Federal Practitioner

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

[email protected]

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

[email protected]

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

[email protected]

Unlike high-risk adenomas (HRAs), low-risk adenomas (LRAs) have a minimal association with risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC), and no relationship with odds of metachronous CRC-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of more than 500,000 individuals.

These findings should impact surveillance guidelines and make follow-up the same for individuals with LRAs or no adenomas, reported lead author Abhiram Duvvuri, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, and colleagues. Currently, the United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer advises colonoscopy intervals of 3 years for individuals with HRAs, 7-10 years for those with LRAs, and 10 years for those without adenomas.

“The evidence supporting these surveillance recommendations for clinically relevant endpoints such as cancer and cancer-related deaths among patients who undergo adenoma removal, particularly LRA, is minimal, because most of the evidence was based on the surrogate risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

To provide more solid evidence, the investigators performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, ultimately analyzing 12 studies with data from 510,019 individuals at a mean age of 59.2 years. All studies reported rates of LRA, HRA, or no adenoma at baseline colonoscopy, plus incidence of metachronous CRC and/or CRC-related mortality. With these data, the investigators determined incidence of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality for each of the adenoma groups and also compared these incidences per 10,000 person-years of follow-up across groups.

After a mean follow-up of 8.5 years, patients with HRAs had a significantly higher rate of CRC compared with patients who had LRAs (13.81 vs. 4.5; odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-3.20) or no adenomas (13.81 vs. 3.4; OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.31-3.69). Similarly, but to a lesser degree, LRAs were associated with significantly greater risk of CRC than that of no adenomas (4.5 vs. 3.4; OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51).

Data on CRC- related mortality further supported these minimal risk profiles because LRAs did not significantly increase the risk of CRC-related mortality compared with no adenomas (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.76-1.74). In contrast, HRAs were associated with significantly greater risk of CRC-related death than that of both LRAs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.30-4.75) and no adenomas (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.87-3.87).

The investigators acknowledged certain limitations of their study. For one, there were no randomized controlled trials in the meta-analysis, which can introduce bias. Loss of patients to follow-up is also possible; however, the investigators noted that there was a robust sample of patients available for study outcomes all the same. There is also risk of comparability bias in that HRA and LRA groups underwent more colonoscopies; however, the duration of follow-up and timing of last colonoscopy were similar among groups. Lastly, it’s possible the patient sample wasn’t representative because of healthy screenee bias, but the investigators compared groups against general population to minimize that bias.

The investigators also highlighted several strengths of their study that make their findings more reliable than those of past meta-analyses. For one, their study is the largest of its kind to date, and involved a significantly higher number of patients with LRA and no adenomas. Also, in contrast with previous studies, CRC and CRC-related mortality were evaluated rather than advanced adenomas, they noted.

“Furthermore, we also analyzed CRC incidence and mortality in the LRA group compared with the general population, with the [standardized incidence ratio] being lower and [standardized mortality ratio] being comparable, confirming that it is indeed a low-risk group,” they wrote.

Considering these strengths and the nature of their findings, Dr. Duvvuri and colleagues called for a more conservative approach to CRC surveillance among individuals with LRAs, and more research to investigate extending colonoscopy intervals even further.

“We recommend that the interval for follow-up colonoscopy should be the same in patients with LRAs or no adenomas but that the HRA group should have a more frequent surveillance interval for CRC surveillance compared with these groups,” they concluded. “Future studies should evaluate whether surveillance intervals could be lengthened beyond 10 years in the no-adenoma and LRA groups after an initial high-quality index colonoscopy.”

One author disclosed affiliations with Erbe, Cdx Labs, Aries, and others. Dr. Duvvuri and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Unlike high-risk adenomas (HRAs), low-risk adenomas (LRAs) have a minimal association with risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC), and no relationship with odds of metachronous CRC-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of more than 500,000 individuals.

These findings should impact surveillance guidelines and make follow-up the same for individuals with LRAs or no adenomas, reported lead author Abhiram Duvvuri, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, and colleagues. Currently, the United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer advises colonoscopy intervals of 3 years for individuals with HRAs, 7-10 years for those with LRAs, and 10 years for those without adenomas.

“The evidence supporting these surveillance recommendations for clinically relevant endpoints such as cancer and cancer-related deaths among patients who undergo adenoma removal, particularly LRA, is minimal, because most of the evidence was based on the surrogate risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

To provide more solid evidence, the investigators performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, ultimately analyzing 12 studies with data from 510,019 individuals at a mean age of 59.2 years. All studies reported rates of LRA, HRA, or no adenoma at baseline colonoscopy, plus incidence of metachronous CRC and/or CRC-related mortality. With these data, the investigators determined incidence of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality for each of the adenoma groups and also compared these incidences per 10,000 person-years of follow-up across groups.

