MDedge Dermatology

Key clinical point: In children with atopic dermatitis (AD), weekly vitamin D3 (VD3) supplementation vs placebo for 6 weeks failed to decrease the clinical severity of AD or alter type 2 immunity biomarkers.

Major finding: At 6 weeks, the change in the Severity Scoring of AD (SCORAD) index was similar in the VD3 (−5.3 ± 11.6) and placebo (−5.5 ± 9.9; P = .91) groups. No significant between-group differences were observed for change in type 2 immunity blood biomarkers, such as eosinophil counts, total immunoglobulin E (IgE), and specific IgE against staphylococcal enterotoxin A and B (all P > .05).

Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 101 children with AD (age 2-17 years) who were randomly assigned to receive weekly oral VD3 (8000, 12,000, and 16,000 IU for ages 2-5.9, 6-11.9, and 12-17.9 years, respectively; n = 53) or placebo (n = 48) for 6 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Fondo de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Chile. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Borzutzky A, Iturriaga C, Pérez-Mateluna G, et al. Effect of weekly vitamin D supplementation on the severity of atopic dermatitis and type 2 immunity biomarkers in children: A randomized controlled trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Mar 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19959 Source

Key clinical point: In children with atopic dermatitis (AD), weekly vitamin D3 (VD3) supplementation vs placebo for 6 weeks failed to decrease the clinical severity of AD or alter type 2 immunity biomarkers.

Major finding: At 6 weeks, the change in the Severity Scoring of AD (SCORAD) index was similar in the VD3 (−5.3 ± 11.6) and placebo (−5.5 ± 9.9; P = .91) groups. No significant between-group differences were observed for change in type 2 immunity blood biomarkers, such as eosinophil counts, total immunoglobulin E (IgE), and specific IgE against staphylococcal enterotoxin A and B (all P > .05).

Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 101 children with AD (age 2-17 years) who were randomly assigned to receive weekly oral VD3 (8000, 12,000, and 16,000 IU for ages 2-5.9, 6-11.9, and 12-17.9 years, respectively; n = 53) or placebo (n = 48) for 6 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Fondo de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Chile. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Borzutzky A, Iturriaga C, Pérez-Mateluna G, et al. Effect of weekly vitamin D supplementation on the severity of atopic dermatitis and type 2 immunity biomarkers in children: A randomized controlled trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Mar 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19959 Source

Key clinical point: In children with atopic dermatitis (AD), weekly vitamin D3 (VD3) supplementation vs placebo for 6 weeks failed to decrease the clinical severity of AD or alter type 2 immunity biomarkers.

Major finding: At 6 weeks, the change in the Severity Scoring of AD (SCORAD) index was similar in the VD3 (−5.3 ± 11.6) and placebo (−5.5 ± 9.9; P = .91) groups. No significant between-group differences were observed for change in type 2 immunity blood biomarkers, such as eosinophil counts, total immunoglobulin E (IgE), and specific IgE against staphylococcal enterotoxin A and B (all P > .05).

Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 101 children with AD (age 2-17 years) who were randomly assigned to receive weekly oral VD3 (8000, 12,000, and 16,000 IU for ages 2-5.9, 6-11.9, and 12-17.9 years, respectively; n = 53) or placebo (n = 48) for 6 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Fondo de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Chile. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Borzutzky A, Iturriaga C, Pérez-Mateluna G, et al. Effect of weekly vitamin D supplementation on the severity of atopic dermatitis and type 2 immunity biomarkers in children: A randomized controlled trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Mar 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19959 Source

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab-mediated inhibition of interleukin (IL)-13 improved epidermal pathology and reduced the expression of key atopic dermatitis (AD) biomarkers in the serum of patients with moderate to severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, tralokinumab vs placebo led to a significantly greater decrease from baseline in serum levels of type 2 biomarkers (CCL17/TARC, periostin, immunoglobulin E, and IL-22; all P < .05), a greater mean percentage change in the Eczema Area Severity Index score (−55.6 vs −36.7), and improved expression of genes dysregulated in AD (46.6% vs 16.4%; P < .001).

