User login
For MD-IQ use only
Family Practice News celebrates 50 years
This year, in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.
We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.
Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].
Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!
This year, in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.
We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.
Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].
Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!
This year, in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.
We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.
Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].
Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!
Racism in medicine: Implicit and explicit
With the shootings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and other Black citizens setting off protests and unrest, race was at the forefront of national conversation in the United States – along with COVID-19 – over the past year.
“We’ve heard things like, ‘We’re in a post-racial society,’ but I think 2020 in particular has emphasized that we’re not,” said Gregory Johnson, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of hospital medicine at Sound Physicians, a national physician practice. “Racism is very present in our lives, it’s very present in our world, and it is absolutely present in medicine.”
Yes, race is still an issue in the U.S. as we head into 2021, though this may have come as something of a surprise to people who do not live with racism daily.
“If you have a brain, you have bias, and that bias will likely apply to race as well,” Dr. Johnson said. “When we’re talking about institutional racism, the educational system and the media have led us to create presumptions and prejudices that we don’t necessarily recognize off the top because they’ve just been a part of the fabric of who we are as we’ve grown up.”
The term “racism” has extremely negative connotations because there’s character judgment attached to it, but to say someone is racist or racially insensitive does not equate them with being a Klansman, said Dr. Johnson. “I think we as people have to acknowledge that, yes, it’s possible for me to be racist and I might not be 100% aware of it. It’s being open to the possibility – or rather probability – that you are and then taking steps to figure out how you can address that, so you can limit it. And that requires constant self-evaluation and work,” he said.
Racism in the medical environment
Institutional racism is evident before students are even accepted into medical school, said Areeba Kara, MD, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and a hospitalist at IU Health Physicians.
Mean MCAT scores are lower for applicants traditionally underrepresented in medicine (UIM) compared to the scores of well-represented groups.1 “Lower scores are associated with lower acceptance rates into medical school,” Dr. Kara said. “These differences reflect unequal educational opportunities rooted in centuries of legal discrimination.”
Racism is apparent in both the hidden medical education curriculum and in lessons implicitly taught to students, said Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate program director of the pediatric residency training program at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
“These lessons inform the way in which we as physicians see our patients, each other, and how we practice,” she said. “We reinforce race-based medicine and shape clinical decision making through flawed guidelines and practices, which exacerbates health inequities. We teach that race – rather than racism – is a risk factor for poor health outcomes. Our students and trainees watch as we assume the worst of our patients from marginalized communities of color.”
Terms describing patients of color, such as “difficult,” “non-compliant,” or “frequent flyer” are thrown around and sometimes, instead of finding out why, “we view these states of being as static, root causes for poor outcomes rather than symptoms of social conditions and obstacles that impact overall health and wellbeing,” Dr. Unaka said.
Leadership opportunities
Though hospital medicine is a growing field, Dr. Kara noted that the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report found that only 5.5% of hospital medical group leaders were Black, and just 2.2% were Hispanic/Latino.2 “I think these numbers speak for themselves,” she said.
Dr. Unaka said that the lack of UIM hospitalists and physician leaders creates fewer opportunities for “race-concordant mentorship relationships.” It also forces UIM physicians to shoulder more responsibilities – often obligations that do little to help them move forward in their careers – all in the name of diversity. And when UIM physicians are given leadership opportunities, Dr. Unaka said they are often unsure as to whether their appointments are genuine or just a hollow gesture made for the sake of diversity.
Dr. Johnson pointed out that Black and Latinx populations primarily get their care from hospital-based specialties, yet this is not reflected in the number of UIM practitioners in leadership roles. He said race and ethnicity, as well as gender, need to be factors when individuals are evaluated for leadership opportunities – for the individual’s sake, as well as for the community he or she is serving.
“When we can evaluate for unconscious bias and factor in that diverse groups tend to have better outcomes, whether it’s business or clinical outcomes, it’s one of the opportunities that we collectively have in the specialty to improve what we’re delivering for hospitals and, more importantly, for patients,” he said.
Relationships with colleagues and patients
Racism creeps into interactions and relationships with others as well, whether it’s between clinicians, clinician to patient, or patient to clinician. Sometimes it’s blatant; often it’s subtle.
A common, recurring example Dr. Unaka has experienced in the clinician to clinician relationship is being confused for other Black physicians, making her feel invisible. “The everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults from colleagues are frequent and contribute to feelings of exclusion, isolation, and exhaustion,” she said. Despite this, she is still expected to “address microaggressions and other forms of interpersonal racism and find ways to move through professional spaces in spite of the trauma, fear, and stress associated with my reality and lived experiences.” She said that clinicians who remain silent on the topic of racism participate in the violence and contribute to the disillusionment of UIM physicians.
Dr. Kara said that the discrimination from the health care team is the hardest to deal with. In the clinician to clinician relationship, there is a sense among UIM physicians that they’re being watched more closely and “have to prove themselves at every single turn.” Unfortunately, this comes from the environment, which tends to be adversarial rather than supportive and nurturing, she said.
“There are lots of opportunities for racism or racial insensitivity to crop up from clinician to clinician,” said Dr. Johnson. When he started his career as a physician after his training, Dr. Johnson was informed that his colleagues were watching him because they were not sure about his clinical skills. The fact that he was a former chief resident and board certified in two specialties did not seem to make any difference.
Patients refusing care from UIM physicians or expressing disapproval – both verbal and nonverbal – of such care, happens all too often. “It’s easier for me to excuse patients and their families as we often meet them on their worst days,” said Dr. Kara. Still, “understanding my oath to care for people and do no harm, but at the same time, recognizing that this is an individual that is rejecting my care without having any idea of who I am as a physician is frustrating,” Dr. Johnson acknowledged.
Then there’s the complex clinician to patient relationship, which research clearly shows contributes to health disparities.3 For one thing, the physician workforce does not reflect the patient population, Dr. Unaka said. “We cannot ignore the lack of race concordance between patients and clinicians, nor can the continued misplacement of blame for medical mistrust be at the feet of our patients,” she said.
Dr. Unaka feels that clinicians need to accept both that health inequities exist and that frontline physicians themselves contribute to the inequities. “Our diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are not immune to bias and are influenced by our deeply held beliefs about specific populations,” she said. “And the health care system that our patients navigate is no different than other systems, settings, and environments that are marred by racism in all its forms.”
Systemic racism greatly impacts patient care, said Dr. Kara. She pointed to several examples: Research showing that race concordance between patients and providers in an emergency department setting led to better pain control with fewer analgesics.4 The high maternal and infant mortality rates amongst Black women and children.5 Evidence of poorer outcomes in sepsis patients with limited English proficiency.6 “There are plenty more,” she said. “We need to be asking ourselves what we are going to do about it.”
Moving forward
That racial biases are steeped so thoroughly into our culture and consciousness means that moving beyond them is a continual, purposeful work in progress. But it is work that is critical for everyone, and certainly necessary for those who care for their fellow human beings when they are in a vulnerable state.
Health care systems need to move toward equity – giving everyone what they need to thrive – rather than focusing on equality – giving everyone the same thing, said Jenny Baenziger, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and associate director of education at IU Center for Global Health. “We know that minoritized patients are going to need more attention, more advocacy, more sensitivity, and more creative solutions in order to help them achieve health in a world that is often stacked against them,” she said.
“The unique needs of each patient, family unit, and/or population must be taken into consideration,” said Dr. Unaka. She said hospitalists need to embrace creative approaches that can better serve the specific needs of patients. Equitable practices should be the default, which means data transparency, thoroughly dissecting hospital processes to find existing inequities, giving stakeholders – especially patients and families of color – a voice, and tearing down oppressive systems that contribute to poor health outcomes and oppression, she said.
“It’s time for us to talk about racism openly,” said Dr. Kara. “Believe your colleagues when they share their fears and treat each other with respect. We should be actively learning about and celebrating our diversity.” She encourages finding out what your institution is doing on this front and getting involved.
Dr. Johnson believes that first and foremost, hospitalists need to be exposed to the data on health care disparities. “The next step is asking what we as hospitalists, or any other specialty, can do to intervene and improve in those areas,” he said. Focusing on unconscious bias training is important, he said, so clinicians can see what biases they might be bringing into the hospital and to the bedside. Maintaining a diverse workforce and bringing UIM physicians into leadership roles to encourage diversity of ideas and approaches are also critical to promoting equity, he said.
“You cannot fix what you cannot face,” said Dr. Unaka. Education on how racism impacts patients and colleagues is essential, she believes, as is advocacy for changing inequitable health system policies. She recommends expanding social and professional circles. “Diverse social groups allow us to consider the perspectives of others; diverse professional groups allow us to ask better research questions and practice better medicine.”
Start by developing the ability to question personal assumptions and pinpoint implicit biases, suggested Dr. Baenziger. “Asking for feedback can be scary and difficult, but we should take a deep breath and do it anyway,” she said. “Simply ask your team, ‘I’ve been thinking a lot about racial equity and disparities. How can I do better at my interactions with people of color? What are my blind spots?’” Dr. Baenziger said that “to help us remember how beautifully complicated and diverse people are,” all health care professionals need to watch Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED talk “The Danger of a Single Story.”
Dr. Baenziger also stressed the importance of conversations about “places where race is built into our clinical assessments, like eGFR,” as well as being aware that many of the research studies that are used to support everyday clinical decisions didn’t include people of color. She also encouraged clinicians to consider how and when they include race in their notes.7 “Is it really helpful to make sure people know right away that you are treating a ‘46-year-old Hispanic male’ or can the fact that he is Hispanic be saved for the social history section with other important details of his life such as being a father, veteran, and mechanic?” she asked.