After a mean follow-up of 8.5 years, patients with HRAs had a significantly higher rate of CRC compared with patients who had LRAs (13.81 vs. 4.5; odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-3.20) or no adenomas (13.81 vs. 3.4; OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.31-3.69). Similarly, but to a lesser degree, LRAs were associated with significantly greater risk of CRC than that of no adenomas (4.5 vs. 3.4; OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51).

Data on CRC- related mortality further supported these minimal risk profiles because LRAs did not significantly increase the risk of CRC-related mortality compared with no adenomas (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.76-1.74). In contrast, HRAs were associated with significantly greater risk of CRC-related death than that of both LRAs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.30-4.75) and no adenomas (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.87-3.87).

The investigators acknowledged certain limitations of their study. For one, there were no randomized controlled trials in the meta-analysis, which can introduce bias. Loss of patients to follow-up is also possible; however, the investigators noted that there was a robust sample of patients available for study outcomes all the same. There is also risk of comparability bias in that HRA and LRA groups underwent more colonoscopies; however, the duration of follow-up and timing of last colonoscopy were similar among groups. Lastly, it’s possible the patient sample wasn’t representative because of healthy screenee bias, but the investigators compared groups against general population to minimize that bias.

The investigators also highlighted several strengths of their study that make their findings more reliable than those of past meta-analyses. For one, their study is the largest of its kind to date, and involved a significantly higher number of patients with LRA and no adenomas. Also, in contrast with previous studies, CRC and CRC-related mortality were evaluated rather than advanced adenomas, they noted.

“Furthermore, we also analyzed CRC incidence and mortality in the LRA group compared with the general population, with the [standardized incidence ratio] being lower and [standardized mortality ratio] being comparable, confirming that it is indeed a low-risk group,” they wrote.

Considering these strengths and the nature of their findings, Dr. Duvvuri and colleagues called for a more conservative approach to CRC surveillance among individuals with LRAs, and more research to investigate extending colonoscopy intervals even further.

“We recommend that the interval for follow-up colonoscopy should be the same in patients with LRAs or no adenomas but that the HRA group should have a more frequent surveillance interval for CRC surveillance compared with these groups,” they concluded. “Future studies should evaluate whether surveillance intervals could be lengthened beyond 10 years in the no-adenoma and LRA groups after an initial high-quality index colonoscopy.”

One author disclosed affiliations with Erbe, Cdx Labs, Aries, and others. Dr. Duvvuri and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Unlike high-risk adenomas (HRAs), low-risk adenomas (LRAs) have a minimal association with risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC), and no relationship with odds of metachronous CRC-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of more than 500,000 individuals.

These findings should impact surveillance guidelines and make follow-up the same for individuals with LRAs or no adenomas, reported lead author Abhiram Duvvuri, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, and colleagues. Currently, the United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer advises colonoscopy intervals of 3 years for individuals with HRAs, 7-10 years for those with LRAs, and 10 years for those without adenomas.

“The evidence supporting these surveillance recommendations for clinically relevant endpoints such as cancer and cancer-related deaths among patients who undergo adenoma removal, particularly LRA, is minimal, because most of the evidence was based on the surrogate risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

To provide more solid evidence, the investigators performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, ultimately analyzing 12 studies with data from 510,019 individuals at a mean age of 59.2 years. All studies reported rates of LRA, HRA, or no adenoma at baseline colonoscopy, plus incidence of metachronous CRC and/or CRC-related mortality. With these data, the investigators determined incidence of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality for each of the adenoma groups and also compared these incidences per 10,000 person-years of follow-up across groups.

After a mean follow-up of 8.5 years, patients with HRAs had a significantly higher rate of CRC compared with patients who had LRAs (13.81 vs. 4.5; odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-3.20) or no adenomas (13.81 vs. 3.4; OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.31-3.69). Similarly, but to a lesser degree, LRAs were associated with significantly greater risk of CRC than that of no adenomas (4.5 vs. 3.4; OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51).

Data on CRC- related mortality further supported these minimal risk profiles because LRAs did not significantly increase the risk of CRC-related mortality compared with no adenomas (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.76-1.74). In contrast, HRAs were associated with significantly greater risk of CRC-related death than that of both LRAs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.30-4.75) and no adenomas (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.87-3.87).

