stress of the pandemic leading others to quit as well.

The trend of doctors leaving medicine has been noticeable. A July survey from the Physicians Foundation found that roughly 16,000 medical practices had already closed during the pandemic, with another 8,000 predicted to close within the next year.

“Similar patterns” were evident in another analysis by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative, as reported in The New York Times. In that survey, nearly one-fifth of primary care clinicians said “someone in their practice plans to retire early or has already retired because of COVID-19,” and 15% say “someone has left or plans to leave the practice.” About half said their mental exhaustion was at an all-time high, the survey found.

“COVID-19 is a burden, and that added burden has tipped people over the edge of many things,” said Monica Bertagnolli, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It has illustrated that we do have a lot of people who are working kind of on the edge of not being able to handle everything,” she said.

While many in medicine are struggling, the pandemic seems to be pushing more women to leave, highlighting longtime gender disparities and increased caregiving burdens. And their absence may be felt for years to come.

Firm numbers are hard to come by, said Julie Silver, MD, associate professor, associate chair, and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an expert in gender equity in medicine. But she sees some troubling trends.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” Dr. Silver said in an interview. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

A survey of 1,809 women conducted in mid-April with the Physician Moms Facebook Group and accepted for online publication by the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 41% scored over the cutoff points for moderate or severe anxiety, with 46% meeting these criteria among front-line workers.

“It’s really important for society to recognize the extraordinary impact this pandemic is having on physician mothers, as there will be profound ripple effects on the ability of this key segment of the health care workforce to serve others if we do not address this problem urgently,” co-senior author Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Women weighed in on Twitter, in response to Dr. Silver’s tweet to #WomenInMedicine: “If you are thinking of leaving #medicine & need a reason to stay: we value you & need you.”

In reply, Emmy Betz, MD, MPH, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said via Twitter, “I’ve had lots of conversations with women considering leaving medicine.”

“I have thought about leaving many times. I love what I do, but medicine can be an unkind world at times,” responded Valerie Fitzhugh MD, associate professor and pathologist at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“Too late. Left at the end of July and it was the best decision ever,” wrote Michelle Gordon, DO, who was previously a board-certified general surgeon at Northern Westchester Surgical Associates in Putnam Valley, N.Y.


 

Prepandemic disparities accentuated

The pandemic “has merely accentuated – or made more apparent – some of the longstanding issues and struggles of women in oncology, women in medicine, women in academia,” said Sarah Holstein, MD, PhD, another mid-career oncologist and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“There are disparities in first-author/last-author publications, disparities in being asked to give speaking engagements, disparities in leadership,” Dr. Holstein said in an interview. “And then ... put on top of that the various surges with the pandemic where you are being asked to do clinical responsibilities you don’t normally do, perhaps some things you haven’t done since your training 10 or 20 years ago.”

This is backed up with data: There is already a “robust” body of prepandemic literature demonstrating pay gaps for female physicians and scientists, noted Dr. Silver, who founded the Her Time Is Now campaign for gender equity in medicine and runs a women’s leadership course at Harvard.

In addition, female physicians are more likely to be involved in “nonpromotable” work, group projects and educator roles that are often underappreciated and undercompensated, she said.

Writing recently in a blog post for the BMJ, Dr. Silver and colleagues predict that as a result of the pandemic, female physicians will “face disadvantages from unconscious bias in decisions about whose pay should be cut, whose operating schedules should take priority when resources are limited, and whose contributions merit retention ... The ground that women lose now will likely have a profound effect for many years to come, perhaps putting them at a disadvantage for the rest of their careers.”

There is already evidence of reduced publishing by female scientists during the pandemic, something that “could undermine the careers of an entire generation of women scholars,” noted Caitlyn Collins, PhD, assistant professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Science needs to address the culture of overwork,” Dr. Collins said in an interview. “Parents and other caregivers deserve support. The stress and ‘overwhelm’ they feel is not inevitable. A more fair, just, and humane approach to combining work and family is possible – what we need is the political will to pass better policies and a massive shift in our cultural understandings about how work should fit into family life, not the other way around.”

Lack of support for “vulnerable scientists,” particularly “junior scientists who are parents, women, or minorities” could lead to “severe attrition in cancer research in the coming years,” Cullen Taniguchi, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, warned in a recent letter to the journal Cancer Cell.

“The biggest worries of attrition will come from young faculty who started just before or after the pandemic,” Dr. Taniguchi said in an interview. “The first year in an academic setting is incredibly challenging but also important for establishing research efforts and building networks of colleagues to collaborate with. While completely necessary, the restrictions put in place during the pandemic made doing these things even more difficult.”
 