“Racism is real and very much a part of our history. We can no longer be in denial regarding the racism that exists in medicine and the impact it has on our patients,” Dr. Unaka said. “As a profession, we cannot hide behind our espoused core values. We must live up to them.”
References
1. Lucey CR, Saguil, A. The Consequences of Structural Racism on MCAT Scores and Medical School Admissions: The Past Is Prologue. Acad Med. 2020 Mar;95(3):351-356. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002939.
2. Flores L. Increasing racial diversity in hospital medicine’s leadership ranks. The Hospitalist. 2020 Oct 21.
3. Smedley BD, et al, eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.
4. Heins A, et al. Physician Race/Ethnicity Predicts Successful Emergency Department Analgesia. J Pain. 2010 July;11(7):692-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.10.017.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serves, Office of Minority Health. Infant Mortality and African Americans. 2019 Nov 8. minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=23.
6. Jacobs ZG, et al. The Association between Limited English Proficiency and Sepsis Mortality. J Hosp Med. 2020;3;140-146. Published Online First 2019 Nov 20. doi:10.12788/jhm.3334.
7. Finucane TE. Mention of a Patient’s “Race” in Clinical Presentations. Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(6):423-427. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.6.ecas1-1406.
With the shootings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and other Black citizens setting off protests and unrest, race was at the forefront of national conversation in the United States – along with COVID-19 – over the past year.
“We’ve heard things like, ‘We’re in a post-racial society,’ but I think 2020 in particular has emphasized that we’re not,” said Gregory Johnson, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of hospital medicine at Sound Physicians, a national physician practice. “Racism is very present in our lives, it’s very present in our world, and it is absolutely present in medicine.”
Yes, race is still an issue in the U.S. as we head into 2021, though this may have come as something of a surprise to people who do not live with racism daily.
“If you have a brain, you have bias, and that bias will likely apply to race as well,” Dr. Johnson said. “When we’re talking about institutional racism, the educational system and the media have led us to create presumptions and prejudices that we don’t necessarily recognize off the top because they’ve just been a part of the fabric of who we are as we’ve grown up.”
The term “racism” has extremely negative connotations because there’s character judgment attached to it, but to say someone is racist or racially insensitive does not equate them with being a Klansman, said Dr. Johnson. “I think we as people have to acknowledge that, yes, it’s possible for me to be racist and I might not be 100% aware of it. It’s being open to the possibility – or rather probability – that you are and then taking steps to figure out how you can address that, so you can limit it. And that requires constant self-evaluation and work,” he said.
Racism in the medical environment
Institutional racism is evident before students are even accepted into medical school, said Areeba Kara, MD, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and a hospitalist at IU Health Physicians.
Mean MCAT scores are lower for applicants traditionally underrepresented in medicine (UIM) compared to the scores of well-represented groups.1 “Lower scores are associated with lower acceptance rates into medical school,” Dr. Kara said. “These differences reflect unequal educational opportunities rooted in centuries of legal discrimination.”
Racism is apparent in both the hidden medical education curriculum and in lessons implicitly taught to students, said Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate program director of the pediatric residency training program at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
“These lessons inform the way in which we as physicians see our patients, each other, and how we practice,” she said. “We reinforce race-based medicine and shape clinical decision making through flawed guidelines and practices, which exacerbates health inequities. We teach that race – rather than racism – is a risk factor for poor health outcomes. Our students and trainees watch as we assume the worst of our patients from marginalized communities of color.”
Terms describing patients of color, such as “difficult,” “non-compliant,” or “frequent flyer” are thrown around and sometimes, instead of finding out why, “we view these states of being as static, root causes for poor outcomes rather than symptoms of social conditions and obstacles that impact overall health and wellbeing,” Dr. Unaka said.
Leadership opportunities
Though hospital medicine is a growing field, Dr. Kara noted that the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report found that only 5.5% of hospital medical group leaders were Black, and just 2.2% were Hispanic/Latino.2 “I think these numbers speak for themselves,” she said.
Dr. Unaka said that the lack of UIM hospitalists and physician leaders creates fewer opportunities for “race-concordant mentorship relationships.” It also forces UIM physicians to shoulder more responsibilities – often obligations that do little to help them move forward in their careers – all in the name of diversity. And when UIM physicians are given leadership opportunities, Dr. Unaka said they are often unsure as to whether their appointments are genuine or just a hollow gesture made for the sake of diversity.
Dr. Johnson pointed out that Black and Latinx populations primarily get their care from hospital-based specialties, yet this is not reflected in the number of UIM practitioners in leadership roles. He said race and ethnicity, as well as gender, need to be factors when individuals are evaluated for leadership opportunities – for the individual’s sake, as well as for the community he or she is serving.
“When we can evaluate for unconscious bias and factor in that diverse groups tend to have better outcomes, whether it’s business or clinical outcomes, it’s one of the opportunities that we collectively have in the specialty to improve what we’re delivering for hospitals and, more importantly, for patients,” he said.
Relationships with colleagues and patients
Racism creeps into interactions and relationships with others as well, whether it’s between clinicians, clinician to patient, or patient to clinician. Sometimes it’s blatant; often it’s subtle.
A common, recurring example Dr. Unaka has experienced in the clinician to clinician relationship is being confused for other Black physicians, making her feel invisible. “The everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults from colleagues are frequent and contribute to feelings of exclusion, isolation, and exhaustion,” she said. Despite this, she is still expected to “address microaggressions and other forms of interpersonal racism and find ways to move through professional spaces in spite of the trauma, fear, and stress associated with my reality and lived experiences.” She said that clinicians who remain silent on the topic of racism participate in the violence and contribute to the disillusionment of UIM physicians.
Dr. Kara said that the discrimination from the health care team is the hardest to deal with. In the clinician to clinician relationship, there is a sense among UIM physicians that they’re being watched more closely and “have to prove themselves at every single turn.” Unfortunately, this comes from the environment, which tends to be adversarial rather than supportive and nurturing, she said.
“There are lots of opportunities for racism or racial insensitivity to crop up from clinician to clinician,” said Dr. Johnson. When he started his career as a physician after his training, Dr. Johnson was informed that his colleagues were watching him because they were not sure about his clinical skills. The fact that he was a former chief resident and board certified in two specialties did not seem to make any difference.
Patients refusing care from UIM physicians or expressing disapproval – both verbal and nonverbal – of such care, happens all too often. “It’s easier for me to excuse patients and their families as we often meet them on their worst days,” said Dr. Kara. Still, “understanding my oath to care for people and do no harm, but at the same time, recognizing that this is an individual that is rejecting my care without having any idea of who I am as a physician is frustrating,” Dr. Johnson acknowledged.
Then there’s the complex clinician to patient relationship, which research clearly shows contributes to health disparities.3 For one thing, the physician workforce does not reflect the patient population, Dr. Unaka said. “We cannot ignore the lack of race concordance between patients and clinicians, nor can the continued misplacement of blame for medical mistrust be at the feet of our patients,” she said.
Dr. Unaka feels that clinicians need to accept both that health inequities exist and that frontline physicians themselves contribute to the inequities. “Our diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are not immune to bias and are influenced by our deeply held beliefs about specific populations,” she said. “And the health care system that our patients navigate is no different than other systems, settings, and environments that are marred by racism in all its forms.”
Systemic racism greatly impacts patient care, said Dr. Kara. She pointed to several examples: Research showing that race concordance between patients and providers in an emergency department setting led to better pain control with fewer analgesics.4 The high maternal and infant mortality rates amongst Black women and children.5 Evidence of poorer outcomes in sepsis patients with limited English proficiency.6 “There are plenty more,” she said. “We need to be asking ourselves what we are going to do about it.”
Moving forward
That racial biases are steeped so thoroughly into our culture and consciousness means that moving beyond them is a continual, purposeful work in progress. But it is work that is critical for everyone, and certainly necessary for those who care for their fellow human beings when they are in a vulnerable state.
Health care systems need to move toward equity – giving everyone what they need to thrive – rather than focusing on equality – giving everyone the same thing, said Jenny Baenziger, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and associate director of education at IU Center for Global Health. “We know that minoritized patients are going to need more attention, more advocacy, more sensitivity, and more creative solutions in order to help them achieve health in a world that is often stacked against them,” she said.
“The unique needs of each patient, family unit, and/or population must be taken into consideration,” said Dr. Unaka. She said hospitalists need to embrace creative approaches that can better serve the specific needs of patients. Equitable practices should be the default, which means data transparency, thoroughly dissecting hospital processes to find existing inequities, giving stakeholders – especially patients and families of color – a voice, and tearing down oppressive systems that contribute to poor health outcomes and oppression, she said.
“It’s time for us to talk about racism openly,” said Dr. Kara. “Believe your colleagues when they share their fears and treat each other with respect. We should be actively learning about and celebrating our diversity.” She encourages finding out what your institution is doing on this front and getting involved.
Dr. Johnson believes that first and foremost, hospitalists need to be exposed to the data on health care disparities. “The next step is asking what we as hospitalists, or any other specialty, can do to intervene and improve in those areas,” he said. Focusing on unconscious bias training is important, he said, so clinicians can see what biases they might be bringing into the hospital and to the bedside. Maintaining a diverse workforce and bringing UIM physicians into leadership roles to encourage diversity of ideas and approaches are also critical to promoting equity, he said.
