MDedge Emergency Medicine

The COVID-19 pandemic fueled a sharp uptick in deaths related to chronic liver disease and cirrhosis among people with diabetes, largely owing to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), new data show.

“Our observations confirm that COVID-19 had a higher likelihood of impacting vulnerable populations with pre-existing chronic liver diseases and diabetes, with a death rate as high as 10% in individuals with co-existing chronic liver disease and diabetes,” write the authors.

“The inability to attend regular outpatient clinics for close monitoring and treatment accompanied by diversion of health care resources to COVID-19 care may have resulted in the suboptimal or delayed clinical care of individuals with diabetes and chronic liver disease during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they add.

Donghee Kim, MD, PhD, with the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, and colleagues report their findings in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Vulnerable group

The researchers used U.S. national mortality data (2017-2020) to estimate chronic liver disease–related mortality trends among individuals with diabetes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic, the quarterly mortality for chronic liver disease remained stable (quarterly percentage change, 0.6%) but then sharply increased during the pandemic (QPC, 8.6%).

A similar trend was seen with cirrhosis-related mortality (QPC, 0.3% before the pandemic vs. 8.4% during the pandemic).

NAFLD and ALD mortality among individuals with diabetes was steadily increasing before the pandemic (QPC, 4.2% and 3.5%, respectively) but showed a more rapid increase during the pandemic (QPC, 9.6% and 7.7%, respectively).

ALD-related mortality in men was more than threefold higher than in women, while NAFLD-related mortality in women was more than twofold higher than in men.

Mortality for hepatitis C virus infection declined before the pandemic (QPC, −3.3%) and remained stable during the pandemic.

COVID-19–related mortality among adults with chronic liver disease and diabetes also rose sharply during the pandemic – from 0.4% in the first quarter of 2020 to 12.9% in the last quarter of 2020 – with no considerable difference between men and women.
 

Blame it on lockdowns?

Dr. Kim and colleagues say research is needed to better understand the direct and indirect influence of COVID-19 on coexisting chronic liver disease and diabetes.

“It is plausible that psychosocial stress and a higher predisposition to psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic can increase the risk of alcohol use disorder and ALD,” they write.

“Furthermore, it is prudent to suspect that COVID-19–related lockdowns may increase the risk of obesity, leading to a higher risk of insulin resistance and metabolic complications, including diabetes and NAFLD. Future studies are needed to improve our understanding of these possible pathogenetic links. More importantly, emergency preparedness or contingency plans must be in place to continue and provide uninterrupted care for chronic ailments during times of disaster,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic fueled a sharp uptick in deaths related to chronic liver disease and cirrhosis among people with diabetes, largely owing to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), new data show.

“Our observations confirm that COVID-19 had a higher likelihood of impacting vulnerable populations with pre-existing chronic liver diseases and diabetes, with a death rate as high as 10% in individuals with co-existing chronic liver disease and diabetes,” write the authors.

“The inability to attend regular outpatient clinics for close monitoring and treatment accompanied by diversion of health care resources to COVID-19 care may have resulted in the suboptimal or delayed clinical care of individuals with diabetes and chronic liver disease during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they add.

Donghee Kim, MD, PhD, with the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, and colleagues report their findings in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Vulnerable group

The researchers used U.S. national mortality data (2017-2020) to estimate chronic liver disease–related mortality trends among individuals with diabetes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic, the quarterly mortality for chronic liver disease remained stable (quarterly percentage change, 0.6%) but then sharply increased during the pandemic (QPC, 8.6%).

A similar trend was seen with cirrhosis-related mortality (QPC, 0.3% before the pandemic vs. 8.4% during the pandemic).

NAFLD and ALD mortality among individuals with diabetes was steadily increasing before the pandemic (QPC, 4.2% and 3.5%, respectively) but showed a more rapid increase during the pandemic (QPC, 9.6% and 7.7%, respectively).

ALD-related mortality in men was more than threefold higher than in women, while NAFLD-related mortality in women was more than twofold higher than in men.

Mortality for hepatitis C virus infection declined before the pandemic (QPC, −3.3%) and remained stable during the pandemic.

COVID-19–related mortality among adults with chronic liver disease and diabetes also rose sharply during the pandemic – from 0.4% in the first quarter of 2020 to 12.9% in the last quarter of 2020 – with no considerable difference between men and women.
 

Blame it on lockdowns?

Dr. Kim and colleagues say research is needed to better understand the direct and indirect influence of COVID-19 on coexisting chronic liver disease and diabetes.

“It is plausible that psychosocial stress and a higher predisposition to psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic can increase the risk of alcohol use disorder and ALD,” they write.

“Furthermore, it is prudent to suspect that COVID-19–related lockdowns may increase the risk of obesity, leading to a higher risk of insulin resistance and metabolic complications, including diabetes and NAFLD. Future studies are needed to improve our understanding of these possible pathogenetic links. More importantly, emergency preparedness or contingency plans must be in place to continue and provide uninterrupted care for chronic ailments during times of disaster,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic fueled a sharp uptick in deaths related to chronic liver disease and cirrhosis among people with diabetes, largely owing to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), new data show.

“Our observations confirm that COVID-19 had a higher likelihood of impacting vulnerable populations with pre-existing chronic liver diseases and diabetes, with a death rate as high as 10% in individuals with co-existing chronic liver disease and diabetes,” write the authors.

“The inability to attend regular outpatient clinics for close monitoring and treatment accompanied by diversion of health care resources to COVID-19 care may have resulted in the suboptimal or delayed clinical care of individuals with diabetes and chronic liver disease during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they add.

Donghee Kim, MD, PhD, with the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, and colleagues report their findings in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Vulnerable group

The researchers used U.S. national mortality data (2017-2020) to estimate chronic liver disease–related mortality trends among individuals with diabetes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic, the quarterly mortality for chronic liver disease remained stable (quarterly percentage change, 0.6%) but then sharply increased during the pandemic (QPC, 8.6%).

A similar trend was seen with cirrhosis-related mortality (QPC, 0.3% before the pandemic vs. 8.4% during the pandemic).

NAFLD and ALD mortality among individuals with diabetes was steadily increasing before the pandemic (QPC, 4.2% and 3.5%, respectively) but showed a more rapid increase during the pandemic (QPC, 9.6% and 7.7%, respectively).

ALD-related mortality in men was more than threefold higher than in women, while NAFLD-related mortality in women was more than twofold higher than in men.

Mortality for hepatitis C virus infection declined before the pandemic (QPC, −3.3%) and remained stable during the pandemic.

COVID-19–related mortality among adults with chronic liver disease and diabetes also rose sharply during the pandemic – from 0.4% in the first quarter of 2020 to 12.9% in the last quarter of 2020 – with no considerable difference between men and women.
 

Blame it on lockdowns?

Dr. Kim and colleagues say research is needed to better understand the direct and indirect influence of COVID-19 on coexisting chronic liver disease and diabetes.

“It is plausible that psychosocial stress and a higher predisposition to psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic can increase the risk of alcohol use disorder and ALD,” they write.