Another stressor: Caregiving at home

Another reason female physicians may be marginalized during the pandemic is that they are more often the primary caregivers at home.

“Anyone who is a caregiver, be it to kids, parents, or spouses, can relate to the challenges brought [on] by the pandemic,” said Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a palliative care physician and medical oncologist at MD Anderson.

“Most of us work toward meeting our responsibilities by engaging a network of support, whether it’s home care workers, center-based or at-home child care, schools, or activities outside of school. The pandemic led to a level of disruption that brought most (if not all) of those responsibilities onto the caregivers themselves,” she said in an interview.

As the mother of an adult son with severe epilepsy, Dr. Bertagnolli has certainly experienced the challenges of parenting during the pandemic. “Our son is now 24 but he is handicapped, and lives with us. The care issues we have to deal with as professionals have been enormously magnified by COVID,” she said.

But she cautions against making gender distinctions when it comes to caregiving. “Has it fallen on the women? Well, this kind of stuff generally falls on the women, but I am certain it has fallen on an awful lot of men as well, because I think the world is changing that way, so it’s fallen on all of us.”

There is no question that female oncologists are bearing the brunt, both at work and at home, contended Dr. Taniguchi. “Absolutely. I have seen this first-hand,” he said.

“If it was difficult for women, underrepresented minorities, and junior faculty to find a voice in the room prepandemic, I think it can be harder in the times of virtual meetings when it is difficult to engage audiences,” he said. 

Dr. Holstein said she is lucky to be well-supported at her institution, with both a female chief of hematology/oncology and a female chair of internal medicine, but still, she worries about the long-term consequences of the pandemic on the gender landscape of medicine.

“If you’re having to put aside research projects because you have extra responsibilities – again because women just tend to have a lot of other things going on – that might not be a big deal for 3 months, 6 months, but this is going to be a year or 2 years before ‘normal’ comes back,” she says. “One to two years of underpublishing or not getting the grants could be career killers for women in academic oncology.”
 

Cancer COVID-19 combo

As Dr. Wildes completed her final weeks of seeing cancer patients, she received an outpouring of support, which she says convinced her of the shared experience of all doctors, and especially female doctors, during the pandemic. But even more specifically, she feels that she has tapped into the unique burden shouldered by oncologists during this time.

“It’s intimidating being an oncologist; we are literally giving people poison for a living. Then throw into it a pandemic where early in March we had so little data. I was helping my patients make decisions about their cancer care based on a case series of four patients in China. The burden of those conversations is something I never want to have to live through again,” she said.

“Oncology is a particularly intense subspecialty within medicine,” agreed Dr. Subbiah. “The people we care for have received a life-altering and potentially life-limiting diagnosis. Coupled with that, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented cloud of uncertainty ... Whether the patients can see it overtly or not, oncologists carry the weight of this worry with them for not just one but all of their patients.”

Dr. Wildes said she plans to return to academic medicine and clinical care “in time,” but for now, the gap that she and others like her leave is troubling to those who have stayed on.

“We need these women in medicine,” said Dr. Holstein. “We have data suggesting that women take more time with their patients than men, that patient outcomes are better if they have a female physician. But also for the generations coming up, we need the mid-career and senior women to be in place to mentor and guide and make sure we continue to increase women in leadership.”

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

For mid-career oncologist Tanya Wildes, MD, the pandemic was the last straw. In late September, she tweeted: “I have done the academically unfathomable: I am resigning my faculty position without another job lined up.”

She wasn’t burned out, she insisted. She loved her patients and her research. But she was also “100% confident” in her decision and “also 100% sad. This did not have to happen,” she lamented, asking not to disclose her workplace for fear of retribution.

Being a woman in medicine “is a hard life to start with,” Dr. Wildes said in an interview. “We all have that tenuous balance going on and the pandemic made everything just a little bit harder.”

She describes her prepandemic work-life balance as a “Jenga tower, with everything only just in place.” But she realized that the balance had tipped, when after a difficult clinic she felt emotionally wrung out. Her 11-year-old son had asked her to help him fly his model airplane. “I told him, ‘Honey, I can’t do it because if it crashes or gets stuck in a tree ... you’re going to be devastated and I have nothing left for you.’ “

This was a eureka moment, as “I realized, this is not who I want to be,” she said, holding back tears. “Seventy years from now my son is going to tell his grandchildren about the pandemic and I don’t want his memory of his mom to be that she couldn’t be there for him because she was too spent.”