“You cannot fix what you cannot face,” said Dr. Unaka. Education on how racism impacts patients and colleagues is essential, she believes, as is advocacy for changing inequitable health system policies. She recommends expanding social and professional circles. “Diverse social groups allow us to consider the perspectives of others; diverse professional groups allow us to ask better research questions and practice better medicine.”
Start by developing the ability to question personal assumptions and pinpoint implicit biases, suggested Dr. Baenziger. “Asking for feedback can be scary and difficult, but we should take a deep breath and do it anyway,” she said. “Simply ask your team, ‘I’ve been thinking a lot about racial equity and disparities. How can I do better at my interactions with people of color? What are my blind spots?’” Dr. Baenziger said that “to help us remember how beautifully complicated and diverse people are,” all health care professionals need to watch Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED talk “The Danger of a Single Story.”
Dr. Baenziger also stressed the importance of conversations about “places where race is built into our clinical assessments, like eGFR,” as well as being aware that many of the research studies that are used to support everyday clinical decisions didn’t include people of color. She also encouraged clinicians to consider how and when they include race in their notes.7 “Is it really helpful to make sure people know right away that you are treating a ‘46-year-old Hispanic male’ or can the fact that he is Hispanic be saved for the social history section with other important details of his life such as being a father, veteran, and mechanic?” she asked.
“Racism is real and very much a part of our history. We can no longer be in denial regarding the racism that exists in medicine and the impact it has on our patients,” Dr. Unaka said. “As a profession, we cannot hide behind our espoused core values. We must live up to them.”
References
1. Lucey CR, Saguil, A. The Consequences of Structural Racism on MCAT Scores and Medical School Admissions: The Past Is Prologue. Acad Med. 2020 Mar;95(3):351-356. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002939.
2. Flores L. Increasing racial diversity in hospital medicine’s leadership ranks. The Hospitalist. 2020 Oct 21.
3. Smedley BD, et al, eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.
4. Heins A, et al. Physician Race/Ethnicity Predicts Successful Emergency Department Analgesia. J Pain. 2010 July;11(7):692-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.10.017.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serves, Office of Minority Health. Infant Mortality and African Americans. 2019 Nov 8. minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=23.
6. Jacobs ZG, et al. The Association between Limited English Proficiency and Sepsis Mortality. J Hosp Med. 2020;3;140-146. Published Online First 2019 Nov 20. doi:10.12788/jhm.3334.
7. Finucane TE. Mention of a Patient’s “Race” in Clinical Presentations. Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(6):423-427. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.6.ecas1-1406.
With the shootings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and other Black citizens setting off protests and unrest, race was at the forefront of national conversation in the United States – along with COVID-19 – over the past year.
“We’ve heard things like, ‘We’re in a post-racial society,’ but I think 2020 in particular has emphasized that we’re not,” said Gregory Johnson, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of hospital medicine at Sound Physicians, a national physician practice. “Racism is very present in our lives, it’s very present in our world, and it is absolutely present in medicine.”
Yes, race is still an issue in the U.S. as we head into 2021, though this may have come as something of a surprise to people who do not live with racism daily.
“If you have a brain, you have bias, and that bias will likely apply to race as well,” Dr. Johnson said. “When we’re talking about institutional racism, the educational system and the media have led us to create presumptions and prejudices that we don’t necessarily recognize off the top because they’ve just been a part of the fabric of who we are as we’ve grown up.”
The term “racism” has extremely negative connotations because there’s character judgment attached to it, but to say someone is racist or racially insensitive does not equate them with being a Klansman, said Dr. Johnson. “I think we as people have to acknowledge that, yes, it’s possible for me to be racist and I might not be 100% aware of it. It’s being open to the possibility – or rather probability – that you are and then taking steps to figure out how you can address that, so you can limit it. And that requires constant self-evaluation and work,” he said.
Racism in the medical environment
Institutional racism is evident before students are even accepted into medical school, said Areeba Kara, MD, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and a hospitalist at IU Health Physicians.
Mean MCAT scores are lower for applicants traditionally underrepresented in medicine (UIM) compared to the scores of well-represented groups.1 “Lower scores are associated with lower acceptance rates into medical school,” Dr. Kara said. “These differences reflect unequal educational opportunities rooted in centuries of legal discrimination.”
Racism is apparent in both the hidden medical education curriculum and in lessons implicitly taught to students, said Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate program director of the pediatric residency training program at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
“These lessons inform the way in which we as physicians see our patients, each other, and how we practice,” she said. “We reinforce race-based medicine and shape clinical decision making through flawed guidelines and practices, which exacerbates health inequities. We teach that race – rather than racism – is a risk factor for poor health outcomes. Our students and trainees watch as we assume the worst of our patients from marginalized communities of color.”
Terms describing patients of color, such as “difficult,” “non-compliant,” or “frequent flyer” are thrown around and sometimes, instead of finding out why, “we view these states of being as static, root causes for poor outcomes rather than symptoms of social conditions and obstacles that impact overall health and wellbeing,” Dr. Unaka said.
Leadership opportunities
Though hospital medicine is a growing field, Dr. Kara noted that the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report found that only 5.5% of hospital medical group leaders were Black, and just 2.2% were Hispanic/Latino.2 “I think these numbers speak for themselves,” she said.
Dr. Unaka said that the lack of UIM hospitalists and physician leaders creates fewer opportunities for “race-concordant mentorship relationships.” It also forces UIM physicians to shoulder more responsibilities – often obligations that do little to help them move forward in their careers – all in the name of diversity. And when UIM physicians are given leadership opportunities, Dr. Unaka said they are often unsure as to whether their appointments are genuine or just a hollow gesture made for the sake of diversity.
Dr. Johnson pointed out that Black and Latinx populations primarily get their care from hospital-based specialties, yet this is not reflected in the number of UIM practitioners in leadership roles. He said race and ethnicity, as well as gender, need to be factors when individuals are evaluated for leadership opportunities – for the individual’s sake, as well as for the community he or she is serving.
“When we can evaluate for unconscious bias and factor in that diverse groups tend to have better outcomes, whether it’s business or clinical outcomes, it’s one of the opportunities that we collectively have in the specialty to improve what we’re delivering for hospitals and, more importantly, for patients,” he said.
Relationships with colleagues and patients
Racism creeps into interactions and relationships with others as well, whether it’s between clinicians, clinician to patient, or patient to clinician. Sometimes it’s blatant; often it’s subtle.
A common, recurring example Dr. Unaka has experienced in the clinician to clinician relationship is being confused for other Black physicians, making her feel invisible. “The everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults from colleagues are frequent and contribute to feelings of exclusion, isolation, and exhaustion,” she said. Despite this, she is still expected to “address microaggressions and other forms of interpersonal racism and find ways to move through professional spaces in spite of the trauma, fear, and stress associated with my reality and lived experiences.” She said that clinicians who remain silent on the topic of racism participate in the violence and contribute to the disillusionment of UIM physicians.
Dr. Kara said that the discrimination from the health care team is the hardest to deal with. In the clinician to clinician relationship, there is a sense among UIM physicians that they’re being watched more closely and “have to prove themselves at every single turn.” Unfortunately, this comes from the environment, which tends to be adversarial rather than supportive and nurturing, she said.
“There are lots of opportunities for racism or racial insensitivity to crop up from clinician to clinician,” said Dr. Johnson. When he started his career as a physician after his training, Dr. Johnson was informed that his colleagues were watching him because they were not sure about his clinical skills. The fact that he was a former chief resident and board certified in two specialties did not seem to make any difference.
Patients refusing care from UIM physicians or expressing disapproval – both verbal and nonverbal – of such care, happens all too often. “It’s easier for me to excuse patients and their families as we often meet them on their worst days,” said Dr. Kara. Still, “understanding my oath to care for people and do no harm, but at the same time, recognizing that this is an individual that is rejecting my care without having any idea of who I am as a physician is frustrating,” Dr. Johnson acknowledged.
Then there’s the complex clinician to patient relationship, which research clearly shows contributes to health disparities.3 For one thing, the physician workforce does not reflect the patient population, Dr. Unaka said. “We cannot ignore the lack of race concordance between patients and clinicians, nor can the continued misplacement of blame for medical mistrust be at the feet of our patients,” she said.
Dr. Unaka feels that clinicians need to accept both that health inequities exist and that frontline physicians themselves contribute to the inequities. “Our diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are not immune to bias and are influenced by our deeply held beliefs about specific populations,” she said. “And the health care system that our patients navigate is no different than other systems, settings, and environments that are marred by racism in all its forms.”
Systemic racism greatly impacts patient care, said Dr. Kara. She pointed to several examples: Research showing that race concordance between patients and providers in an emergency department setting led to better pain control with fewer analgesics.4 The high maternal and infant mortality rates amongst Black women and children.5 Evidence of poorer outcomes in sepsis patients with limited English proficiency.6 “There are plenty more,” she said. “We need to be asking ourselves what we are going to do about it.”
Moving forward
That racial biases are steeped so thoroughly into our culture and consciousness means that moving beyond them is a continual, purposeful work in progress. But it is work that is critical for everyone, and certainly necessary for those who care for their fellow human beings when they are in a vulnerable state.
Health care systems need to move toward equity – giving everyone what they need to thrive – rather than focusing on equality – giving everyone the same thing, said Jenny Baenziger, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and associate director of education at IU Center for Global Health. “We know that minoritized patients are going to need more attention, more advocacy, more sensitivity, and more creative solutions in order to help them achieve health in a world that is often stacked against them,” she said.