“Furthermore, it is prudent to suspect that COVID-19–related lockdowns may increase the risk of obesity, leading to a higher risk of insulin resistance and metabolic complications, including diabetes and NAFLD. Future studies are needed to improve our understanding of these possible pathogenetic links. More importantly, emergency preparedness or contingency plans must be in place to continue and provide uninterrupted care for chronic ailments during times of disaster,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mental health symptoms at the time of admission to an inpatient psychiatric hospital were significantly more severe during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the time before the pandemic, based on data from more than 500 individuals.

“Those with preexisting mental health conditions may be particularly vulnerable to these effects because they are more susceptible to experiencing high levels of stress during a crisis and are more likely to experience isolation/despair during confinement compared to the general population,” wrote Danna Ramirez of The Menninger Clinic, Houston, and colleagues.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research , the investigators compared data from 142 adolescents aged 12-17 years and 470 adults aged 18-79 years who were admitted to an inpatient psychiatric hospital in Houston. Of these, 65 adolescents and 235 adults were admitted before the pandemic, and 77 adolescents and 235 adults were admitted during the pandemic.

Clinical outcomes were scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale–Short Form (DERS-SF), the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS), the World Health Organization Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (WHOASSIST), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Disturbing Dream and Nightmare Severity Index (DDNSI), and the Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire–Revised (SBQ-R).

Overall, adults admitted during the pandemic had significantly higher levels of anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation, and disability (P < .001 for all) as well as nightmares (P = .013) compared to those admitted prior to the pandemic.

Among adolescents, measures of anxiety, depression, and sleep quality were significantly higher at admission during the pandemic compared to prior to the pandemic (P = .005, P = .005, and P = .011, respectively)

Reasons for the increase in symptom severity remain unclear, but include the possibility that individuals with preexisting mental illness simply became more ill; or that individuals with symptoms delayed hospital admission out of fear of exposure to COVID-19, which resulted in more severe symptoms at admission, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the primarily White population and the reliance on self-reports, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the lack of differentiation between patients who may have had COVID-19 before hospitalization and those who did not, so the researchers could not determine whether the virus itself played a biological role in symptom severity.

However, the results support data from previous studies and identify increased psychiatry symptom severity for patients admitted for inpatient psychiatry care during the pandemic, they said. Although resources are scarce, the findings emphasize that mental health needs, especially for those with preexisting conditions, should not be overlooked, and continuity and expansion of access to mental health care for all should be prioritized, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Menninger Clinic and The Menninger Clinic Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Mental health symptoms at the time of admission to an inpatient psychiatric hospital were significantly more severe during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the time before the pandemic, based on data from more than 500 individuals.

“Those with preexisting mental health conditions may be particularly vulnerable to these effects because they are more susceptible to experiencing high levels of stress during a crisis and are more likely to experience isolation/despair during confinement compared to the general population,” wrote Danna Ramirez of The Menninger Clinic, Houston, and colleagues.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research , the investigators compared data from 142 adolescents aged 12-17 years and 470 adults aged 18-79 years who were admitted to an inpatient psychiatric hospital in Houston. Of these, 65 adolescents and 235 adults were admitted before the pandemic, and 77 adolescents and 235 adults were admitted during the pandemic.

Clinical outcomes were scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale–Short Form (DERS-SF), the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS), the World Health Organization Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (WHOASSIST), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Disturbing Dream and Nightmare Severity Index (DDNSI), and the Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire–Revised (SBQ-R).

Overall, adults admitted during the pandemic had significantly higher levels of anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation, and disability (P < .001 for all) as well as nightmares (P = .013) compared to those admitted prior to the pandemic.

Among adolescents, measures of anxiety, depression, and sleep quality were significantly higher at admission during the pandemic compared to prior to the pandemic (P = .005, P = .005, and P = .011, respectively)

Reasons for the increase in symptom severity remain unclear, but include the possibility that individuals with preexisting mental illness simply became more ill; or that individuals with symptoms delayed hospital admission out of fear of exposure to COVID-19, which resulted in more severe symptoms at admission, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the primarily White population and the reliance on self-reports, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the lack of differentiation between patients who may have had COVID-19 before hospitalization and those who did not, so the researchers could not determine whether the virus itself played a biological role in symptom severity.

However, the results support data from previous studies and identify increased psychiatry symptom severity for patients admitted for inpatient psychiatry care during the pandemic, they said. Although resources are scarce, the findings emphasize that mental health needs, especially for those with preexisting conditions, should not be overlooked, and continuity and expansion of access to mental health care for all should be prioritized, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Menninger Clinic and The Menninger Clinic Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Mental health symptoms at the time of admission to an inpatient psychiatric hospital were significantly more severe during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the time before the pandemic, based on data from more than 500 individuals.

“Those with preexisting mental health conditions may be particularly vulnerable to these effects because they are more susceptible to experiencing high levels of stress during a crisis and are more likely to experience isolation/despair during confinement compared to the general population,” wrote Danna Ramirez of The Menninger Clinic, Houston, and colleagues.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research , the investigators compared data from 142 adolescents aged 12-17 years and 470 adults aged 18-79 years who were admitted to an inpatient psychiatric hospital in Houston. Of these, 65 adolescents and 235 adults were admitted before the pandemic, and 77 adolescents and 235 adults were admitted during the pandemic.

Clinical outcomes were scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale–Short Form (DERS-SF), the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS), the World Health Organization Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (WHOASSIST), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Disturbing Dream and Nightmare Severity Index (DDNSI), and the Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire–Revised (SBQ-R).

Overall, adults admitted during the pandemic had significantly higher levels of anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation, and disability (P < .001 for all) as well as nightmares (P = .013) compared to those admitted prior to the pandemic.

Among adolescents, measures of anxiety, depression, and sleep quality were significantly higher at admission during the pandemic compared to prior to the pandemic (P = .005, P = .005, and P = .011, respectively)

Reasons for the increase in symptom severity remain unclear, but include the possibility that individuals with preexisting mental illness simply became more ill; or that individuals with symptoms delayed hospital admission out of fear of exposure to COVID-19, which resulted in more severe symptoms at admission, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the primarily White population and the reliance on self-reports, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the lack of differentiation between patients who may have had COVID-19 before hospitalization and those who did not, so the researchers could not determine whether the virus itself played a biological role in symptom severity.

However, the results support data from previous studies and identify increased psychiatry symptom severity for patients admitted for inpatient psychiatry care during the pandemic, they said. Although resources are scarce, the findings emphasize that mental health needs, especially for those with preexisting conditions, should not be overlooked, and continuity and expansion of access to mental health care for all should be prioritized, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Menninger Clinic and The Menninger Clinic Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Tumor vs. saxophone: The surgical grudge match

Brain surgery is a notoriously difficult task. There’s a reason we say, “Well, at least it’s not brain surgery” when we’re trying to convince someone that a task isn’t that tough. Make one wrong incision, cut the wrong neuron, and it’s goodbye higher cognitive function. And most people appreciate thinking. Crazy, right?