The investigators acknowledged certain limitations of their study. For one, there were no randomized controlled trials in the meta-analysis, which can introduce bias. Loss of patients to follow-up is also possible; however, the investigators noted that there was a robust sample of patients available for study outcomes all the same. There is also risk of comparability bias in that HRA and LRA groups underwent more colonoscopies; however, the duration of follow-up and timing of last colonoscopy were similar among groups. Lastly, it’s possible the patient sample wasn’t representative because of healthy screenee bias, but the investigators compared groups against general population to minimize that bias.

The investigators also highlighted several strengths of their study that make their findings more reliable than those of past meta-analyses. For one, their study is the largest of its kind to date, and involved a significantly higher number of patients with LRA and no adenomas. Also, in contrast with previous studies, CRC and CRC-related mortality were evaluated rather than advanced adenomas, they noted.

“Furthermore, we also analyzed CRC incidence and mortality in the LRA group compared with the general population, with the [standardized incidence ratio] being lower and [standardized mortality ratio] being comparable, confirming that it is indeed a low-risk group,” they wrote.

Considering these strengths and the nature of their findings, Dr. Duvvuri and colleagues called for a more conservative approach to CRC surveillance among individuals with LRAs, and more research to investigate extending colonoscopy intervals even further.

“We recommend that the interval for follow-up colonoscopy should be the same in patients with LRAs or no adenomas but that the HRA group should have a more frequent surveillance interval for CRC surveillance compared with these groups,” they concluded. “Future studies should evaluate whether surveillance intervals could be lengthened beyond 10 years in the no-adenoma and LRA groups after an initial high-quality index colonoscopy.”

One author disclosed affiliations with Erbe, Cdx Labs, Aries, and others. Dr. Duvvuri and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Daniel G. Amen, MD, is an American psychiatrist well-known for his eponymous clinics, television appearances, and series of books on mental health. One of his latest books, “The End of Mental Illness,” summarizes many of his views on the causes of and treatments for mental illnesses.

Courtesy Tyndale House Publishers

Dr. Amen’s approaches – such as his advocacy for the widespread use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging – are somewhat controversial and at times fall outside the mainstream of current psychiatric thought. So does “The End of Mental Illness” contain anything of value to the average practicing psychiatrist? (It should be noted that I listened to this as an audiobook and took notes as I listened. This does limit my ability to directly quote portions of the text, but I believe my notes are reliable.)

Dr. Weber is physician lead in the department of psychiatry at Intermountain Healthcare Budge Clinic, Logan (Utah) Psychiatry. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27909.

2. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2014;27:358-63.

3. BMJ 2014. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 1;175:232-41.

5. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 1;173:575-87.

6. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;17(2):22-7.

Daniel G. Amen, MD, is an American psychiatrist well-known for his eponymous clinics, television appearances, and series of books on mental health. One of his latest books, “The End of Mental Illness,” summarizes many of his views on the causes of and treatments for mental illnesses.

Courtesy Tyndale House Publishers

Dr. Amen’s approaches – such as his advocacy for the widespread use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging – are somewhat controversial and at times fall outside the mainstream of current psychiatric thought. So does “The End of Mental Illness” contain anything of value to the average practicing psychiatrist? (It should be noted that I listened to this as an audiobook and took notes as I listened. This does limit my ability to directly quote portions of the text, but I believe my notes are reliable.)

Dr. Weber is physician lead in the department of psychiatry at Intermountain Healthcare Budge Clinic, Logan (Utah) Psychiatry. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27909.

2. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2014;27:358-63.

3. BMJ 2014. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 1;175:232-41.

5. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 1;173:575-87.

6. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;17(2):22-7.

Daniel G. Amen, MD, is an American psychiatrist well-known for his eponymous clinics, television appearances, and series of books on mental health. One of his latest books, “The End of Mental Illness,” summarizes many of his views on the causes of and treatments for mental illnesses.

Courtesy Tyndale House Publishers

Dr. Amen’s approaches – such as his advocacy for the widespread use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging – are somewhat controversial and at times fall outside the mainstream of current psychiatric thought. So does “The End of Mental Illness” contain anything of value to the average practicing psychiatrist? (It should be noted that I listened to this as an audiobook and took notes as I listened. This does limit my ability to directly quote portions of the text, but I believe my notes are reliable.)

Dr. Weber is physician lead in the department of psychiatry at Intermountain Healthcare Budge Clinic, Logan (Utah) Psychiatry. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27909.

2. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2014;27:358-63.

3. BMJ 2014. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 1;175:232-41.

5. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 1;173:575-87.

6. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;17(2):22-7.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

The use of telehealth may have skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it also exposed a digital divide, speaker after speaker said during a panel discussion at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) pre-AAD meeting.