“The unique needs of each patient, family unit, and/or population must be taken into consideration,” said Dr. Unaka. She said hospitalists need to embrace creative approaches that can better serve the specific needs of patients. Equitable practices should be the default, which means data transparency, thoroughly dissecting hospital processes to find existing inequities, giving stakeholders – especially patients and families of color – a voice, and tearing down oppressive systems that contribute to poor health outcomes and oppression, she said.
“It’s time for us to talk about racism openly,” said Dr. Kara. “Believe your colleagues when they share their fears and treat each other with respect. We should be actively learning about and celebrating our diversity.” She encourages finding out what your institution is doing on this front and getting involved.
Dr. Johnson believes that first and foremost, hospitalists need to be exposed to the data on health care disparities. “The next step is asking what we as hospitalists, or any other specialty, can do to intervene and improve in those areas,” he said. Focusing on unconscious bias training is important, he said, so clinicians can see what biases they might be bringing into the hospital and to the bedside. Maintaining a diverse workforce and bringing UIM physicians into leadership roles to encourage diversity of ideas and approaches are also critical to promoting equity, he said.
“You cannot fix what you cannot face,” said Dr. Unaka. Education on how racism impacts patients and colleagues is essential, she believes, as is advocacy for changing inequitable health system policies. She recommends expanding social and professional circles. “Diverse social groups allow us to consider the perspectives of others; diverse professional groups allow us to ask better research questions and practice better medicine.”
Start by developing the ability to question personal assumptions and pinpoint implicit biases, suggested Dr. Baenziger. “Asking for feedback can be scary and difficult, but we should take a deep breath and do it anyway,” she said. “Simply ask your team, ‘I’ve been thinking a lot about racial equity and disparities. How can I do better at my interactions with people of color? What are my blind spots?’” Dr. Baenziger said that “to help us remember how beautifully complicated and diverse people are,” all health care professionals need to watch Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED talk “The Danger of a Single Story.”
Dr. Baenziger also stressed the importance of conversations about “places where race is built into our clinical assessments, like eGFR,” as well as being aware that many of the research studies that are used to support everyday clinical decisions didn’t include people of color. She also encouraged clinicians to consider how and when they include race in their notes.7 “Is it really helpful to make sure people know right away that you are treating a ‘46-year-old Hispanic male’ or can the fact that he is Hispanic be saved for the social history section with other important details of his life such as being a father, veteran, and mechanic?” she asked.
“Racism is real and very much a part of our history. We can no longer be in denial regarding the racism that exists in medicine and the impact it has on our patients,” Dr. Unaka said. “As a profession, we cannot hide behind our espoused core values. We must live up to them.”
References
1. Lucey CR, Saguil, A. The Consequences of Structural Racism on MCAT Scores and Medical School Admissions: The Past Is Prologue. Acad Med. 2020 Mar;95(3):351-356. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002939.
2. Flores L. Increasing racial diversity in hospital medicine’s leadership ranks. The Hospitalist. 2020 Oct 21.
3. Smedley BD, et al, eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.
4. Heins A, et al. Physician Race/Ethnicity Predicts Successful Emergency Department Analgesia. J Pain. 2010 July;11(7):692-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.10.017.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serves, Office of Minority Health. Infant Mortality and African Americans. 2019 Nov 8. minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=23.
6. Jacobs ZG, et al. The Association between Limited English Proficiency and Sepsis Mortality. J Hosp Med. 2020;3;140-146. Published Online First 2019 Nov 20. doi:10.12788/jhm.3334.
7. Finucane TE. Mention of a Patient’s “Race” in Clinical Presentations. Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(6):423-427. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.6.ecas1-1406.
Still happening: Pelvic exams on anesthetized patients. Why?
“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”
Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.
However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws
A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.
Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.
Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.
Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
A practice that may still continue
For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud.
Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.
“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.
“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”
In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.
The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.
“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
Some physicians defend the practice
Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?
Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”
Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.
Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.
In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay
What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.
Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.
“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.
Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?
Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?
“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”
To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.
He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements
Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.
Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.
In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.
Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.
This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.
Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns
Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”
Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)
The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida).
The struggle over Florida’s law
The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.
“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”
Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ”
In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.
The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.
Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.
“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”
But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”
Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.
However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws
A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.
Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.
Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.
Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
A practice that may still continue
For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud.
Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.
“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.
“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”
In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.
The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.
“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
Some physicians defend the practice
Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?
Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”
Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.
Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.
In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay
What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.
Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.
“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.
Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?
Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?
“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”
To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.
He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements
Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.
Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.
In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.
Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.
This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.
Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns
Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”
Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)
The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida).
The struggle over Florida’s law
The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.
“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”
Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ”
In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.
The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.
Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.
“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”
But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”
Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.
However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws
A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.
Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.
Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.
Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
A practice that may still continue
For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud.
Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.
“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.
“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”
In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.
The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.
“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
Some physicians defend the practice
Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?
Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”
Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.
Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.
In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay
What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.
Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.
“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.
Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?
Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?
“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”
To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.
He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements
Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.
Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.
In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.
Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.
This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.
Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns
Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”
Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)
The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida).
The struggle over Florida’s law
The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.
“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”
Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ”
In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.
The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.
Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.
“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”
But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 ranks as a leading cause of death in United States
Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.
“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”
Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.
By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.
For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.
Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.
“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”
The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.
“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”
The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.
“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”
Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.
“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”
For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.
“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”
Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.
By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.
For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.
Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.
“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”
The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.
“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”
The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.
“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”
Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.
“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”
For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.
“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”
Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.
By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.
For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.
Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.
“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”
The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.
“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”
The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.
“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”
Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.
“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”
For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Medicaid to cover routine costs for patients in trials
A boost for patients with cancer and other serious illnesses.
Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.
A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.
Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.
“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.
Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.
“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
Equity issues
Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.
Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.
That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.
Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.
“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”
The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.
Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.
The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.
There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.
The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.
Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.
“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.
In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.
For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.
Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.
Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.
People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.
“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A boost for patients with cancer and other serious illnesses.
A boost for patients with cancer and other serious illnesses.
Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.
A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.
Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.
“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.
Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.
“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
Equity issues
Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.
Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.
That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.
Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.
“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”
The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.
Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.
The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.
There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.
The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.
Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.
“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.
In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.
For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.
Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.
Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.
People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.
“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.
A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.
Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.
“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.
Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.
“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
Equity issues
Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.
Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.
That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.
Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.
“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”
The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.
Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.
The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.
There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.
The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.
Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.
“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.
In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.
For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.
Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.
Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.
People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.
“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Happy New Year! May 2021 be better
As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.
I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.
I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.
Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.
Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.
I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.
I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.
Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.
Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.
I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.
I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.
Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.
Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
February 2021 – ICYMI
GASTROENTEROLOGY
October 2020
How to incorporate a chief fellow into a gastroenterology fellowship program. Mohammad Bilal et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1227-30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.001
Lower adenoma miss rate of computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy in a prospective tandem study. Pu Wang et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1252-61.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.023
November 2020
Simulation-based mastery learning with virtual coaching: experience in training standardized upper endoscopy to novice endoscopists. Roy Soetikno et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1632-6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.096
Risk of small bowel adenocarcinoma, adenomas, and carcinoids in a nationwide cohort of individuals with celiac disease. Louise Emilsson et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1686-94.e2 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.007
December 2020
Increased intestinal permeability is associated with later development of Crohn’s disease. Williams Turpin et al. 2020 Dec;159(6):2092-100.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.005
January 2021
The role of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in modulating gut microbiota, intestinal inflammation, and coronavirus infection. Josef M. Penninger et al. 2020 Oct 30:S0016-5085(20)35327-0. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.067
Behavioral and diet therapies in integrated care for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. William D. Chey et al. 2020 Oct 19:S0016-5085(20)35281-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.099
Efficacy and safety of tradipitant in patients with diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Jesse L. Carlin et al 2020 Jul 18;S0016-5085(20)34958-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.029
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
November 2020
The virtual gastroenterology clinic. Toyia James-Stevenson. 2020 Nov;18(12):2679-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.012