One would imagine that the act of brain surgery would become even more difficult when the patient brings his saxophone and plays it randomly throughout the operation. It’s a hospital, after all, not a jazz club. Patients don’t get to play musical instruments during other surgeries. Why should brain surgery patients get special treatment?

Paideia International Hospital

As it turns out, the musical performance was actually quite helpful. A man in Italy had a brain tumor in a particularly complex area, and he’s left-handed, which apparently makes the brain’s neural pathways much more complicated. Plus, he insisted that he retain his musical ability after the surgery. So he and his medical team had a crazy thought: Why not play the saxophone throughout the surgery? After all, according to head surgeon Christian Brogna, MD, playing an instrument means you understand music, which tests many higher cognitive functions such as coordination, mathematics, and memory.

And so, at various points throughout the 9-hour surgery, the patient played his saxophone for his doctors. Doing so allowed the surgeons to map the patient’s brain in a more complete and personalized fashion. With that extra knowledge, they were able to successfully remove the tumor while maintaining the patient’s musical ability, and the patient was discharged on Oct. 13, just 3 days after his operation.

While we’re happy the patient recovered, we do have to question his choice of music. During the surgery, he played the theme to the 1970 movie “Love Story” and the Italian national anthem. Perfectly fine pieces, no doubt, but the saxophone solo in “Jungleland” exists. And we could listen to that for 9 hours straight. In fact, we do that every Friday in the LOTME office.
 

Basketball has the Big Dance. Mosquitoes get the Big Sniff

In this week’s installment of our seemingly never-ending series, “Mosquitoes and the scientists who love them,” we visit The Rockefeller University in New York, where the olfactory capabilities of Aedes Aegypti – the primary vector species for Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya – became the subject of a round robin–style tournament.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Creative Commons License

First things first, though. If you’re going to test mosquito noses, you have to give them something to smell. The researchers enrolled eight humans who were willing to wear nylon stockings on their forearms for 6 hours a day for multiple days. “Over the next few years, the researchers tested the nylons against each other in all possible pairings,” Leslie B. Vosshall, PhD, and associates said in a statement from the university. In other words, mosquito March Madness.

Nylons from different participants were hooked up in pairs to an olfactometer assay consisting of a plexiglass chamber divided into two tubes, each ending in a box that held a stocking. The mosquitoes were placed in the main chamber and observed as they flew down the tubes toward one stocking or the other.

Eventually, the “winner” of the “tournament” was Subject 33. And no, we don’t know why there was a Subject 33 since the study involved only eight participants. We do know that the nylons worn by Subject 33 were “four times more attractive to the mosquitoes than the next most-attractive study participant, and an astonishing 100 times more appealing than the least attractive, Subject 19,” according to the written statement.

Chemical analysis identified 50 molecular compounds that were elevated in the sebum of the high-attracting participants, and eventually the investigators discovered that mosquito magnets produced carboxylic acids at much higher levels than the less-attractive volunteers.

We could go on about the research team genetically engineering mosquitoes without odor receptors, but we have to save something for later. Tune in again next week for another exciting episode of “Mosquitoes and the scientists who love them.”
 

Are women better with words?

Men vs. Women is probably the oldest argument in the book, but there may now be movement. Researchers have been able not only to shift the advantage toward women, but also to use that knowledge to medical advantage.

AndrewLobov/Depositphotos

When it comes to the matter of words and remembering them, women apparently have men beat. The margin is small, said lead author Marco Hirnstein, PhD, of the University of Bergen, Norway, but, after performing a meta-analysis of 168 published studies and PhD theses involving more than 350,000 participants, it’s pretty clear. The research supports women’s advantage over men in recall, verbal fluency (categorical and phonemic), and recognition.

So how is this information useful from a medical standpoint?

Dr. Hirnstein and colleagues suggested that this information can help in interpreting diagnostic assessment results. The example given was dementia diagnosis. Since women are underdiagnosed because their baseline exceeds average while men are overdiagnosed, taking gender and performance into account could clear up or catch cases that might otherwise slip through the cracks.

Now, let’s just put this part of the debate to rest and take this not only as a win for women but for science as well.

Tumor vs. saxophone: The surgical grudge match

Brain surgery is a notoriously difficult task. There’s a reason we say, “Well, at least it’s not brain surgery” when we’re trying to convince someone that a task isn’t that tough. Make one wrong incision, cut the wrong neuron, and it’s goodbye higher cognitive function. And most people appreciate thinking. Crazy, right?

One would imagine that the act of brain surgery would become even more difficult when the patient brings his saxophone and plays it randomly throughout the operation. It’s a hospital, after all, not a jazz club. Patients don’t get to play musical instruments during other surgeries. Why should brain surgery patients get special treatment?

Paideia International Hospital

As it turns out, the musical performance was actually quite helpful. A man in Italy had a brain tumor in a particularly complex area, and he’s left-handed, which apparently makes the brain’s neural pathways much more complicated. Plus, he insisted that he retain his musical ability after the surgery. So he and his medical team had a crazy thought: Why not play the saxophone throughout the surgery? After all, according to head surgeon Christian Brogna, MD, playing an instrument means you understand music, which tests many higher cognitive functions such as coordination, mathematics, and memory.

And so, at various points throughout the 9-hour surgery, the patient played his saxophone for his doctors. Doing so allowed the surgeons to map the patient’s brain in a more complete and personalized fashion. With that extra knowledge, they were able to successfully remove the tumor while maintaining the patient’s musical ability, and the patient was discharged on Oct. 13, just 3 days after his operation.

While we’re happy the patient recovered, we do have to question his choice of music. During the surgery, he played the theme to the 1970 movie “Love Story” and the Italian national anthem. Perfectly fine pieces, no doubt, but the saxophone solo in “Jungleland” exists. And we could listen to that for 9 hours straight. In fact, we do that every Friday in the LOTME office.
 

Basketball has the Big Dance. Mosquitoes get the Big Sniff

In this week’s installment of our seemingly never-ending series, “Mosquitoes and the scientists who love them,” we visit The Rockefeller University in New York, where the olfactory capabilities of Aedes Aegypti – the primary vector species for Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya – became the subject of a round robin–style tournament.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Creative Commons License

First things first, though. If you’re going to test mosquito noses, you have to give them something to smell. The researchers enrolled eight humans who were willing to wear nylon stockings on their forearms for 6 hours a day for multiple days. “Over the next few years, the researchers tested the nylons against each other in all possible pairings,” Leslie B. Vosshall, PhD, and associates said in a statement from the university. In other words, mosquito March Madness.

Nylons from different participants were hooked up in pairs to an olfactometer assay consisting of a plexiglass chamber divided into two tubes, each ending in a box that held a stocking. The mosquitoes were placed in the main chamber and observed as they flew down the tubes toward one stocking or the other.

Eventually, the “winner” of the “tournament” was Subject 33. And no, we don’t know why there was a Subject 33 since the study involved only eight participants. We do know that the nylons worn by Subject 33 were “four times more attractive to the mosquitoes than the next most-attractive study participant, and an astonishing 100 times more appealing than the least attractive, Subject 19,” according to the written statement.