When Dr. Wildes shared her story on Twitter, other female oncologists and physicians responded that they too have felt they’re under increased pressure this year, with the extra stress of the pandemic leading others to quit as well.

The trend of doctors leaving medicine has been noticeable. A July survey from the Physicians Foundation found that roughly 16,000 medical practices had already closed during the pandemic, with another 8,000 predicted to close within the next year.

“Similar patterns” were evident in another analysis by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative, as reported in The New York Times. In that survey, nearly one-fifth of primary care clinicians said “someone in their practice plans to retire early or has already retired because of COVID-19,” and 15% say “someone has left or plans to leave the practice.” About half said their mental exhaustion was at an all-time high, the survey found.

“COVID-19 is a burden, and that added burden has tipped people over the edge of many things,” said Monica Bertagnolli, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It has illustrated that we do have a lot of people who are working kind of on the edge of not being able to handle everything,” she said.

While many in medicine are struggling, the pandemic seems to be pushing more women to leave, highlighting longtime gender disparities and increased caregiving burdens. And their absence may be felt for years to come.

Firm numbers are hard to come by, said Julie Silver, MD, associate professor, associate chair, and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an expert in gender equity in medicine. But she sees some troubling trends.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” Dr. Silver said in an interview. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

A survey of 1,809 women conducted in mid-April with the Physician Moms Facebook Group and accepted for online publication by the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 41% scored over the cutoff points for moderate or severe anxiety, with 46% meeting these criteria among front-line workers.

“It’s really important for society to recognize the extraordinary impact this pandemic is having on physician mothers, as there will be profound ripple effects on the ability of this key segment of the health care workforce to serve others if we do not address this problem urgently,” co-senior author Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Women weighed in on Twitter, in response to Dr. Silver’s tweet to #WomenInMedicine: “If you are thinking of leaving #medicine & need a reason to stay: we value you & need you.”

In reply, Emmy Betz, MD, MPH, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said via Twitter, “I’ve had lots of conversations with women considering leaving medicine.”

“I have thought about leaving many times. I love what I do, but medicine can be an unkind world at times,” responded Valerie Fitzhugh MD, associate professor and pathologist at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“Too late. Left at the end of July and it was the best decision ever,” wrote Michelle Gordon, DO, who was previously a board-certified general surgeon at Northern Westchester Surgical Associates in Putnam Valley, N.Y.


 

Prepandemic disparities accentuated

The pandemic “has merely accentuated – or made more apparent – some of the longstanding issues and struggles of women in oncology, women in medicine, women in academia,” said Sarah Holstein, MD, PhD, another mid-career oncologist and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“There are disparities in first-author/last-author publications, disparities in being asked to give speaking engagements, disparities in leadership,” Dr. Holstein said in an interview. “And then ... put on top of that the various surges with the pandemic where you are being asked to do clinical responsibilities you don’t normally do, perhaps some things you haven’t done since your training 10 or 20 years ago.”

This is backed up with data: There is already a “robust” body of prepandemic literature demonstrating pay gaps for female physicians and scientists, noted Dr. Silver, who founded the Her Time Is Now campaign for gender equity in medicine and runs a women’s leadership course at Harvard.

In addition, female physicians are more likely to be involved in “nonpromotable” work, group projects and educator roles that are often underappreciated and undercompensated, she said.

Writing recently in a blog post for the BMJ, Dr. Silver and colleagues predict that as a result of the pandemic, female physicians will “face disadvantages from unconscious bias in decisions about whose pay should be cut, whose operating schedules should take priority when resources are limited, and whose contributions merit retention ... The ground that women lose now will likely have a profound effect for many years to come, perhaps putting them at a disadvantage for the rest of their careers.”

There is already evidence of reduced publishing by female scientists during the pandemic, something that “could undermine the careers of an entire generation of women scholars,” noted Caitlyn Collins, PhD, assistant professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Science needs to address the culture of overwork,” Dr. Collins said in an interview. “Parents and other caregivers deserve support. The stress and ‘overwhelm’ they feel is not inevitable. A more fair, just, and humane approach to combining work and family is possible – what we need is the political will to pass better policies and a massive shift in our cultural understandings about how work should fit into family life, not the other way around.”

Lack of support for “vulnerable scientists,” particularly “junior scientists who are parents, women, or minorities” could lead to “severe attrition in cancer research in the coming years,” Cullen Taniguchi, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, warned in a recent letter to the journal Cancer Cell.