Study details: This study involved the collection of blood samples from 802 patients with moderate to severe AD randomized in the ECZTRA 1 and ECZTEND trials, followed by the selection of a subset of 299 patients with relevant samples available who had received tralokinumab (n = 223) or placebo (n = 76).

Disclosures: LEO Pharma A/S funded both ECZTRA 1 and the ongoing ECZTEND trial. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of LEO Pharma. Several authors declared receiving research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including LEO Pharma.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E, Kabashima K, Staumont-Salle D, et al. Targeting IL-13 with tralokinumab normalizes type 2 inflammation in atopic dermatitis both early and at 2 years. Allergy. 2024 (Apr 2). doi: 10.1111/all.16108 Source

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab-mediated inhibition of interleukin (IL)-13 improved epidermal pathology and reduced the expression of key atopic dermatitis (AD) biomarkers in the serum of patients with moderate to severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, tralokinumab vs placebo led to a significantly greater decrease from baseline in serum levels of type 2 biomarkers (CCL17/TARC, periostin, immunoglobulin E, and IL-22; all P < .05), a greater mean percentage change in the Eczema Area Severity Index score (−55.6 vs −36.7), and improved expression of genes dysregulated in AD (46.6% vs 16.4%; P < .001).

Study details: This study involved the collection of blood samples from 802 patients with moderate to severe AD randomized in the ECZTRA 1 and ECZTEND trials, followed by the selection of a subset of 299 patients with relevant samples available who had received tralokinumab (n = 223) or placebo (n = 76).

Disclosures: LEO Pharma A/S funded both ECZTRA 1 and the ongoing ECZTEND trial. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of LEO Pharma. Several authors declared receiving research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including LEO Pharma.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E, Kabashima K, Staumont-Salle D, et al. Targeting IL-13 with tralokinumab normalizes type 2 inflammation in atopic dermatitis both early and at 2 years. Allergy. 2024 (Apr 2). doi: 10.1111/all.16108 Source

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab-mediated inhibition of interleukin (IL)-13 improved epidermal pathology and reduced the expression of key atopic dermatitis (AD) biomarkers in the serum of patients with moderate to severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, tralokinumab vs placebo led to a significantly greater decrease from baseline in serum levels of type 2 biomarkers (CCL17/TARC, periostin, immunoglobulin E, and IL-22; all P < .05), a greater mean percentage change in the Eczema Area Severity Index score (−55.6 vs −36.7), and improved expression of genes dysregulated in AD (46.6% vs 16.4%; P < .001).

Study details: This study involved the collection of blood samples from 802 patients with moderate to severe AD randomized in the ECZTRA 1 and ECZTEND trials, followed by the selection of a subset of 299 patients with relevant samples available who had received tralokinumab (n = 223) or placebo (n = 76).

Disclosures: LEO Pharma A/S funded both ECZTRA 1 and the ongoing ECZTEND trial. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of LEO Pharma. Several authors declared receiving research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including LEO Pharma.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E, Kabashima K, Staumont-Salle D, et al. Targeting IL-13 with tralokinumab normalizes type 2 inflammation in atopic dermatitis both early and at 2 years. Allergy. 2024 (Apr 2). doi: 10.1111/all.16108 Source

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) at age 3 years showed an increased subsequent risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn's disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis (UC); however, atopic manifestations were not associated with IBD.

Major finding: The presence of AD at age 3 years significantly increased the risk for IBD (pooled adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46; 95% CI 1.13-1.88), CD (pooled aHR 1.53; 95% CI 1.04-2.26), and UC (pooled aHR 1.78; 95% CI 1.15-2.75) later in life. Any atopic manifestation by age 3 years was not associated with IBD (pooled aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.95-1.52).

Study details: This study included 83,311 children from the All Babies in Southeast Sweden (1997-1999) and the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child (1999-2008) birth cohorts with questionnaire-based prospectively collected parent-reported information on asthma, AD, etc., developed by 3 years of age who were followed up from birth until 2021 or a diagnosis of IBD.