Chemical analysis identified 50 molecular compounds that were elevated in the sebum of the high-attracting participants, and eventually the investigators discovered that mosquito magnets produced carboxylic acids at much higher levels than the less-attractive volunteers.

We could go on about the research team genetically engineering mosquitoes without odor receptors, but we have to save something for later. Tune in again next week for another exciting episode of “Mosquitoes and the scientists who love them.”
 

Are women better with words?

Men vs. Women is probably the oldest argument in the book, but there may now be movement. Researchers have been able not only to shift the advantage toward women, but also to use that knowledge to medical advantage.

AndrewLobov/Depositphotos

When it comes to the matter of words and remembering them, women apparently have men beat. The margin is small, said lead author Marco Hirnstein, PhD, of the University of Bergen, Norway, but, after performing a meta-analysis of 168 published studies and PhD theses involving more than 350,000 participants, it’s pretty clear. The research supports women’s advantage over men in recall, verbal fluency (categorical and phonemic), and recognition.

So how is this information useful from a medical standpoint?

Dr. Hirnstein and colleagues suggested that this information can help in interpreting diagnostic assessment results. The example given was dementia diagnosis. Since women are underdiagnosed because their baseline exceeds average while men are overdiagnosed, taking gender and performance into account could clear up or catch cases that might otherwise slip through the cracks.

Now, let’s just put this part of the debate to rest and take this not only as a win for women but for science as well.

Tumor vs. saxophone: The surgical grudge match

Brain surgery is a notoriously difficult task. There’s a reason we say, “Well, at least it’s not brain surgery” when we’re trying to convince someone that a task isn’t that tough. Make one wrong incision, cut the wrong neuron, and it’s goodbye higher cognitive function. And most people appreciate thinking. Crazy, right?

One would imagine that the act of brain surgery would become even more difficult when the patient brings his saxophone and plays it randomly throughout the operation. It’s a hospital, after all, not a jazz club. Patients don’t get to play musical instruments during other surgeries. Why should brain surgery patients get special treatment?

Paideia International Hospital

As it turns out, the musical performance was actually quite helpful. A man in Italy had a brain tumor in a particularly complex area, and he’s left-handed, which apparently makes the brain’s neural pathways much more complicated. Plus, he insisted that he retain his musical ability after the surgery. So he and his medical team had a crazy thought: Why not play the saxophone throughout the surgery? After all, according to head surgeon Christian Brogna, MD, playing an instrument means you understand music, which tests many higher cognitive functions such as coordination, mathematics, and memory.

And so, at various points throughout the 9-hour surgery, the patient played his saxophone for his doctors. Doing so allowed the surgeons to map the patient’s brain in a more complete and personalized fashion. With that extra knowledge, they were able to successfully remove the tumor while maintaining the patient’s musical ability, and the patient was discharged on Oct. 13, just 3 days after his operation.

While we’re happy the patient recovered, we do have to question his choice of music. During the surgery, he played the theme to the 1970 movie “Love Story” and the Italian national anthem. Perfectly fine pieces, no doubt, but the saxophone solo in “Jungleland” exists. And we could listen to that for 9 hours straight. In fact, we do that every Friday in the LOTME office.
 

Basketball has the Big Dance. Mosquitoes get the Big Sniff

In this week’s installment of our seemingly never-ending series, “Mosquitoes and the scientists who love them,” we visit The Rockefeller University in New York, where the olfactory capabilities of Aedes Aegypti – the primary vector species for Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya – became the subject of a round robin–style tournament.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Creative Commons License

First things first, though. If you’re going to test mosquito noses, you have to give them something to smell. The researchers enrolled eight humans who were willing to wear nylon stockings on their forearms for 6 hours a day for multiple days. “Over the next few years, the researchers tested the nylons against each other in all possible pairings,” Leslie B. Vosshall, PhD, and associates said in a statement from the university. In other words, mosquito March Madness.

Nylons from different participants were hooked up in pairs to an olfactometer assay consisting of a plexiglass chamber divided into two tubes, each ending in a box that held a stocking. The mosquitoes were placed in the main chamber and observed as they flew down the tubes toward one stocking or the other.

Eventually, the “winner” of the “tournament” was Subject 33. And no, we don’t know why there was a Subject 33 since the study involved only eight participants. We do know that the nylons worn by Subject 33 were “four times more attractive to the mosquitoes than the next most-attractive study participant, and an astonishing 100 times more appealing than the least attractive, Subject 19,” according to the written statement.

Chemical analysis identified 50 molecular compounds that were elevated in the sebum of the high-attracting participants, and eventually the investigators discovered that mosquito magnets produced carboxylic acids at much higher levels than the less-attractive volunteers.

We could go on about the research team genetically engineering mosquitoes without odor receptors, but we have to save something for later. Tune in again next week for another exciting episode of “Mosquitoes and the scientists who love them.”
 

Are women better with words?

Men vs. Women is probably the oldest argument in the book, but there may now be movement. Researchers have been able not only to shift the advantage toward women, but also to use that knowledge to medical advantage.

AndrewLobov/Depositphotos

When it comes to the matter of words and remembering them, women apparently have men beat. The margin is small, said lead author Marco Hirnstein, PhD, of the University of Bergen, Norway, but, after performing a meta-analysis of 168 published studies and PhD theses involving more than 350,000 participants, it’s pretty clear. The research supports women’s advantage over men in recall, verbal fluency (categorical and phonemic), and recognition.

So how is this information useful from a medical standpoint?

Dr. Hirnstein and colleagues suggested that this information can help in interpreting diagnostic assessment results. The example given was dementia diagnosis. Since women are underdiagnosed because their baseline exceeds average while men are overdiagnosed, taking gender and performance into account could clear up or catch cases that might otherwise slip through the cracks.

Now, let’s just put this part of the debate to rest and take this not only as a win for women but for science as well.

Black Americans are 80% more likely to be hospitalized for the flu, compared with White Americans, according to new federal data.

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults in the United States also have had lower influenza vaccination rates, compared with their White counterparts, since 2010, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed in a report.

The inequalities are the result of barriers to care, distrust of the medical system, and misinformation, the report said.

“We have many of the tools we need to address inequities and flu vaccination coverage and outcomes,” said CDC Acting Principal Deputy Director Debra Houry, MD, MPH, in a press call; “however, we must acknowledge that inequities in access to care continue to exist. To improve vaccine uptake, we must address the root causes of these ongoing disparities.”

The CDC has already reported early increases in flu activity in the United States, with the highest activity in the southeastern and south-central parts of the country. Experts also warn of a potentially more severe influenza season than in the previous 2 years. CDC officials emphasized that vaccination is the best protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death from the flu. “Everyone should get vaccinated against flu today and encourage others and their community to get a flu vaccine for the best protection against flu this fall and winter,” Dr. Houry said.

In the recent report on disparities by community published October 18 in CDC Vital Signs, researchers looked at hospitalization rates from 2009 to 2022 and vaccination rates from 2010 to 2022 based on race and ethnicity using two national databases, the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. All individuals included in the analysis were aged 18 years or older, and the 2020-2021 flu season was excluded from the analysis because of insufficient data.