Risk factors associated with early-onset colorectal cancer. Valerie Gausman et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2752-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.009
Association of daily aspirin therapy with hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis c virus infection. Teng-Yu Lee et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2784-92.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.036
December 2020
Sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer detection differs according to stage and location. Tobias Niedermaier et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2920-2928.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.025
Effects of colesevelam on bowel symptoms, biomarkers, and colonic mucosal gene expression in patients with bile acid diarrhea in a randomized trial. Priya Vijayvargiya et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2962-70.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.027
Endoscopy for gastric cancer screening is cost effective for Asian Americans in the United States. Shailja C. Shah et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):3026-39. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031
January 2021
C.O.V.I.D.: A survival guide for GI fellowship training during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tzu-Hao Lee et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):6-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.10.001
Use of proton pump inhibitors increases risk of incident kidney stones. Michael Simonov et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):72-9.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.053
TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Endoscopic extraction of large foreign bodies utilizing a novel push-pull extraction technique. Koushik K. Das and Michael L. Kochman. 2020 Oct;22(4):172-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.06.004
GASTROENTEROLOGY
October 2020
How to incorporate a chief fellow into a gastroenterology fellowship program. Mohammad Bilal et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1227-30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.001
Lower adenoma miss rate of computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy in a prospective tandem study. Pu Wang et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1252-61.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.023
November 2020
Simulation-based mastery learning with virtual coaching: experience in training standardized upper endoscopy to novice endoscopists. Roy Soetikno et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1632-6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.096
Risk of small bowel adenocarcinoma, adenomas, and carcinoids in a nationwide cohort of individuals with celiac disease. Louise Emilsson et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1686-94.e2 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.007
December 2020
Increased intestinal permeability is associated with later development of Crohn’s disease. Williams Turpin et al. 2020 Dec;159(6):2092-100.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.005
January 2021
The role of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in modulating gut microbiota, intestinal inflammation, and coronavirus infection. Josef M. Penninger et al. 2020 Oct 30:S0016-5085(20)35327-0. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.067
Behavioral and diet therapies in integrated care for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. William D. Chey et al. 2020 Oct 19:S0016-5085(20)35281-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.099
Efficacy and safety of tradipitant in patients with diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Jesse L. Carlin et al 2020 Jul 18;S0016-5085(20)34958-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.029
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
November 2020
The virtual gastroenterology clinic. Toyia James-Stevenson. 2020 Nov;18(12):2679-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.012
Risk factors associated with early-onset colorectal cancer. Valerie Gausman et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2752-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.009
Association of daily aspirin therapy with hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis c virus infection. Teng-Yu Lee et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2784-92.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.036
December 2020
Sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer detection differs according to stage and location. Tobias Niedermaier et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2920-2928.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.025
Effects of colesevelam on bowel symptoms, biomarkers, and colonic mucosal gene expression in patients with bile acid diarrhea in a randomized trial. Priya Vijayvargiya et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2962-70.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.027
Endoscopy for gastric cancer screening is cost effective for Asian Americans in the United States. Shailja C. Shah et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):3026-39. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031
January 2021
C.O.V.I.D.: A survival guide for GI fellowship training during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tzu-Hao Lee et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):6-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.10.001
Use of proton pump inhibitors increases risk of incident kidney stones. Michael Simonov et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):72-9.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.053
TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Endoscopic extraction of large foreign bodies utilizing a novel push-pull extraction technique. Koushik K. Das and Michael L. Kochman. 2020 Oct;22(4):172-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.06.004
GASTROENTEROLOGY
October 2020
How to incorporate a chief fellow into a gastroenterology fellowship program. Mohammad Bilal et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1227-30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.001
Lower adenoma miss rate of computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy in a prospective tandem study. Pu Wang et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1252-61.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.023
November 2020
Simulation-based mastery learning with virtual coaching: experience in training standardized upper endoscopy to novice endoscopists. Roy Soetikno et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1632-6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.096
Risk of small bowel adenocarcinoma, adenomas, and carcinoids in a nationwide cohort of individuals with celiac disease. Louise Emilsson et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1686-94.e2 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.007
December 2020
Increased intestinal permeability is associated with later development of Crohn’s disease. Williams Turpin et al. 2020 Dec;159(6):2092-100.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.005
January 2021
The role of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in modulating gut microbiota, intestinal inflammation, and coronavirus infection. Josef M. Penninger et al. 2020 Oct 30:S0016-5085(20)35327-0. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.067
Behavioral and diet therapies in integrated care for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. William D. Chey et al. 2020 Oct 19:S0016-5085(20)35281-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.099
Efficacy and safety of tradipitant in patients with diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Jesse L. Carlin et al 2020 Jul 18;S0016-5085(20)34958-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.029
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
November 2020
The virtual gastroenterology clinic. Toyia James-Stevenson. 2020 Nov;18(12):2679-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.012
Risk factors associated with early-onset colorectal cancer. Valerie Gausman et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2752-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.009
Association of daily aspirin therapy with hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis c virus infection. Teng-Yu Lee et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2784-92.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.036
December 2020
Sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer detection differs according to stage and location. Tobias Niedermaier et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2920-2928.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.025
Effects of colesevelam on bowel symptoms, biomarkers, and colonic mucosal gene expression in patients with bile acid diarrhea in a randomized trial. Priya Vijayvargiya et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2962-70.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.027
Endoscopy for gastric cancer screening is cost effective for Asian Americans in the United States. Shailja C. Shah et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):3026-39. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031
January 2021
C.O.V.I.D.: A survival guide for GI fellowship training during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tzu-Hao Lee et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):6-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.10.001
Use of proton pump inhibitors increases risk of incident kidney stones. Michael Simonov et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):72-9.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.053
TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Endoscopic extraction of large foreign bodies utilizing a novel push-pull extraction technique. Koushik K. Das and Michael L. Kochman. 2020 Oct;22(4):172-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.06.004
New dietary guidelines omit recommended cuts to sugar, alcohol intake
Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.
The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.
The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions:
- Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
- Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
- Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
- Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.
The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
Proposed cutoffs rejected
The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.
It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.
The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.
The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.
In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.
“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
Guidance for infants and toddlers
The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise.
At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk.
The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.
Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.
“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
For all ages
From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.
According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:
- Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
- Fruits (especially whole fruit).
- Grains, at least half of which are whole grain.
- Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
- Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
- Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.
The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.
Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.
“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”
An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.
The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.
The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.
The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions:
- Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
- Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
- Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
- Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.
The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
Proposed cutoffs rejected
The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.
It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.
The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.
The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.
In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.
“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
Guidance for infants and toddlers
The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise.
At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk.
The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.
Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.
“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
For all ages
From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.
According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:
- Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
- Fruits (especially whole fruit).
- Grains, at least half of which are whole grain.
- Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
- Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
- Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.
The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.
Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.
“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”
An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.
The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.
The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.
The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions:
- Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
- Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
- Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
- Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.
The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
Proposed cutoffs rejected
The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.
It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.
The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.
The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.
In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.
“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
Guidance for infants and toddlers
The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise.
At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk.
The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.
Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.
“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
For all ages
From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.
According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:
- Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
- Fruits (especially whole fruit).
- Grains, at least half of which are whole grain.
- Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
- Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
- Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.
The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.
Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.
“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”
An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.
The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Swedish registry study finds atopic dermatitis significantly associated with autoimmune diseases
in a case control study derived from Swedish national health care registry data.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is known to be associated with other atopic conditions, and there is increasing evidence it is associated with some nonatopic conditions, including some cancers, cardiovascular disease, and neuropsychiatric disorders, according to Lina U. Ivert, MD, of the dermatology and venereology unit at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and coauthors. There are also some data indicating that autoimmune diseases, particularly those involving the skin and gastrointestinal tract, are more common in people with AD.
The aim of their study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, was to investigate a wide spectrum of autoimmune diseases for associations with AD in a large-scale, population-based study using Swedish registers. Findings could lead to better monitoring of comorbidities and deeper understanding of disease burden and AD pathophysiology, they noted.
Large-scale study
With data from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare’s National Patient Register on inpatient diagnoses since 1964 and specialist outpatient visits since 2001, the investigators included all patients aged 15 years and older with AD diagnoses (104,832) and matched them with controls from the general population (1,022,435). The authors noted that the large number of people included in the analysis allowed for robust estimates, and underscored that 80% of the AD patients included had received their diagnosis in a dermatology department, which reduces the risk of misclassification.
Association with autoimmune disease
The investigators found an association between AD and autoimmune disease, with an adjusted odds ratio) of 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.01). The association was present with several organ systems, particularly the skin and gastrointestinal tract, and with connective tissue diseases. The strongest associations with autoimmune skin diseases were found for dermatitis herpetiformis (aOR, 9.76; 95% CI, 8.10-11.8), alopecia areata (aOR, 5.11; 95% CI, 4.75-5.49), and chronic urticaria (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 4.48-5.19).
AD was associated with gastrointestinal diseases, including celiac disease (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.84-2.09), Crohn disease (aOR 1.83; CI, 1.71-1.96), and ulcerative colitis (aOR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.49-1.68).
Connective tissue diseases significantly associated with AD included systemic lupus erythematosus (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.90), ankylosing spondylitis (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.66), and RA (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI,1.34-1.54]). Hematologic or hepatic autoimmune disease associations with AD were not observed.
Stronger association with multiple diseases
The association between AD and two or more autoimmune diseases was significantly stronger than the association between AD and having one autoimmune disease. For example, the OR for AD among people with three to five autoimmune diseases was 3.33 (95% CI, 2.86-3.87), and was stronger in men (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.92-5.37) than in women (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.63-3.74).
Sex differences
In the study overall, the association with AD and autoimmune diseases was stronger in men (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.10-2.25), compared with women (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.85-1.93), but this “sex difference was only statistically significant between AD and RA and between AD and Celiac disease,” they noted.
Associations between AD and dermatomyositis, systemic scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s disease, Graves disease, multiple sclerosis, and polymyalgia rheumatica were found only in women. Dr. Ivert and coauthors observed that “women are in general more likely to develop autoimmune diseases, and 80% of patients with autoimmune diseases are women.”
Provocative questions
Commenting on the findings, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said, “At a high level, it is important for clinicians to recognize that atopic dermatitis is a systemic immune-mediated disease. AD is associated with higher rates of comorbid autoimmune disease, similar to psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases.”
“At this point, there is nothing immediately actionable about these results,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who was not an author of this study. “That said, in my mind, they raise some provocative questions: What is the difference between AD in adults who do versus those who do not get comorbid autoimmune disease? Does AD then present differently? Does it respond to the same therapies? These will have to be the subject of future research.”
The study was funded by the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association Research Foundation, Hudfonden (the Welander-Finsen Foundation), and the Swedish Society for Dermatology and Venereology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ivert LU et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19624.
in a case control study derived from Swedish national health care registry data.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is known to be associated with other atopic conditions, and there is increasing evidence it is associated with some nonatopic conditions, including some cancers, cardiovascular disease, and neuropsychiatric disorders, according to Lina U. Ivert, MD, of the dermatology and venereology unit at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and coauthors. There are also some data indicating that autoimmune diseases, particularly those involving the skin and gastrointestinal tract, are more common in people with AD.