“The biggest worries of attrition will come from young faculty who started just before or after the pandemic,” Dr. Taniguchi said in an interview. “The first year in an academic setting is incredibly challenging but also important for establishing research efforts and building networks of colleagues to collaborate with. While completely necessary, the restrictions put in place during the pandemic made doing these things even more difficult.”
 

Another stressor: Caregiving at home

Another reason female physicians may be marginalized during the pandemic is that they are more often the primary caregivers at home.

“Anyone who is a caregiver, be it to kids, parents, or spouses, can relate to the challenges brought [on] by the pandemic,” said Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a palliative care physician and medical oncologist at MD Anderson.

“Most of us work toward meeting our responsibilities by engaging a network of support, whether it’s home care workers, center-based or at-home child care, schools, or activities outside of school. The pandemic led to a level of disruption that brought most (if not all) of those responsibilities onto the caregivers themselves,” she said in an interview.

As the mother of an adult son with severe epilepsy, Dr. Bertagnolli has certainly experienced the challenges of parenting during the pandemic. “Our son is now 24 but he is handicapped, and lives with us. The care issues we have to deal with as professionals have been enormously magnified by COVID,” she said.

But she cautions against making gender distinctions when it comes to caregiving. “Has it fallen on the women? Well, this kind of stuff generally falls on the women, but I am certain it has fallen on an awful lot of men as well, because I think the world is changing that way, so it’s fallen on all of us.”

There is no question that female oncologists are bearing the brunt, both at work and at home, contended Dr. Taniguchi. “Absolutely. I have seen this first-hand,” he said.

“If it was difficult for women, underrepresented minorities, and junior faculty to find a voice in the room prepandemic, I think it can be harder in the times of virtual meetings when it is difficult to engage audiences,” he said. 

Dr. Holstein said she is lucky to be well-supported at her institution, with both a female chief of hematology/oncology and a female chair of internal medicine, but still, she worries about the long-term consequences of the pandemic on the gender landscape of medicine.

“If you’re having to put aside research projects because you have extra responsibilities – again because women just tend to have a lot of other things going on – that might not be a big deal for 3 months, 6 months, but this is going to be a year or 2 years before ‘normal’ comes back,” she says. “One to two years of underpublishing or not getting the grants could be career killers for women in academic oncology.”
 

Cancer COVID-19 combo

As Dr. Wildes completed her final weeks of seeing cancer patients, she received an outpouring of support, which she says convinced her of the shared experience of all doctors, and especially female doctors, during the pandemic. But even more specifically, she feels that she has tapped into the unique burden shouldered by oncologists during this time.

“It’s intimidating being an oncologist; we are literally giving people poison for a living. Then throw into it a pandemic where early in March we had so little data. I was helping my patients make decisions about their cancer care based on a case series of four patients in China. The burden of those conversations is something I never want to have to live through again,” she said.

“Oncology is a particularly intense subspecialty within medicine,” agreed Dr. Subbiah. “The people we care for have received a life-altering and potentially life-limiting diagnosis. Coupled with that, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented cloud of uncertainty ... Whether the patients can see it overtly or not, oncologists carry the weight of this worry with them for not just one but all of their patients.”

Dr. Wildes said she plans to return to academic medicine and clinical care “in time,” but for now, the gap that she and others like her leave is troubling to those who have stayed on.

“We need these women in medicine,” said Dr. Holstein. “We have data suggesting that women take more time with their patients than men, that patient outcomes are better if they have a female physician. But also for the generations coming up, we need the mid-career and senior women to be in place to mentor and guide and make sure we continue to increase women in leadership.”

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.

At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.

Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:

“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”

The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.

“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”

New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:

“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”

Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”

The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.

The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:

“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”

Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”

Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.

Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”

Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “I believe that one of the biggest things that keeps us safe is the community’s knowledge and understanding of our service and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”

Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.

Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.

“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”

There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.

“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.

At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.

Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:

“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”

The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.

“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”

New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:

“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”

Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”

The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.

The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:

“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”

Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”

Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.

Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”

Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “I believe that one of the biggest things that keeps us safe is the community’s knowledge and understanding of our service and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”

Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.

Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.

“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”

There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.

“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.

At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.

Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:

“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”

The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.

“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”

New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:

“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”

Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”

The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.

The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:

“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”

Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”

Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.

Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”

Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “I believe that one of the biggest things that keeps us safe is the community’s knowledge and understanding of our service and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”

Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.

Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.

“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”

There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]