Compared with those for White adults, hospitalization rates were 80% higher for Black adults, 30% higher for Hispanic adults, and 20% higher for AI/AN adults. While flu vaccination rates were similar in White and Asian adults (about 54%), coverage was lower in Black (42%), Hispanic (38%), AI/AN (41%), and other/multiracial (43%) adults. This disparity persisted even among individuals who had medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine checkup within the last year.

“This report adds to the body of evidence that shows people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups have more severe outcomes at higher rates than White adults,” Carla Black, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s Immunization Services Division, said during the press call. While flu vaccines may not always prevent infection, people who do get sick after being vaccinated tend to have better outcomes, she added. The report noted that building trust, increasing access to vaccination services, and combating misinformation are important steps to increasing vaccine coverage in minority groups. 

While social distancing measures such as masking have made it difficult for the flu to spread, the relaxation of these safety measures could also lead to higher case counts. “We’ve had two mild flu seasons, and this means we might be ripe for a severe season,” Dr. Black said. “People haven’t had natural disease in 2 years, so there’s less natural immunity out there. People are going back to work. People are traveling again. All of these factors could contribute to us having a more severe flu season.”

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

Black Americans are 80% more likely to be hospitalized for the flu, compared with White Americans, according to new federal data.

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults in the United States also have had lower influenza vaccination rates, compared with their White counterparts, since 2010, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed in a report.

The inequalities are the result of barriers to care, distrust of the medical system, and misinformation, the report said.

“We have many of the tools we need to address inequities and flu vaccination coverage and outcomes,” said CDC Acting Principal Deputy Director Debra Houry, MD, MPH, in a press call; “however, we must acknowledge that inequities in access to care continue to exist. To improve vaccine uptake, we must address the root causes of these ongoing disparities.”

The CDC has already reported early increases in flu activity in the United States, with the highest activity in the southeastern and south-central parts of the country. Experts also warn of a potentially more severe influenza season than in the previous 2 years. CDC officials emphasized that vaccination is the best protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death from the flu. “Everyone should get vaccinated against flu today and encourage others and their community to get a flu vaccine for the best protection against flu this fall and winter,” Dr. Houry said.

In the recent report on disparities by community published October 18 in CDC Vital Signs, researchers looked at hospitalization rates from 2009 to 2022 and vaccination rates from 2010 to 2022 based on race and ethnicity using two national databases, the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. All individuals included in the analysis were aged 18 years or older, and the 2020-2021 flu season was excluded from the analysis because of insufficient data.

Compared with those for White adults, hospitalization rates were 80% higher for Black adults, 30% higher for Hispanic adults, and 20% higher for AI/AN adults. While flu vaccination rates were similar in White and Asian adults (about 54%), coverage was lower in Black (42%), Hispanic (38%), AI/AN (41%), and other/multiracial (43%) adults. This disparity persisted even among individuals who had medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine checkup within the last year.

“This report adds to the body of evidence that shows people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups have more severe outcomes at higher rates than White adults,” Carla Black, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s Immunization Services Division, said during the press call. While flu vaccines may not always prevent infection, people who do get sick after being vaccinated tend to have better outcomes, she added. The report noted that building trust, increasing access to vaccination services, and combating misinformation are important steps to increasing vaccine coverage in minority groups. 

While social distancing measures such as masking have made it difficult for the flu to spread, the relaxation of these safety measures could also lead to higher case counts. “We’ve had two mild flu seasons, and this means we might be ripe for a severe season,” Dr. Black said. “People haven’t had natural disease in 2 years, so there’s less natural immunity out there. People are going back to work. People are traveling again. All of these factors could contribute to us having a more severe flu season.”

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

Black Americans are 80% more likely to be hospitalized for the flu, compared with White Americans, according to new federal data.

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults in the United States also have had lower influenza vaccination rates, compared with their White counterparts, since 2010, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed in a report.

The inequalities are the result of barriers to care, distrust of the medical system, and misinformation, the report said.

“We have many of the tools we need to address inequities and flu vaccination coverage and outcomes,” said CDC Acting Principal Deputy Director Debra Houry, MD, MPH, in a press call; “however, we must acknowledge that inequities in access to care continue to exist. To improve vaccine uptake, we must address the root causes of these ongoing disparities.”

The CDC has already reported early increases in flu activity in the United States, with the highest activity in the southeastern and south-central parts of the country. Experts also warn of a potentially more severe influenza season than in the previous 2 years. CDC officials emphasized that vaccination is the best protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death from the flu. “Everyone should get vaccinated against flu today and encourage others and their community to get a flu vaccine for the best protection against flu this fall and winter,” Dr. Houry said.

In the recent report on disparities by community published October 18 in CDC Vital Signs, researchers looked at hospitalization rates from 2009 to 2022 and vaccination rates from 2010 to 2022 based on race and ethnicity using two national databases, the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. All individuals included in the analysis were aged 18 years or older, and the 2020-2021 flu season was excluded from the analysis because of insufficient data.

Compared with those for White adults, hospitalization rates were 80% higher for Black adults, 30% higher for Hispanic adults, and 20% higher for AI/AN adults. While flu vaccination rates were similar in White and Asian adults (about 54%), coverage was lower in Black (42%), Hispanic (38%), AI/AN (41%), and other/multiracial (43%) adults. This disparity persisted even among individuals who had medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine checkup within the last year.

“This report adds to the body of evidence that shows people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups have more severe outcomes at higher rates than White adults,” Carla Black, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s Immunization Services Division, said during the press call. While flu vaccines may not always prevent infection, people who do get sick after being vaccinated tend to have better outcomes, she added. The report noted that building trust, increasing access to vaccination services, and combating misinformation are important steps to increasing vaccine coverage in minority groups. 

While social distancing measures such as masking have made it difficult for the flu to spread, the relaxation of these safety measures could also lead to higher case counts. “We’ve had two mild flu seasons, and this means we might be ripe for a severe season,” Dr. Black said. “People haven’t had natural disease in 2 years, so there’s less natural immunity out there. People are going back to work. People are traveling again. All of these factors could contribute to us having a more severe flu season.”

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

A new analysis shows that pulse oximetry is not reliable enough to be used to diagnose carbon monoxide poisoning, researchers said at the annual European Emergency Medicine Congress.

A review of the literature found that the approach, while simple and easy to do, does not identify carbon monoxide poisoning almost a quarter of the time.

“This method is not accurate enough and should not be used in clinical practice,” said Mathilde Papin, MD, a researcher in the emergency department at Nantes (France) University.

Carbon monoxide poisoning is one of the world’s most common causes of poisoning deaths. When people are exposed to the colorless, odorless carbon monoxide, it enters their bloodstream and attaches to hemoglobin, a transporter of oxygen, thereby starving the body of oxygen. It can be treated with oxygen, but the problem is that its symptoms can be similar to infections, such as the flu, and can be difficult to diagnose.

A blood test is available, measuring the amount of hemoglobin that’s attached to carbon dioxide. But, the researchers said, a test is needed that can be done quickly right in the ambulance or emergency room.

“A blood test is reliable, but not practical,” Dr. Papin said.