The aim of their study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, was to investigate a wide spectrum of autoimmune diseases for associations with AD in a large-scale, population-based study using Swedish registers. Findings could lead to better monitoring of comorbidities and deeper understanding of disease burden and AD pathophysiology, they noted.
Large-scale study
With data from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare’s National Patient Register on inpatient diagnoses since 1964 and specialist outpatient visits since 2001, the investigators included all patients aged 15 years and older with AD diagnoses (104,832) and matched them with controls from the general population (1,022,435). The authors noted that the large number of people included in the analysis allowed for robust estimates, and underscored that 80% of the AD patients included had received their diagnosis in a dermatology department, which reduces the risk of misclassification.
Association with autoimmune disease
The investigators found an association between AD and autoimmune disease, with an adjusted odds ratio) of 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.01). The association was present with several organ systems, particularly the skin and gastrointestinal tract, and with connective tissue diseases. The strongest associations with autoimmune skin diseases were found for dermatitis herpetiformis (aOR, 9.76; 95% CI, 8.10-11.8), alopecia areata (aOR, 5.11; 95% CI, 4.75-5.49), and chronic urticaria (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 4.48-5.19).
AD was associated with gastrointestinal diseases, including celiac disease (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.84-2.09), Crohn disease (aOR 1.83; CI, 1.71-1.96), and ulcerative colitis (aOR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.49-1.68).
Connective tissue diseases significantly associated with AD included systemic lupus erythematosus (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.90), ankylosing spondylitis (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.66), and RA (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI,1.34-1.54]). Hematologic or hepatic autoimmune disease associations with AD were not observed.
Stronger association with multiple diseases
The association between AD and two or more autoimmune diseases was significantly stronger than the association between AD and having one autoimmune disease. For example, the OR for AD among people with three to five autoimmune diseases was 3.33 (95% CI, 2.86-3.87), and was stronger in men (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.92-5.37) than in women (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.63-3.74).
Sex differences
In the study overall, the association with AD and autoimmune diseases was stronger in men (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.10-2.25), compared with women (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.85-1.93), but this “sex difference was only statistically significant between AD and RA and between AD and Celiac disease,” they noted.
Associations between AD and dermatomyositis, systemic scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s disease, Graves disease, multiple sclerosis, and polymyalgia rheumatica were found only in women. Dr. Ivert and coauthors observed that “women are in general more likely to develop autoimmune diseases, and 80% of patients with autoimmune diseases are women.”
Provocative questions
Commenting on the findings, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said, “At a high level, it is important for clinicians to recognize that atopic dermatitis is a systemic immune-mediated disease. AD is associated with higher rates of comorbid autoimmune disease, similar to psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases.”
“At this point, there is nothing immediately actionable about these results,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who was not an author of this study. “That said, in my mind, they raise some provocative questions: What is the difference between AD in adults who do versus those who do not get comorbid autoimmune disease? Does AD then present differently? Does it respond to the same therapies? These will have to be the subject of future research.”
The study was funded by the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association Research Foundation, Hudfonden (the Welander-Finsen Foundation), and the Swedish Society for Dermatology and Venereology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ivert LU et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19624.
in a case control study derived from Swedish national health care registry data.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is known to be associated with other atopic conditions, and there is increasing evidence it is associated with some nonatopic conditions, including some cancers, cardiovascular disease, and neuropsychiatric disorders, according to Lina U. Ivert, MD, of the dermatology and venereology unit at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and coauthors. There are also some data indicating that autoimmune diseases, particularly those involving the skin and gastrointestinal tract, are more common in people with AD.
The aim of their study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, was to investigate a wide spectrum of autoimmune diseases for associations with AD in a large-scale, population-based study using Swedish registers. Findings could lead to better monitoring of comorbidities and deeper understanding of disease burden and AD pathophysiology, they noted.
Large-scale study
With data from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare’s National Patient Register on inpatient diagnoses since 1964 and specialist outpatient visits since 2001, the investigators included all patients aged 15 years and older with AD diagnoses (104,832) and matched them with controls from the general population (1,022,435). The authors noted that the large number of people included in the analysis allowed for robust estimates, and underscored that 80% of the AD patients included had received their diagnosis in a dermatology department, which reduces the risk of misclassification.
Association with autoimmune disease
The investigators found an association between AD and autoimmune disease, with an adjusted odds ratio) of 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.01). The association was present with several organ systems, particularly the skin and gastrointestinal tract, and with connective tissue diseases. The strongest associations with autoimmune skin diseases were found for dermatitis herpetiformis (aOR, 9.76; 95% CI, 8.10-11.8), alopecia areata (aOR, 5.11; 95% CI, 4.75-5.49), and chronic urticaria (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 4.48-5.19).
AD was associated with gastrointestinal diseases, including celiac disease (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.84-2.09), Crohn disease (aOR 1.83; CI, 1.71-1.96), and ulcerative colitis (aOR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.49-1.68).
Connective tissue diseases significantly associated with AD included systemic lupus erythematosus (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.90), ankylosing spondylitis (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.66), and RA (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI,1.34-1.54]). Hematologic or hepatic autoimmune disease associations with AD were not observed.
Stronger association with multiple diseases
The association between AD and two or more autoimmune diseases was significantly stronger than the association between AD and having one autoimmune disease. For example, the OR for AD among people with three to five autoimmune diseases was 3.33 (95% CI, 2.86-3.87), and was stronger in men (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.92-5.37) than in women (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.63-3.74).
Sex differences
In the study overall, the association with AD and autoimmune diseases was stronger in men (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.10-2.25), compared with women (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.85-1.93), but this “sex difference was only statistically significant between AD and RA and between AD and Celiac disease,” they noted.
Associations between AD and dermatomyositis, systemic scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s disease, Graves disease, multiple sclerosis, and polymyalgia rheumatica were found only in women. Dr. Ivert and coauthors observed that “women are in general more likely to develop autoimmune diseases, and 80% of patients with autoimmune diseases are women.”
Provocative questions
Commenting on the findings, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said, “At a high level, it is important for clinicians to recognize that atopic dermatitis is a systemic immune-mediated disease. AD is associated with higher rates of comorbid autoimmune disease, similar to psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases.”
“At this point, there is nothing immediately actionable about these results,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who was not an author of this study. “That said, in my mind, they raise some provocative questions: What is the difference between AD in adults who do versus those who do not get comorbid autoimmune disease? Does AD then present differently? Does it respond to the same therapies? These will have to be the subject of future research.”
The study was funded by the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association Research Foundation, Hudfonden (the Welander-Finsen Foundation), and the Swedish Society for Dermatology and Venereology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ivert LU et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19624.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Let’s ‘cancel’ these obsolete terms in DSM
Psychiatry has made significant scientific advances over the past century. However, it is still saddled with archaic terms, with pejorative connotations, disguised as official medical diagnoses. It is time to “cancel” those terms and replace them with ones that are neutral and have not accumulated baggage.
This process of “creative destruction” of psychiatric terminology is long overdue. It is frankly disturbing that the psychiatric jargon used around the time that the American Psychiatric Association was established 175 years ago (1844) is now considered insults and epithets. We no longer work in “lunatic asylums for the insane,” and our patients with intellectual disabilities are no longer classified as “morons,” “idiots,” or “imbeciles.” Such “diagnoses” have certainly contributed to the stigma of psychiatric brain disorders. Even the noble word “asylum” has acquired a negative valence because in the past it referred to hospitals that housed persons with serious mental illness.
Thankfully, some of the outrageous terms fabricated during the condemnable and dark era of slavery 2 centuries ago were never adopted by organized psychiatry. The absurd diagnosis of “negritude,” whose tenet was that black skin is a disease curable by whitening the skin, was “invented” by none other than Benjamin Rush, the Father of Psychiatry, whose conflicted soul was depicted by concomitantly owning a slave and positioning himself as an ardent abolitionist!
Terms that need to be replaced
Fast-forward to the modern era and consider the following:
Borderline personality disorder. It is truly tragic how this confusing and non-scientific term is used as an official diagnosis for a set of seriously ill persons. It is loaded with obloquy, indignity, and derision that completely ignore the tumult, self-harm, and disability with which patients who carry this label are burdened throughout their lives, despite being intelligent. This is a serious brain disorder that has been shown to be highly genetic and is characterized by many well-established structural brain abnormalities that have been documented in neuroimaging studies.1,2 Borderline personality should not be classified as a personality disorder but as an illness with multiple signs and symptoms, including mood lability, anger, impulsivity, self-cutting, suicidal urges, feelings of abandonment, and micro-psychotic episodes. A more clinically accurate term should be coined very soon to replace borderline personality, which should be discarded to the trash heap of obsolete psychiatric terms, and no longer inflicted on patients.
Neurosis. What is the justification for continuing to use the term “neurotic” for a person who has an anxiety disorder? Is it used because Jung and Freud propagated the term “neurosis” (after it was coined by William Cullen in 1769)? Neurosis has degenerated from a psychiatric diagnosis to a scornful snub that must never be used for any patient.