Disclosure: This study was supported by The Swedish Research Council and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lerchova T, Størdal K, Andersson B, Ludvigsson J, Mårild K. Atopic dermatitis in early childhood and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: A Scandinavian birth cohort study. J Pediatr. 2024;270:14027 (Mar21). doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.114027. Source

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) at age 3 years showed an increased subsequent risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn's disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis (UC); however, atopic manifestations were not associated with IBD.

Major finding: The presence of AD at age 3 years significantly increased the risk for IBD (pooled adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46; 95% CI 1.13-1.88), CD (pooled aHR 1.53; 95% CI 1.04-2.26), and UC (pooled aHR 1.78; 95% CI 1.15-2.75) later in life. Any atopic manifestation by age 3 years was not associated with IBD (pooled aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.95-1.52).

Study details: This study included 83,311 children from the All Babies in Southeast Sweden (1997-1999) and the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child (1999-2008) birth cohorts with questionnaire-based prospectively collected parent-reported information on asthma, AD, etc., developed by 3 years of age who were followed up from birth until 2021 or a diagnosis of IBD.

Disclosure: This study was supported by The Swedish Research Council and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lerchova T, Størdal K, Andersson B, Ludvigsson J, Mårild K. Atopic dermatitis in early childhood and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: A Scandinavian birth cohort study. J Pediatr. 2024;270:14027 (Mar21). doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.114027. Source

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) at age 3 years showed an increased subsequent risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn's disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis (UC); however, atopic manifestations were not associated with IBD.

Major finding: The presence of AD at age 3 years significantly increased the risk for IBD (pooled adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46; 95% CI 1.13-1.88), CD (pooled aHR 1.53; 95% CI 1.04-2.26), and UC (pooled aHR 1.78; 95% CI 1.15-2.75) later in life. Any atopic manifestation by age 3 years was not associated with IBD (pooled aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.95-1.52).

Study details: This study included 83,311 children from the All Babies in Southeast Sweden (1997-1999) and the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child (1999-2008) birth cohorts with questionnaire-based prospectively collected parent-reported information on asthma, AD, etc., developed by 3 years of age who were followed up from birth until 2021 or a diagnosis of IBD.

Disclosure: This study was supported by The Swedish Research Council and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lerchova T, Størdal K, Andersson B, Ludvigsson J, Mårild K. Atopic dermatitis in early childhood and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: A Scandinavian birth cohort study. J Pediatr. 2024;270:14027 (Mar21). doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.114027. Source

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Diagnosis: Subcutaneous Fat Necrosis

Histopathology revealed lobular panniculitis with lymphohistiocytic inflammation, lipid crystals, and calcifications in our patient (Figure). Subcutaneous fat necrosis (SCFN) was diagnosed based on these characteristic histopathologic findings. No further treatment was pursued.

Subcutaneous fat necrosis is a rare, self-limiting panniculitis that typically resolves within several weeks to months without scarring. It manifests as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques most commonly on the buttocks, trunk, proximal arms and legs, and cheeks.¹ Histopathology reveals lobular panniculitis with dense granulomatous infiltrates of histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells with needle-shaped crystals. Focal areas of fat necrosis with calcification also can be seen.²

The epidemiology of SCFN is unknown. Most cases occur in healthy full-term to postterm neonates who experience hypoxia, other prenatal stressors, or therapeutic hypothermia for the treatment of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.³ Although the etiology is unclear, certain inciting factors such as local tissue hypoxia, cold exposure, meconium aspiration, maternal diabetes, preeclampsia, and mechanical pressure have been proposed. Our patient underwent hypothermic cooling protocol, and it has been suggested that the increased saturated to unsaturated fat concentration in the skin of newborns increases the melting point, thus predisposing them to fat crystalization.⁴ Cases of SCFN involving the scalp are rare; therefore, any newborns receiving hypothermic therapy for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy should have a thorough skin examination with possible biopsy of lesions that are characteristic of SCFN, such as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques, for specific disease identification.