One quick and simple method is pulse oximetry, in which a device is placed on the finger. A lower level of oxygen saturation could be a sign of oxygen displacement from carbon monoxide poisoning. However, the approach has delivered mixed results.

Researchers led a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched for all trials that compared pulse oximetry with blood tests. They found 19 and were able to combine the results of 11 of them, which amounted to data on more than 2,000 people, some with carbon monoxide poisoning and some healthy.

Pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 83%, with an overall accuracy of 86%. Dr. Papin said this is not good enough, pointing to the relatively low sensitivity.

“At 23%, the false negative rate with pulse oximetry is too high for reliably triaging patients with suspected carbon monoxide poisoning,” she said. 

Dr. Papin noted that the findings were not all that surprising, given the experience at her own center.

“The idea of this meta-analysis came from the clinical impression that this device was not as accurate as it should be in everyday use in our ED,” she said. Pulse oximetry is also routinely used in prehospital care, she said, adding to the importance of finding an alternative approach. Dr. Papin and her team are now planning to evaluate a method of faster screening of carbon monoxide levels in the capillaries.

James Chenoweth, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at the University of California, Davis, who has researched carbon monoxide treatment, said the findings show how the clinical value of pulse oximetry is limited in this context.

“In the right clinical setting” – such as smoking inhalation – “a low oxygen saturation on pulse oximetry may suggest the need for definitive testing for CO poisoning, but it can’t be used to definitively rule in or out the presence of carboxyhemoglobin,” he said. “I wouldn’t say that it should not be used, but clinicians should be aware of the potential pitfall of being falsely reassured if the pulse oximetry is normal.”

This study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Papin and Dr. Chenoweth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis shows that pulse oximetry is not reliable enough to be used to diagnose carbon monoxide poisoning, researchers said at the annual European Emergency Medicine Congress.

A review of the literature found that the approach, while simple and easy to do, does not identify carbon monoxide poisoning almost a quarter of the time.

“This method is not accurate enough and should not be used in clinical practice,” said Mathilde Papin, MD, a researcher in the emergency department at Nantes (France) University.

Carbon monoxide poisoning is one of the world’s most common causes of poisoning deaths. When people are exposed to the colorless, odorless carbon monoxide, it enters their bloodstream and attaches to hemoglobin, a transporter of oxygen, thereby starving the body of oxygen. It can be treated with oxygen, but the problem is that its symptoms can be similar to infections, such as the flu, and can be difficult to diagnose.

A blood test is available, measuring the amount of hemoglobin that’s attached to carbon dioxide. But, the researchers said, a test is needed that can be done quickly right in the ambulance or emergency room.

“A blood test is reliable, but not practical,” Dr. Papin said.

One quick and simple method is pulse oximetry, in which a device is placed on the finger. A lower level of oxygen saturation could be a sign of oxygen displacement from carbon monoxide poisoning. However, the approach has delivered mixed results.

Researchers led a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched for all trials that compared pulse oximetry with blood tests. They found 19 and were able to combine the results of 11 of them, which amounted to data on more than 2,000 people, some with carbon monoxide poisoning and some healthy.

Pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 83%, with an overall accuracy of 86%. Dr. Papin said this is not good enough, pointing to the relatively low sensitivity.

“At 23%, the false negative rate with pulse oximetry is too high for reliably triaging patients with suspected carbon monoxide poisoning,” she said. 

Dr. Papin noted that the findings were not all that surprising, given the experience at her own center.

“The idea of this meta-analysis came from the clinical impression that this device was not as accurate as it should be in everyday use in our ED,” she said. Pulse oximetry is also routinely used in prehospital care, she said, adding to the importance of finding an alternative approach. Dr. Papin and her team are now planning to evaluate a method of faster screening of carbon monoxide levels in the capillaries.

James Chenoweth, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at the University of California, Davis, who has researched carbon monoxide treatment, said the findings show how the clinical value of pulse oximetry is limited in this context.

“In the right clinical setting” – such as smoking inhalation – “a low oxygen saturation on pulse oximetry may suggest the need for definitive testing for CO poisoning, but it can’t be used to definitively rule in or out the presence of carboxyhemoglobin,” he said. “I wouldn’t say that it should not be used, but clinicians should be aware of the potential pitfall of being falsely reassured if the pulse oximetry is normal.”

This study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Papin and Dr. Chenoweth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis shows that pulse oximetry is not reliable enough to be used to diagnose carbon monoxide poisoning, researchers said at the annual European Emergency Medicine Congress.

A review of the literature found that the approach, while simple and easy to do, does not identify carbon monoxide poisoning almost a quarter of the time.

“This method is not accurate enough and should not be used in clinical practice,” said Mathilde Papin, MD, a researcher in the emergency department at Nantes (France) University.

Carbon monoxide poisoning is one of the world’s most common causes of poisoning deaths. When people are exposed to the colorless, odorless carbon monoxide, it enters their bloodstream and attaches to hemoglobin, a transporter of oxygen, thereby starving the body of oxygen. It can be treated with oxygen, but the problem is that its symptoms can be similar to infections, such as the flu, and can be difficult to diagnose.

A blood test is available, measuring the amount of hemoglobin that’s attached to carbon dioxide. But, the researchers said, a test is needed that can be done quickly right in the ambulance or emergency room.

“A blood test is reliable, but not practical,” Dr. Papin said.

One quick and simple method is pulse oximetry, in which a device is placed on the finger. A lower level of oxygen saturation could be a sign of oxygen displacement from carbon monoxide poisoning. However, the approach has delivered mixed results.

Researchers led a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched for all trials that compared pulse oximetry with blood tests. They found 19 and were able to combine the results of 11 of them, which amounted to data on more than 2,000 people, some with carbon monoxide poisoning and some healthy.

Pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 83%, with an overall accuracy of 86%. Dr. Papin said this is not good enough, pointing to the relatively low sensitivity.

“At 23%, the false negative rate with pulse oximetry is too high for reliably triaging patients with suspected carbon monoxide poisoning,” she said. 

Dr. Papin noted that the findings were not all that surprising, given the experience at her own center.

“The idea of this meta-analysis came from the clinical impression that this device was not as accurate as it should be in everyday use in our ED,” she said. Pulse oximetry is also routinely used in prehospital care, she said, adding to the importance of finding an alternative approach. Dr. Papin and her team are now planning to evaluate a method of faster screening of carbon monoxide levels in the capillaries.

James Chenoweth, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at the University of California, Davis, who has researched carbon monoxide treatment, said the findings show how the clinical value of pulse oximetry is limited in this context.

“In the right clinical setting” – such as smoking inhalation – “a low oxygen saturation on pulse oximetry may suggest the need for definitive testing for CO poisoning, but it can’t be used to definitively rule in or out the presence of carboxyhemoglobin,” he said. “I wouldn’t say that it should not be used, but clinicians should be aware of the potential pitfall of being falsely reassured if the pulse oximetry is normal.”

This study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Papin and Dr. Chenoweth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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

There is a concerning lack of follow-up care for young people who experience a mental health crisis, new research suggests.