Schizophrenia. This diagnosis, coined by Eugen Bleuler to replace the narrow and pessimistic “dementia praecox” proposed by Emil Kraepelin in the 1920s, initially seemed to be a neutral description of a thought disorder (split associations, not split personality). Bleuler was perceptive enough to call his book Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias, which is consistent with the modern scientific research that confirms schizophrenia is a very heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of genetic and environmental biotypes with a similar phenotype but a wide range of severity, treatment response, and functional outcomes. However, in subsequent decades, schizophrenia became one of the most demeaning labels in psychiatry, casting a shadow of hopelessness and disability on the people who have this serious neurologic condition with many psychiatric symptoms. The term that should replace schizophrenia should be no more degrading than stroke, multiple sclerosis, or myocardial infarction.
Continue to: Over the past 15 years...
Over the past 15 years, an expanding group of schizophrenia experts have agreed that this term must be changed to one that reflects the core features of this syndrome, and have proposed terms such as “salience syndrome,” “psychosis-spectrum,” and “reality distortion and cognitive impairment disorder.”3 In fact, several countries have already adopted a new official diagnosis for schizophrenia.4 Japan now uses the term “integration disorder,” which has significantly reduced the stigma of this brain disorder.5 South Korea changed the name to “attunement disorder.” Hong Kong and Taiwan now use “dysfunction of thought and perception.” Some researchers recommend calling schizophrenia “Bleuler’s syndrome,” a neutral eponymous designation.
One of the most irritating things about the term schizophrenia is the widespread misconception that it means “split personality.” This prompts some sports announcers to call a football team “schizophrenic” if they play well in the first half and badly in the second. The stock market is labeled “schizophrenic” if it goes up one day and way down on the next. No other medical term is misused by the media as often as the term schizophrenia.
Narcissistic personality disorder. The origin of this diagnostic category is the concept of “malignant narcissism” coined by Erich Fromm in 1964, which he designated as “the quintessence of evil.” I strongly object to implying that evil is part of any psychiatric diagnosis. Numerous studies have found structural brain abnormalities (in both gray and white matter) in patients diagnosed with psychopathic traits.6 Later, malignant narcissism was reframed as narcissistic personality disorder in 1971 by Herbert Rosenfeld. Although malignant narcissism was never accepted by either the DSM or the International Classification of Diseases, narcissistic personality disorder has been included in the DSM for the past few decades. This diagnosis reeks of disparagement and negativity. Persons with narcissistic personality disorder have been shown to have pathological brain changes in resting-state functional connectivity,7 weakened frontostriatal white matter connectivity,8,9 and a reduced frontal thickness and cortical volume.10 A distorted sense of self and others is a socially disabling disorder that should generate empathy, not disdain. Narcissistic personality disorder should be replaced by a term that accurately describes its behavioral pathology, and should not incorporate Greek mythology.
Mania. This is another unfortunate diagnosis that immediately evokes a negative image of patients who suffer from a potentially lethal brain disorder. It was fortunate that Robert Kendall coined the term “bipolar disorder” to replace “manic-depressive illness,” but mania is still being used within bipolar disorder as a prominent clinical phase. While depression accurately describes the mood in the other phase of this disorder, the term mania evokes wild, irrational behavior. Because the actual mood symptom cluster in mania is either elation/grandiosity or irritability/anger, why not replace mania with “elation/irritability phase of bipolar disorder”? It is more descriptive of the patient’s mood and is less pejorative.
Nomenclature is vital, and words do matter, especially when used as a diagnostic medical term. Psychiatry must “cancel” its archaic names, which are infused with negative connotations. Reinventing the psychiatric lexicon is a necessary act of renewal in a specialty where a poorly worded diagnostic label can morph into the equivalent of a “scarlet letter.” Think of other contemptuous terms, such as refrigerator mother, male hysteria, moral insanity, toxic parents, inadequate personality disorder, neurasthenia, or catastrophic schizophrenia.
General medicine regularly discards many of its obsolete terms.11 These include terms such as ablepsy, ague, camp fever, bloody flux, chlorosis, catarrh, consumption, dropsy, French pox, phthisis, milk sickness, and scrumpox.
Think also of how society abandoned the antediluvian names of boys and girls. Few parents these days would name their son Ackley, Allard, Arundel, Awarnach, Beldon, Durward, Grower, Kenlm, or Legolan, or name their daughter Afton, Agrona, Arantxa, Corliss, Demelza, Eartha, Maida, Obsession, Radella, or Sacrifice.In summary, a necessary part of psychiatry’s progress is shedding obsolete terminology, even if it means slaughtering some widely used “traditional” vocabulary. It is a necessary act of renewal, and the image of psychiatry will be burnished by it.
1. Nasrallah HA. Borderline personality disorder is a heritable brain disease. Current Psychiatry. 2014;13(4):19-20,32.
2. Sagarwala R, Nasrallah HA. White matter pathology in patients with borderline personality disorder: a review of controlled DTI studies. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2020;32(4):281-286.
3. Keshavan MS, Tandon R, Nasrallah HA. Renaming schizophrenia: keeping up with the facts. Schizophr Res. 2013;148(1-3):1-2.
4. Lasalvia A, Penta E, Sartorius N, et al. Should the label “schizophrenia” be abandoned? Schizophr Res. 2015;162(1-3):276-284.
5. Takahashi H, Ideno T, Okubo S, et al. Impact of changing the Japanese term for “schizophrenia” for reasons of stereotypical beliefs of schizophrenia in Japanese youth. Schizophr Res. 2009;112(1-3):149-152.
6. Johanson M, Vaurio D, Tiihunen J, et al. A systematic literature review of neuroimaging of psychopathic traits. Front Psychiatry. 2020;10:1027.
7. Yang, W, Cun L, Du X, et al. Gender differences in brain structure and resting-state functional connectivity related to narcissistic personality. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10924.
8. Chester DS, Cynam DR, Powell DK, et al. Narcissismis associated with weakened frontostriatal connectivity: a DTI study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016;11(7):1036-1040.
9. Nenadic I, Gullmar D, Dietzek M, et al. Brain structure in narcissistic personality disorder: a VBM and DTI pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2015;231(2):184-186.
10. Mao Y, Sang N, Wang Y, et al. Reduced frontal cortex thickness and cortical volume associated with pathological narcissism. Neuroscience. 2016;378:51-57.
11. Nasrallah HA. The transient truths of medical ‘progress.’ Current Psychiatry. 2014;13(6):23-24.
Psychiatry has made significant scientific advances over the past century. However, it is still saddled with archaic terms, with pejorative connotations, disguised as official medical diagnoses. It is time to “cancel” those terms and replace them with ones that are neutral and have not accumulated baggage.
This process of “creative destruction” of psychiatric terminology is long overdue. It is frankly disturbing that the psychiatric jargon used around the time that the American Psychiatric Association was established 175 years ago (1844) is now considered insults and epithets. We no longer work in “lunatic asylums for the insane,” and our patients with intellectual disabilities are no longer classified as “morons,” “idiots,” or “imbeciles.” Such “diagnoses” have certainly contributed to the stigma of psychiatric brain disorders. Even the noble word “asylum” has acquired a negative valence because in the past it referred to hospitals that housed persons with serious mental illness.
Thankfully, some of the outrageous terms fabricated during the condemnable and dark era of slavery 2 centuries ago were never adopted by organized psychiatry. The absurd diagnosis of “negritude,” whose tenet was that black skin is a disease curable by whitening the skin, was “invented” by none other than Benjamin Rush, the Father of Psychiatry, whose conflicted soul was depicted by concomitantly owning a slave and positioning himself as an ardent abolitionist!
Terms that need to be replaced
Fast-forward to the modern era and consider the following:
Borderline personality disorder. It is truly tragic how this confusing and non-scientific term is used as an official diagnosis for a set of seriously ill persons. It is loaded with obloquy, indignity, and derision that completely ignore the tumult, self-harm, and disability with which patients who carry this label are burdened throughout their lives, despite being intelligent. This is a serious brain disorder that has been shown to be highly genetic and is characterized by many well-established structural brain abnormalities that have been documented in neuroimaging studies.1,2 Borderline personality should not be classified as a personality disorder but as an illness with multiple signs and symptoms, including mood lability, anger, impulsivity, self-cutting, suicidal urges, feelings of abandonment, and micro-psychotic episodes. A more clinically accurate term should be coined very soon to replace borderline personality, which should be discarded to the trash heap of obsolete psychiatric terms, and no longer inflicted on patients.
Neurosis. What is the justification for continuing to use the term “neurotic” for a person who has an anxiety disorder? Is it used because Jung and Freud propagated the term “neurosis” (after it was coined by William Cullen in 1769)? Neurosis has degenerated from a psychiatric diagnosis to a scornful snub that must never be used for any patient.
Schizophrenia. This diagnosis, coined by Eugen Bleuler to replace the narrow and pessimistic “dementia praecox” proposed by Emil Kraepelin in the 1920s, initially seemed to be a neutral description of a thought disorder (split associations, not split personality). Bleuler was perceptive enough to call his book Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias, which is consistent with the modern scientific research that confirms schizophrenia is a very heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of genetic and environmental biotypes with a similar phenotype but a wide range of severity, treatment response, and functional outcomes. However, in subsequent decades, schizophrenia became one of the most demeaning labels in psychiatry, casting a shadow of hopelessness and disability on the people who have this serious neurologic condition with many psychiatric symptoms. The term that should replace schizophrenia should be no more degrading than stroke, multiple sclerosis, or myocardial infarction.
Continue to: Over the past 15 years...