The main complication of SCFN is hypercalcemia, which occurs in approximately 50% of cases. Other serum abnormalities include hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and thrombocytopenia, though these findings are not as well associated.⁴ Patients with associated hypercalcemia may be asymptomatic, as in our patient, but other presentations include irritability, weakness, anorexia, vomiting, renal failure, failure to thrive, and encephalopathy. Nephrocalcinosis is a common complication of severe hypercalcemia; however, there is little evidence of associated major renal dysfunction.⁵ The exact mechanism of hypercalcemia is poorly understood. A widely accepted theory postulates that a granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate upregulates 1-α-hydroxylase activity, which enzymatically converts 25-hydroxyvitamin D to its active form, 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, which increases bone resorption and calcium absorption through the gastrointestinal tract and renal systems. Treatments for hypercalcemia include hyperhydration, calcium-wasting diuretics, and low calcium intake.⁶ Furthermore, calcium levels should be obtained at the time of diagnosis and 30, 45, and 60 days after the lesions resolve.⁴

Subcutaneous fat necrosis needs to be differentiated from the more severe panniculitis, sclerema neonatorum (SN), which typically affects critically ill, preterm, and small-for-gestational-age newborns. It is associated with a high mortality rate and is characterized by skin and subadjacent tissue structures. The process typically begins in the thighs, buttocks, or trunk and spreads diffusely, sparing the fat-free palms, soles, and genitalia.⁷ Although our patient was born preterm, the physical characteristics of the nodule and the lack of severe illness placed SN lower on our differential. Histopathologic differences between SCFN and SN involve the extent of tissue fibrosis and presence of inflammatory cells. Sclerema neonatorum typically manifests with thickened connective tissue with a sparse inflammatory infiltrate, including lymphocytes, histiocytes, and multinucleated giant cells.⁷ Conversely, SCFN manifests with fat necrosis with an extensive inflammatory infiltrate. It is important to be able to distinguish between these 2 conditions, as both have vastly different prognoses.

Cold panniculitis, sometimes called “popsicle panniculitis,” is a phenomenon in which cold contact with the skin causes eruption of firm, erythematous, indurated plaques at the site of exposure. This self-limiting condition typically appears hours to days after cold exposure and spontaneously resolves in a few weeks.⁸ Therapeutic hypothermic protocol treatment involves using cooling devices to lower the body temperature for a short duration. The temperature typically is lowered to approximately 32 °C to 36 °C. These temperatures are not low enough to induce cold panniculitis, which is more commonly seen in facial ice applications when managing supraventricular tachycardia in neonates.

Cephalohematoma is a birthing injury that causes blood accumulation within the subperiosteal space. During parturition, the compressive and sheering forces on the calvarium rupture the vessels passing through the periosteum, causing blood to pool slowly into the subperiostium; thus, a cephalohematoma usually manifests later at 1 to 3 days of life as localized head swelling.⁹ The bleeding typically does not cross suture lines and is primarily found in the occipital or parietal regions. The incidence has been reported to be 0.4% to 2.5% of all live births.¹⁰ Although the location of the nodule in our patient was in the occipital region, imaging and biopsy results did not show hemorrhagic findings consistent with cephalohematoma. Management of cephalohematoma mainly is observational, as the mass slowly regresses and the accumulated blood gradually is reabsorbed.

Fungal scalp infections (tinea capitis) are common in the pediatric population. The peak incidence of this infection has been reported in children aged 3 to 7 years, with Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis as the usual causative organisms.¹¹ Clinical features of tinea capitis include scaly patches with hair loss, hair loss with black pigmented dots at the follicular openings, diffuse scalp scaling with subtle hair loss, and cervical lymphadenopathy.¹² Although less common, tinea capitis can progress to a more severe form known as a kerion, which is characterized by a tender plaque with pustules and crusting. A kerion can result in permanent scarring and alopecia if left untreated.¹² In our patient, a nodule with scaling and faint erythema was observed, but no black pigmented dots at the follicular orifices were present. Therefore, a potassium hydroxide wet mount preparation used to diagnose tinea capitis was unnecessary. Systemic oral antifungal therapy such as fluconazole or terbinafine is the standard treatment for tinea capitis.