Results from a large database study showed less than half of youth and young adults hospitalized for a psychiatric event received follow-up care within 7 days. The follow-up rate was less than 30% for those who had visited an ED.

The strongest predictor of follow-up was having received both primary and mental health care during the 6 months prior to using the acute service.

“For people discharging folks after a psychiatric crisis, whether it be in a hospital or emergency room setting, connecting them with their outpatient provider to ensure the transfer of care and continuity of care is vitally important to reduce risks for this population,” coinvestigator Brian Skehan, MD, PhD, assistant professor and psychiatrist, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said during a press briefing.

If these discharged patients do not have a provider, “make sure they get one,” Lisa Dixon, MD, editor-in-chief of Psychiatric Services, added during the same briefing. “That’s the gift of life potentially for these young people.”

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Alarming trends

The alarming suicide trends among youths were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Skehan noted.

He cited a 2021 study that showed more than 44% of high school students experienced persistent sadness or hopelessness over the previous year, 1 in 5 seriously considered suicide, and almost 1 in 10 actually attempted suicide.

“When we look at the number of young adults and adolescents struggling with behavioral health issues, the data trend is disturbing nationwide,” Dr. Skehan said.

The current study included participants aged 12-27 years who had private insurance. Many youth in this age category are experiencing significant changes, such as moving from high school to college and from pediatric providers to adult providers – and some “get lost in this transition,” said Dr. Skehan.

He noted many inpatient psychiatric units are not geared to young adults. “They may miss out on some aspects of inpatient care because it’s not geared to their developmental stage,” he said.

Assessing U.S. patient data in the IBM MarketScan commercial database (2013-2018), the researchers created two study samples: 95,153 inpatients and 108,576 patients who used the ED. All had an acute event stemming from a mental health condition.

The investigators explored the role of “established” outpatient care, defined as having had at least one visit with a provider of primary or mental health care in the 6 months prior to the acute psychiatric event.

Covariates included age at time of service (aged 12-17 years or 18-27 years), gender, health care plan type, psychiatric diagnosis, whether the acute event was self-harm or suicide related, and medical complexity.
 

Low follow-up rates

In the inpatient group, the average age was 18.9 years, the most common length of hospital stay was 4-6 days, and 1.5% left against medical advice. The most common primary diagnosis was major depression (53.7%), followed by bipolar disorder (22.3%). The least common disorders were PTSD, comorbid eating disorders, and disruptive disorders.

About one-third of participants had used both primary and mental health care during the 6 months before hospitalization, whereas 22.8% had no established outpatient care. Established care was most common among those with comorbid eating disorders and least common among those with psychotic disorders.

Results showed 42.7% of the hospitalized patients received follow up within 7 days and 67.4% received follow up within 30 days.

The strongest predictor of mental health follow-up care was established outpatient care. Compared with those who had no such care, those who had received both primary care and mental health care before the acute event had the highest odds of receiving follow-up (within 7 days, adjusted odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.68-2.94).

Older age and leaving against medical advice were associated with decreased likelihood of follow-up. Female sex, hospitalizations related to self-harm or suicidality, and longer length of stay were associated with increased likelihood of mental health follow-up care.

Compared with those hospitalized for major depression, those hospitalized for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, disruptive disorders, or comorbid substance use disorder were less likely to receive mental health follow-up. For example, only 23.7% of youth with comorbid substance use discharged from the hospital had follow-up within 7 days.

Similar patterns were observed for 30-day follow-up care.
 

‘Accessible and appealing’ options needed

In the ED-visit group, the average age was 19.5 years (58% female). Most (70.4%) had no chronic health conditions other than a psychiatric disorder. The primary diagnoses were anxiety disorders or phobias (44.1%) and major depression (23%).

One in four visits included a code for self-harm, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempt. And almost one third lacked established outpatient care before the ED visit.

Results showed 28.6% of the ED group received mental health care follow-up within 7 days and 46.4% received it within 30 days.

Again, the strongest predictor of mental health follow-up was prior outpatient care. For example, compared with participants with no established outpatient care, those with both primary care and mental health care were the most likely to receive follow-up within 7 days (aOR, 4.06; 95% CI, 3.72-4.42).

These numbers “are far from the goal of making sure everybody is getting follow-up care within 7 days of an acute psychiatric event,” Dr. Skehan said.

He stressed the need for “accessible and appealing options for youth.” These could include telehealth services, improved communication among health care providers in the ED, and reducing barriers to access follow-up care.

“This probably highlights the need to have more case management and referral services, and maybe make sure patients have a follow-up appointment before they leave the emergency room,” said Dr. Skehan. “This doesn’t necessarily guarantee they’ll get there but hopefully it makes it more likely they will have that access should they need it.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a concerning lack of follow-up care for young people who experience a mental health crisis, new research suggests.

Results from a large database study showed less than half of youth and young adults hospitalized for a psychiatric event received follow-up care within 7 days. The follow-up rate was less than 30% for those who had visited an ED.

The strongest predictor of follow-up was having received both primary and mental health care during the 6 months prior to using the acute service.

“For people discharging folks after a psychiatric crisis, whether it be in a hospital or emergency room setting, connecting them with their outpatient provider to ensure the transfer of care and continuity of care is vitally important to reduce risks for this population,” coinvestigator Brian Skehan, MD, PhD, assistant professor and psychiatrist, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said during a press briefing.

If these discharged patients do not have a provider, “make sure they get one,” Lisa Dixon, MD, editor-in-chief of Psychiatric Services, added during the same briefing. “That’s the gift of life potentially for these young people.”

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Alarming trends

The alarming suicide trends among youths were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Skehan noted.

He cited a 2021 study that showed more than 44% of high school students experienced persistent sadness or hopelessness over the previous year, 1 in 5 seriously considered suicide, and almost 1 in 10 actually attempted suicide.

“When we look at the number of young adults and adolescents struggling with behavioral health issues, the data trend is disturbing nationwide,” Dr. Skehan said.

The current study included participants aged 12-27 years who had private insurance. Many youth in this age category are experiencing significant changes, such as moving from high school to college and from pediatric providers to adult providers – and some “get lost in this transition,” said Dr. Skehan.

He noted many inpatient psychiatric units are not geared to young adults. “They may miss out on some aspects of inpatient care because it’s not geared to their developmental stage,” he said.

Assessing U.S. patient data in the IBM MarketScan commercial database (2013-2018), the researchers created two study samples: 95,153 inpatients and 108,576 patients who used the ED. All had an acute event stemming from a mental health condition.

The investigators explored the role of “established” outpatient care, defined as having had at least one visit with a provider of primary or mental health care in the 6 months prior to the acute psychiatric event.

Covariates included age at time of service (aged 12-17 years or 18-27 years), gender, health care plan type, psychiatric diagnosis, whether the acute event was self-harm or suicide related, and medical complexity.
 

Low follow-up rates

In the inpatient group, the average age was 18.9 years, the most common length of hospital stay was 4-6 days, and 1.5% left against medical advice. The most common primary diagnosis was major depression (53.7%), followed by bipolar disorder (22.3%). The least common disorders were PTSD, comorbid eating disorders, and disruptive disorders.