“We have seen large numbers of children struggle with access to school and access to health care because of lack of access to devices, challenges of broadband Internet access, culture, language, and educational barriers – just having trouble being comfortable with this technology,” said Natalie Pageler, MD, a pediatric intensivist and chief medical information officer at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif.

“There are also privacy concerns, especially in situations where there are multiple families within a household. Finally, it’s important to remember that policy and reimbursement issues may have a significant effect on some of the socioeconomic barriers,” she added. “For example, many of our families who don’t have access to audio and video may be able to do a telephone call, but it’s important that telephone calls be considered a form of telehealth and be reimbursed to help increase the access to health care by these families. It also makes it easier to facilitate coordination of care. All of this leads to decreased time and costs for patients, families, and providers.”

Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, Dr. Pageler and colleagues at Stanford Children’s Health observed an increase from about 20 telehealth visits per day to more than 700 per day, which has held stable. While the benefits of telehealth are clear, many perceived barriers exist. In a study conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers identified a wide variety of barriers to implementation of telehealth, led by reimbursement, followed by poor business model sustainability, lack of provider time, and provider interest.

“Some of the barriers, like patient preferences for inpatient care, lack of provider interest in telehealth, and lack of provider time were easily overcome during the COVID pandemic,” Dr. Pageler said. “We dedicated the time to train immediately, because the need was so great.”

In 2018, Patrick McMahon, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, launched a teledermatology program that provided direct-to-patient “E-visits” and recently pivoted to using this service only for acne patients through a program called “Acne Express.” The out-of-pocket cost to patients is $50 per consult and nearly 1,500 cases have been completed since 2018, which has saved patients and their parents an estimated 65,000 miles driving to the clinic.

To optimize the teledermatology experience, he suggested four pillars: educate, optimize, reach out, and tailor. “I think we need to draw upon some of the digital education we already have, including a handout for patients [on the SPD website] that offers tips on taking a clear photograph on their smartphones,” he said. “We’re also trying to use some of the cases and learnings from our teledermatology experiences to teach the providers. We are setting up CME modules that are sort of a flashcard-based teaching mechanism.”

To optimize teledermatology experiences, he continued, tracking demographics, diagnoses, number of cases, and turnaround time is helpful. “We can then track who’s coming in to see us at follow-up after a new visit through telehealth,” Dr. McMahon said. “This helps us repurpose things, pivot as needed, and find any glitches. Surveying the families is also critical. Finally, we need clinical support to tee-up visits and to ensure photos are submitted and efficient, and to match diagnoses and family preference with the right modality.”

Another panelist, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, who chairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, said that digitally enabled and artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented care delivery offers a “unique opportunity” for increasing access and increasing the value of care delivered to patients.

“The role that we play as clinicians is central, and I think we can make significant strides by doing two things,” said Dr. Ko, chief of medical dermatology for Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “One: extending the reach of our expertise, and the second: scaling the impact of the care we deliver by clinician-driven, patient-centered, digitally-enabled, AI-augmented care delivery innovation. This opportunity for digital care transformation is more than just a transition from in-person visits to video visits. We have to look at this as an opportunity to leverage the unique aspects of digital capabilities and fundamentally reimagine how we deliver care.”

The AAD’s Position Statement on Augmented Intelligence was published in 2019.

Between March and June of 2021, Neil S. Prose, MD, conducted about 300 televisits with patients. “I had a few spectacular visits where, for example, a teenage patient who had been challenging showed me all of her artwork and we became instantly more connected,” said Dr. Prose, professor of dermatology, pediatrics, and global health at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Then there’s the potential for a long-term improvement in health care for some patients.”

[email protected]

The use of telehealth may have skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it also exposed a digital divide, speaker after speaker said during a panel discussion at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) pre-AAD meeting.

“We have seen large numbers of children struggle with access to school and access to health care because of lack of access to devices, challenges of broadband Internet access, culture, language, and educational barriers – just having trouble being comfortable with this technology,” said Natalie Pageler, MD, a pediatric intensivist and chief medical information officer at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif.

“There are also privacy concerns, especially in situations where there are multiple families within a household. Finally, it’s important to remember that policy and reimbursement issues may have a significant effect on some of the socioeconomic barriers,” she added. “For example, many of our families who don’t have access to audio and video may be able to do a telephone call, but it’s important that telephone calls be considered a form of telehealth and be reimbursed to help increase the access to health care by these families. It also makes it easier to facilitate coordination of care. All of this leads to decreased time and costs for patients, families, and providers.”

Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, Dr. Pageler and colleagues at Stanford Children’s Health observed an increase from about 20 telehealth visits per day to more than 700 per day, which has held stable. While the benefits of telehealth are clear, many perceived barriers exist. In a study conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers identified a wide variety of barriers to implementation of telehealth, led by reimbursement, followed by poor business model sustainability, lack of provider time, and provider interest.

“Some of the barriers, like patient preferences for inpatient care, lack of provider interest in telehealth, and lack of provider time were easily overcome during the COVID pandemic,” Dr. Pageler said. “We dedicated the time to train immediately, because the need was so great.”

In 2018, Patrick McMahon, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, launched a teledermatology program that provided direct-to-patient “E-visits” and recently pivoted to using this service only for acne patients through a program called “Acne Express.” The out-of-pocket cost to patients is $50 per consult and nearly 1,500 cases have been completed since 2018, which has saved patients and their parents an estimated 65,000 miles driving to the clinic.

To optimize the teledermatology experience, he suggested four pillars: educate, optimize, reach out, and tailor. “I think we need to draw upon some of the digital education we already have, including a handout for patients [on the SPD website] that offers tips on taking a clear photograph on their smartphones,” he said. “We’re also trying to use some of the cases and learnings from our teledermatology experiences to teach the providers. We are setting up CME modules that are sort of a flashcard-based teaching mechanism.”

To optimize teledermatology experiences, he continued, tracking demographics, diagnoses, number of cases, and turnaround time is helpful. “We can then track who’s coming in to see us at follow-up after a new visit through telehealth,” Dr. McMahon said. “This helps us repurpose things, pivot as needed, and find any glitches. Surveying the families is also critical. Finally, we need clinical support to tee-up visits and to ensure photos are submitted and efficient, and to match diagnoses and family preference with the right modality.”

Another panelist, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, who chairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, said that digitally enabled and artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented care delivery offers a “unique opportunity” for increasing access and increasing the value of care delivered to patients.

“The role that we play as clinicians is central, and I think we can make significant strides by doing two things,” said Dr. Ko, chief of medical dermatology for Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “One: extending the reach of our expertise, and the second: scaling the impact of the care we deliver by clinician-driven, patient-centered, digitally-enabled, AI-augmented care delivery innovation. This opportunity for digital care transformation is more than just a transition from in-person visits to video visits. We have to look at this as an opportunity to leverage the unique aspects of digital capabilities and fundamentally reimagine how we deliver care.”

The AAD’s Position Statement on Augmented Intelligence was published in 2019.

Between March and June of 2021, Neil S. Prose, MD, conducted about 300 televisits with patients. “I had a few spectacular visits where, for example, a teenage patient who had been challenging showed me all of her artwork and we became instantly more connected,” said Dr. Prose, professor of dermatology, pediatrics, and global health at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Then there’s the potential for a long-term improvement in health care for some patients.”

[email protected]

The use of telehealth may have skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it also exposed a digital divide, speaker after speaker said during a panel discussion at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) pre-AAD meeting.

“We have seen large numbers of children struggle with access to school and access to health care because of lack of access to devices, challenges of broadband Internet access, culture, language, and educational barriers – just having trouble being comfortable with this technology,” said Natalie Pageler, MD, a pediatric intensivist and chief medical information officer at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif.

“There are also privacy concerns, especially in situations where there are multiple families within a household. Finally, it’s important to remember that policy and reimbursement issues may have a significant effect on some of the socioeconomic barriers,” she added. “For example, many of our families who don’t have access to audio and video may be able to do a telephone call, but it’s important that telephone calls be considered a form of telehealth and be reimbursed to help increase the access to health care by these families. It also makes it easier to facilitate coordination of care. All of this leads to decreased time and costs for patients, families, and providers.”

Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, Dr. Pageler and colleagues at Stanford Children’s Health observed an increase from about 20 telehealth visits per day to more than 700 per day, which has held stable. While the benefits of telehealth are clear, many perceived barriers exist. In a study conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers identified a wide variety of barriers to implementation of telehealth, led by reimbursement, followed by poor business model sustainability, lack of provider time, and provider interest.

“Some of the barriers, like patient preferences for inpatient care, lack of provider interest in telehealth, and lack of provider time were easily overcome during the COVID pandemic,” Dr. Pageler said. “We dedicated the time to train immediately, because the need was so great.”

In 2018, Patrick McMahon, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, launched a teledermatology program that provided direct-to-patient “E-visits” and recently pivoted to using this service only for acne patients through a program called “Acne Express.” The out-of-pocket cost to patients is $50 per consult and nearly 1,500 cases have been completed since 2018, which has saved patients and their parents an estimated 65,000 miles driving to the clinic.