The Diagnosis: Subcutaneous Fat Necrosis

Histopathology revealed lobular panniculitis with lymphohistiocytic inflammation, lipid crystals, and calcifications in our patient (Figure). Subcutaneous fat necrosis (SCFN) was diagnosed based on these characteristic histopathologic findings. No further treatment was pursued.

Subcutaneous fat necrosis is a rare, self-limiting panniculitis that typically resolves within several weeks to months without scarring. It manifests as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques most commonly on the buttocks, trunk, proximal arms and legs, and cheeks.¹ Histopathology reveals lobular panniculitis with dense granulomatous infiltrates of histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells with needle-shaped crystals. Focal areas of fat necrosis with calcification also can be seen.²

The epidemiology of SCFN is unknown. Most cases occur in healthy full-term to postterm neonates who experience hypoxia, other prenatal stressors, or therapeutic hypothermia for the treatment of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.³ Although the etiology is unclear, certain inciting factors such as local tissue hypoxia, cold exposure, meconium aspiration, maternal diabetes, preeclampsia, and mechanical pressure have been proposed. Our patient underwent hypothermic cooling protocol, and it has been suggested that the increased saturated to unsaturated fat concentration in the skin of newborns increases the melting point, thus predisposing them to fat crystalization.⁴ Cases of SCFN involving the scalp are rare; therefore, any newborns receiving hypothermic therapy for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy should have a thorough skin examination with possible biopsy of lesions that are characteristic of SCFN, such as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques, for specific disease identification.

The main complication of SCFN is hypercalcemia, which occurs in approximately 50% of cases. Other serum abnormalities include hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and thrombocytopenia, though these findings are not as well associated.⁴ Patients with associated hypercalcemia may be asymptomatic, as in our patient, but other presentations include irritability, weakness, anorexia, vomiting, renal failure, failure to thrive, and encephalopathy. Nephrocalcinosis is a common complication of severe hypercalcemia; however, there is little evidence of associated major renal dysfunction.⁵ The exact mechanism of hypercalcemia is poorly understood. A widely accepted theory postulates that a granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate upregulates 1-α-hydroxylase activity, which enzymatically converts 25-hydroxyvitamin D to its active form, 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, which increases bone resorption and calcium absorption through the gastrointestinal tract and renal systems. Treatments for hypercalcemia include hyperhydration, calcium-wasting diuretics, and low calcium intake.⁶ Furthermore, calcium levels should be obtained at the time of diagnosis and 30, 45, and 60 days after the lesions resolve.⁴

Subcutaneous fat necrosis needs to be differentiated from the more severe panniculitis, sclerema neonatorum (SN), which typically affects critically ill, preterm, and small-for-gestational-age newborns. It is associated with a high mortality rate and is characterized by skin and subadjacent tissue structures. The process typically begins in the thighs, buttocks, or trunk and spreads diffusely, sparing the fat-free palms, soles, and genitalia.⁷ Although our patient was born preterm, the physical characteristics of the nodule and the lack of severe illness placed SN lower on our differential. Histopathologic differences between SCFN and SN involve the extent of tissue fibrosis and presence of inflammatory cells. Sclerema neonatorum typically manifests with thickened connective tissue with a sparse inflammatory infiltrate, including lymphocytes, histiocytes, and multinucleated giant cells.⁷ Conversely, SCFN manifests with fat necrosis with an extensive inflammatory infiltrate. It is important to be able to distinguish between these 2 conditions, as both have vastly different prognoses.