About one-third of participants had used both primary and mental health care during the 6 months before hospitalization, whereas 22.8% had no established outpatient care. Established care was most common among those with comorbid eating disorders and least common among those with psychotic disorders.

Results showed 42.7% of the hospitalized patients received follow up within 7 days and 67.4% received follow up within 30 days.

The strongest predictor of mental health follow-up care was established outpatient care. Compared with those who had no such care, those who had received both primary care and mental health care before the acute event had the highest odds of receiving follow-up (within 7 days, adjusted odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.68-2.94).

Older age and leaving against medical advice were associated with decreased likelihood of follow-up. Female sex, hospitalizations related to self-harm or suicidality, and longer length of stay were associated with increased likelihood of mental health follow-up care.

Compared with those hospitalized for major depression, those hospitalized for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, disruptive disorders, or comorbid substance use disorder were less likely to receive mental health follow-up. For example, only 23.7% of youth with comorbid substance use discharged from the hospital had follow-up within 7 days.

Similar patterns were observed for 30-day follow-up care.
 

‘Accessible and appealing’ options needed

In the ED-visit group, the average age was 19.5 years (58% female). Most (70.4%) had no chronic health conditions other than a psychiatric disorder. The primary diagnoses were anxiety disorders or phobias (44.1%) and major depression (23%).

One in four visits included a code for self-harm, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempt. And almost one third lacked established outpatient care before the ED visit.

Results showed 28.6% of the ED group received mental health care follow-up within 7 days and 46.4% received it within 30 days.

Again, the strongest predictor of mental health follow-up was prior outpatient care. For example, compared with participants with no established outpatient care, those with both primary care and mental health care were the most likely to receive follow-up within 7 days (aOR, 4.06; 95% CI, 3.72-4.42).

These numbers “are far from the goal of making sure everybody is getting follow-up care within 7 days of an acute psychiatric event,” Dr. Skehan said.

He stressed the need for “accessible and appealing options for youth.” These could include telehealth services, improved communication among health care providers in the ED, and reducing barriers to access follow-up care.

“This probably highlights the need to have more case management and referral services, and maybe make sure patients have a follow-up appointment before they leave the emergency room,” said Dr. Skehan. “This doesn’t necessarily guarantee they’ll get there but hopefully it makes it more likely they will have that access should they need it.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a concerning lack of follow-up care for young people who experience a mental health crisis, new research suggests.

Results from a large database study showed less than half of youth and young adults hospitalized for a psychiatric event received follow-up care within 7 days. The follow-up rate was less than 30% for those who had visited an ED.

The strongest predictor of follow-up was having received both primary and mental health care during the 6 months prior to using the acute service.

“For people discharging folks after a psychiatric crisis, whether it be in a hospital or emergency room setting, connecting them with their outpatient provider to ensure the transfer of care and continuity of care is vitally important to reduce risks for this population,” coinvestigator Brian Skehan, MD, PhD, assistant professor and psychiatrist, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said during a press briefing.

If these discharged patients do not have a provider, “make sure they get one,” Lisa Dixon, MD, editor-in-chief of Psychiatric Services, added during the same briefing. “That’s the gift of life potentially for these young people.”

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Alarming trends

The alarming suicide trends among youths were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Skehan noted.

He cited a 2021 study that showed more than 44% of high school students experienced persistent sadness or hopelessness over the previous year, 1 in 5 seriously considered suicide, and almost 1 in 10 actually attempted suicide.

“When we look at the number of young adults and adolescents struggling with behavioral health issues, the data trend is disturbing nationwide,” Dr. Skehan said.

The current study included participants aged 12-27 years who had private insurance. Many youth in this age category are experiencing significant changes, such as moving from high school to college and from pediatric providers to adult providers – and some “get lost in this transition,” said Dr. Skehan.

He noted many inpatient psychiatric units are not geared to young adults. “They may miss out on some aspects of inpatient care because it’s not geared to their developmental stage,” he said.

Assessing U.S. patient data in the IBM MarketScan commercial database (2013-2018), the researchers created two study samples: 95,153 inpatients and 108,576 patients who used the ED. All had an acute event stemming from a mental health condition.

The investigators explored the role of “established” outpatient care, defined as having had at least one visit with a provider of primary or mental health care in the 6 months prior to the acute psychiatric event.

Covariates included age at time of service (aged 12-17 years or 18-27 years), gender, health care plan type, psychiatric diagnosis, whether the acute event was self-harm or suicide related, and medical complexity.
 

Low follow-up rates

In the inpatient group, the average age was 18.9 years, the most common length of hospital stay was 4-6 days, and 1.5% left against medical advice. The most common primary diagnosis was major depression (53.7%), followed by bipolar disorder (22.3%). The least common disorders were PTSD, comorbid eating disorders, and disruptive disorders.

About one-third of participants had used both primary and mental health care during the 6 months before hospitalization, whereas 22.8% had no established outpatient care. Established care was most common among those with comorbid eating disorders and least common among those with psychotic disorders.

Results showed 42.7% of the hospitalized patients received follow up within 7 days and 67.4% received follow up within 30 days.

The strongest predictor of mental health follow-up care was established outpatient care. Compared with those who had no such care, those who had received both primary care and mental health care before the acute event had the highest odds of receiving follow-up (within 7 days, adjusted odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.68-2.94).

Older age and leaving against medical advice were associated with decreased likelihood of follow-up. Female sex, hospitalizations related to self-harm or suicidality, and longer length of stay were associated with increased likelihood of mental health follow-up care.

Compared with those hospitalized for major depression, those hospitalized for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, disruptive disorders, or comorbid substance use disorder were less likely to receive mental health follow-up. For example, only 23.7% of youth with comorbid substance use discharged from the hospital had follow-up within 7 days.

Similar patterns were observed for 30-day follow-up care.
 

‘Accessible and appealing’ options needed

In the ED-visit group, the average age was 19.5 years (58% female). Most (70.4%) had no chronic health conditions other than a psychiatric disorder. The primary diagnoses were anxiety disorders or phobias (44.1%) and major depression (23%).

One in four visits included a code for self-harm, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempt. And almost one third lacked established outpatient care before the ED visit.

Results showed 28.6% of the ED group received mental health care follow-up within 7 days and 46.4% received it within 30 days.

Again, the strongest predictor of mental health follow-up was prior outpatient care. For example, compared with participants with no established outpatient care, those with both primary care and mental health care were the most likely to receive follow-up within 7 days (aOR, 4.06; 95% CI, 3.72-4.42).

These numbers “are far from the goal of making sure everybody is getting follow-up care within 7 days of an acute psychiatric event,” Dr. Skehan said.

He stressed the need for “accessible and appealing options for youth.” These could include telehealth services, improved communication among health care providers in the ED, and reducing barriers to access follow-up care.

“This probably highlights the need to have more case management and referral services, and maybe make sure patients have a follow-up appointment before they leave the emergency room,” said Dr. Skehan. “This doesn’t necessarily guarantee they’ll get there but hopefully it makes it more likely they will have that access should they need it.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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