Cold panniculitis, sometimes called “popsicle panniculitis,” is a phenomenon in which cold contact with the skin causes eruption of firm, erythematous, indurated plaques at the site of exposure. This self-limiting condition typically appears hours to days after cold exposure and spontaneously resolves in a few weeks.⁸ Therapeutic hypothermic protocol treatment involves using cooling devices to lower the body temperature for a short duration. The temperature typically is lowered to approximately 32 °C to 36 °C. These temperatures are not low enough to induce cold panniculitis, which is more commonly seen in facial ice applications when managing supraventricular tachycardia in neonates.

Cephalohematoma is a birthing injury that causes blood accumulation within the subperiosteal space. During parturition, the compressive and sheering forces on the calvarium rupture the vessels passing through the periosteum, causing blood to pool slowly into the subperiostium; thus, a cephalohematoma usually manifests later at 1 to 3 days of life as localized head swelling.⁹ The bleeding typically does not cross suture lines and is primarily found in the occipital or parietal regions. The incidence has been reported to be 0.4% to 2.5% of all live births.¹⁰ Although the location of the nodule in our patient was in the occipital region, imaging and biopsy results did not show hemorrhagic findings consistent with cephalohematoma. Management of cephalohematoma mainly is observational, as the mass slowly regresses and the accumulated blood gradually is reabsorbed.

Fungal scalp infections (tinea capitis) are common in the pediatric population. The peak incidence of this infection has been reported in children aged 3 to 7 years, with Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis as the usual causative organisms.¹¹ Clinical features of tinea capitis include scaly patches with hair loss, hair loss with black pigmented dots at the follicular openings, diffuse scalp scaling with subtle hair loss, and cervical lymphadenopathy.¹² Although less common, tinea capitis can progress to a more severe form known as a kerion, which is characterized by a tender plaque with pustules and crusting. A kerion can result in permanent scarring and alopecia if left untreated.¹² In our patient, a nodule with scaling and faint erythema was observed, but no black pigmented dots at the follicular orifices were present. Therefore, a potassium hydroxide wet mount preparation used to diagnose tinea capitis was unnecessary. Systemic oral antifungal therapy such as fluconazole or terbinafine is the standard treatment for tinea capitis.

The Diagnosis: Subcutaneous Fat Necrosis

Histopathology revealed lobular panniculitis with lymphohistiocytic inflammation, lipid crystals, and calcifications in our patient (Figure). Subcutaneous fat necrosis (SCFN) was diagnosed based on these characteristic histopathologic findings. No further treatment was pursued.

Subcutaneous fat necrosis is a rare, self-limiting panniculitis that typically resolves within several weeks to months without scarring. It manifests as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques most commonly on the buttocks, trunk, proximal arms and legs, and cheeks.¹ Histopathology reveals lobular panniculitis with dense granulomatous infiltrates of histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells with needle-shaped crystals. Focal areas of fat necrosis with calcification also can be seen.²

The epidemiology of SCFN is unknown. Most cases occur in healthy full-term to postterm neonates who experience hypoxia, other prenatal stressors, or therapeutic hypothermia for the treatment of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.³ Although the etiology is unclear, certain inciting factors such as local tissue hypoxia, cold exposure, meconium aspiration, maternal diabetes, preeclampsia, and mechanical pressure have been proposed. Our patient underwent hypothermic cooling protocol, and it has been suggested that the increased saturated to unsaturated fat concentration in the skin of newborns increases the melting point, thus predisposing them to fat crystalization.⁴ Cases of SCFN involving the scalp are rare; therefore, any newborns receiving hypothermic therapy for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy should have a thorough skin examination with possible biopsy of lesions that are characteristic of SCFN, such as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques, for specific disease identification.

The main complication of SCFN is hypercalcemia, which occurs in approximately 50% of cases. Other serum abnormalities include hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and thrombocytopenia, though these findings are not as well associated.⁴ Patients with associated hypercalcemia may be asymptomatic, as in our patient, but other presentations include irritability, weakness, anorexia, vomiting, renal failure, failure to thrive, and encephalopathy. Nephrocalcinosis is a common complication of severe hypercalcemia; however, there is little evidence of associated major renal dysfunction.⁵ The exact mechanism of hypercalcemia is poorly understood. A widely accepted theory postulates that a granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate upregulates 1-α-hydroxylase activity, which enzymatically converts 25-hydroxyvitamin D to its active form, 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, which increases bone resorption and calcium absorption through the gastrointestinal tract and renal systems. Treatments for hypercalcemia include hyperhydration, calcium-wasting diuretics, and low calcium intake.⁶ Furthermore, calcium levels should be obtained at the time of diagnosis and 30, 45, and 60 days after the lesions resolve.⁴

Subcutaneous fat necrosis needs to be differentiated from the more severe panniculitis, sclerema neonatorum (SN), which typically affects critically ill, preterm, and small-for-gestational-age newborns. It is associated with a high mortality rate and is characterized by skin and subadjacent tissue structures. The process typically begins in the thighs, buttocks, or trunk and spreads diffusely, sparing the fat-free palms, soles, and genitalia.⁷ Although our patient was born preterm, the physical characteristics of the nodule and the lack of severe illness placed SN lower on our differential. Histopathologic differences between SCFN and SN involve the extent of tissue fibrosis and presence of inflammatory cells. Sclerema neonatorum typically manifests with thickened connective tissue with a sparse inflammatory infiltrate, including lymphocytes, histiocytes, and multinucleated giant cells.⁷ Conversely, SCFN manifests with fat necrosis with an extensive inflammatory infiltrate. It is important to be able to distinguish between these 2 conditions, as both have vastly different prognoses.

Cold panniculitis, sometimes called “popsicle panniculitis,” is a phenomenon in which cold contact with the skin causes eruption of firm, erythematous, indurated plaques at the site of exposure. This self-limiting condition typically appears hours to days after cold exposure and spontaneously resolves in a few weeks.⁸ Therapeutic hypothermic protocol treatment involves using cooling devices to lower the body temperature for a short duration. The temperature typically is lowered to approximately 32 °C to 36 °C. These temperatures are not low enough to induce cold panniculitis, which is more commonly seen in facial ice applications when managing supraventricular tachycardia in neonates.

Cephalohematoma is a birthing injury that causes blood accumulation within the subperiosteal space. During parturition, the compressive and sheering forces on the calvarium rupture the vessels passing through the periosteum, causing blood to pool slowly into the subperiostium; thus, a cephalohematoma usually manifests later at 1 to 3 days of life as localized head swelling.⁹ The bleeding typically does not cross suture lines and is primarily found in the occipital or parietal regions. The incidence has been reported to be 0.4% to 2.5% of all live births.¹⁰ Although the location of the nodule in our patient was in the occipital region, imaging and biopsy results did not show hemorrhagic findings consistent with cephalohematoma. Management of cephalohematoma mainly is observational, as the mass slowly regresses and the accumulated blood gradually is reabsorbed.

Fungal scalp infections (tinea capitis) are common in the pediatric population. The peak incidence of this infection has been reported in children aged 3 to 7 years, with Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis as the usual causative organisms.¹¹ Clinical features of tinea capitis include scaly patches with hair loss, hair loss with black pigmented dots at the follicular openings, diffuse scalp scaling with subtle hair loss, and cervical lymphadenopathy.¹² Although less common, tinea capitis can progress to a more severe form known as a kerion, which is characterized by a tender plaque with pustules and crusting. A kerion can result in permanent scarring and alopecia if left untreated.¹² In our patient, a nodule with scaling and faint erythema was observed, but no black pigmented dots at the follicular orifices were present. Therefore, a potassium hydroxide wet mount preparation used to diagnose tinea capitis was unnecessary. Systemic oral antifungal therapy such as fluconazole or terbinafine is the standard treatment for tinea capitis.

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

Dr. Benabio

Kaiser Permanente

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

Dr. Benabio

Kaiser Permanente

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

Dr. Benabio

Kaiser Permanente

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.