Over the past 15 years, an expanding group of schizophrenia experts have agreed that this term must be changed to one that reflects the core features of this syndrome, and have proposed terms such as “salience syndrome,” “psychosis-spectrum,” and “reality distortion and cognitive impairment disorder.”3 In fact, several countries have already adopted a new official diagnosis for schizophrenia.4 Japan now uses the term “integration disorder,” which has significantly reduced the stigma of this brain disorder.5 South Korea changed the name to “attunement disorder.” Hong Kong and Taiwan now use “dysfunction of thought and perception.” Some researchers recommend calling schizophrenia “Bleuler’s syndrome,” a neutral eponymous designation.
One of the most irritating things about the term schizophrenia is the widespread misconception that it means “split personality.” This prompts some sports announcers to call a football team “schizophrenic” if they play well in the first half and badly in the second. The stock market is labeled “schizophrenic” if it goes up one day and way down on the next. No other medical term is misused by the media as often as the term schizophrenia.
Narcissistic personality disorder. The origin of this diagnostic category is the concept of “malignant narcissism” coined by Erich Fromm in 1964, which he designated as “the quintessence of evil.” I strongly object to implying that evil is part of any psychiatric diagnosis. Numerous studies have found structural brain abnormalities (in both gray and white matter) in patients diagnosed with psychopathic traits.6 Later, malignant narcissism was reframed as narcissistic personality disorder in 1971 by Herbert Rosenfeld. Although malignant narcissism was never accepted by either the DSM or the International Classification of Diseases, narcissistic personality disorder has been included in the DSM for the past few decades. This diagnosis reeks of disparagement and negativity. Persons with narcissistic personality disorder have been shown to have pathological brain changes in resting-state functional connectivity,7 weakened frontostriatal white matter connectivity,8,9 and a reduced frontal thickness and cortical volume.10 A distorted sense of self and others is a socially disabling disorder that should generate empathy, not disdain. Narcissistic personality disorder should be replaced by a term that accurately describes its behavioral pathology, and should not incorporate Greek mythology.
Mania. This is another unfortunate diagnosis that immediately evokes a negative image of patients who suffer from a potentially lethal brain disorder. It was fortunate that Robert Kendall coined the term “bipolar disorder” to replace “manic-depressive illness,” but mania is still being used within bipolar disorder as a prominent clinical phase. While depression accurately describes the mood in the other phase of this disorder, the term mania evokes wild, irrational behavior. Because the actual mood symptom cluster in mania is either elation/grandiosity or irritability/anger, why not replace mania with “elation/irritability phase of bipolar disorder”? It is more descriptive of the patient’s mood and is less pejorative.
Nomenclature is vital, and words do matter, especially when used as a diagnostic medical term. Psychiatry must “cancel” its archaic names, which are infused with negative connotations. Reinventing the psychiatric lexicon is a necessary act of renewal in a specialty where a poorly worded diagnostic label can morph into the equivalent of a “scarlet letter.” Think of other contemptuous terms, such as refrigerator mother, male hysteria, moral insanity, toxic parents, inadequate personality disorder, neurasthenia, or catastrophic schizophrenia.
General medicine regularly discards many of its obsolete terms.11 These include terms such as ablepsy, ague, camp fever, bloody flux, chlorosis, catarrh, consumption, dropsy, French pox, phthisis, milk sickness, and scrumpox.
Think also of how society abandoned the antediluvian names of boys and girls. Few parents these days would name their son Ackley, Allard, Arundel, Awarnach, Beldon, Durward, Grower, Kenlm, or Legolan, or name their daughter Afton, Agrona, Arantxa, Corliss, Demelza, Eartha, Maida, Obsession, Radella, or Sacrifice.In summary, a necessary part of psychiatry’s progress is shedding obsolete terminology, even if it means slaughtering some widely used “traditional” vocabulary. It is a necessary act of renewal, and the image of psychiatry will be burnished by it.
Psychiatry has made significant scientific advances over the past century. However, it is still saddled with archaic terms, with pejorative connotations, disguised as official medical diagnoses. It is time to “cancel” those terms and replace them with ones that are neutral and have not accumulated baggage.
This process of “creative destruction” of psychiatric terminology is long overdue. It is frankly disturbing that the psychiatric jargon used around the time that the American Psychiatric Association was established 175 years ago (1844) is now considered insults and epithets. We no longer work in “lunatic asylums for the insane,” and our patients with intellectual disabilities are no longer classified as “morons,” “idiots,” or “imbeciles.” Such “diagnoses” have certainly contributed to the stigma of psychiatric brain disorders. Even the noble word “asylum” has acquired a negative valence because in the past it referred to hospitals that housed persons with serious mental illness.
Thankfully, some of the outrageous terms fabricated during the condemnable and dark era of slavery 2 centuries ago were never adopted by organized psychiatry. The absurd diagnosis of “negritude,” whose tenet was that black skin is a disease curable by whitening the skin, was “invented” by none other than Benjamin Rush, the Father of Psychiatry, whose conflicted soul was depicted by concomitantly owning a slave and positioning himself as an ardent abolitionist!
Terms that need to be replaced
Fast-forward to the modern era and consider the following:
Borderline personality disorder. It is truly tragic how this confusing and non-scientific term is used as an official diagnosis for a set of seriously ill persons. It is loaded with obloquy, indignity, and derision that completely ignore the tumult, self-harm, and disability with which patients who carry this label are burdened throughout their lives, despite being intelligent. This is a serious brain disorder that has been shown to be highly genetic and is characterized by many well-established structural brain abnormalities that have been documented in neuroimaging studies.1,2 Borderline personality should not be classified as a personality disorder but as an illness with multiple signs and symptoms, including mood lability, anger, impulsivity, self-cutting, suicidal urges, feelings of abandonment, and micro-psychotic episodes. A more clinically accurate term should be coined very soon to replace borderline personality, which should be discarded to the trash heap of obsolete psychiatric terms, and no longer inflicted on patients.
Neurosis. What is the justification for continuing to use the term “neurotic” for a person who has an anxiety disorder? Is it used because Jung and Freud propagated the term “neurosis” (after it was coined by William Cullen in 1769)? Neurosis has degenerated from a psychiatric diagnosis to a scornful snub that must never be used for any patient.
Schizophrenia. This diagnosis, coined by Eugen Bleuler to replace the narrow and pessimistic “dementia praecox” proposed by Emil Kraepelin in the 1920s, initially seemed to be a neutral description of a thought disorder (split associations, not split personality). Bleuler was perceptive enough to call his book Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias, which is consistent with the modern scientific research that confirms schizophrenia is a very heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of genetic and environmental biotypes with a similar phenotype but a wide range of severity, treatment response, and functional outcomes. However, in subsequent decades, schizophrenia became one of the most demeaning labels in psychiatry, casting a shadow of hopelessness and disability on the people who have this serious neurologic condition with many psychiatric symptoms. The term that should replace schizophrenia should be no more degrading than stroke, multiple sclerosis, or myocardial infarction.
Continue to: Over the past 15 years...
Over the past 15 years, an expanding group of schizophrenia experts have agreed that this term must be changed to one that reflects the core features of this syndrome, and have proposed terms such as “salience syndrome,” “psychosis-spectrum,” and “reality distortion and cognitive impairment disorder.”3 In fact, several countries have already adopted a new official diagnosis for schizophrenia.4 Japan now uses the term “integration disorder,” which has significantly reduced the stigma of this brain disorder.5 South Korea changed the name to “attunement disorder.” Hong Kong and Taiwan now use “dysfunction of thought and perception.” Some researchers recommend calling schizophrenia “Bleuler’s syndrome,” a neutral eponymous designation.
One of the most irritating things about the term schizophrenia is the widespread misconception that it means “split personality.” This prompts some sports announcers to call a football team “schizophrenic” if they play well in the first half and badly in the second. The stock market is labeled “schizophrenic” if it goes up one day and way down on the next. No other medical term is misused by the media as often as the term schizophrenia.
Narcissistic personality disorder. The origin of this diagnostic category is the concept of “malignant narcissism” coined by Erich Fromm in 1964, which he designated as “the quintessence of evil.” I strongly object to implying that evil is part of any psychiatric diagnosis. Numerous studies have found structural brain abnormalities (in both gray and white matter) in patients diagnosed with psychopathic traits.6 Later, malignant narcissism was reframed as narcissistic personality disorder in 1971 by Herbert Rosenfeld. Although malignant narcissism was never accepted by either the DSM or the International Classification of Diseases, narcissistic personality disorder has been included in the DSM for the past few decades. This diagnosis reeks of disparagement and negativity. Persons with narcissistic personality disorder have been shown to have pathological brain changes in resting-state functional connectivity,7 weakened frontostriatal white matter connectivity,8,9 and a reduced frontal thickness and cortical volume.10 A distorted sense of self and others is a socially disabling disorder that should generate empathy, not disdain. Narcissistic personality disorder should be replaced by a term that accurately describes its behavioral pathology, and should not incorporate Greek mythology.
Mania. This is another unfortunate diagnosis that immediately evokes a negative image of patients who suffer from a potentially lethal brain disorder. It was fortunate that Robert Kendall coined the term “bipolar disorder” to replace “manic-depressive illness,” but mania is still being used within bipolar disorder as a prominent clinical phase. While depression accurately describes the mood in the other phase of this disorder, the term mania evokes wild, irrational behavior. Because the actual mood symptom cluster in mania is either elation/grandiosity or irritability/anger, why not replace mania with “elation/irritability phase of bipolar disorder”? It is more descriptive of the patient’s mood and is less pejorative.
Nomenclature is vital, and words do matter, especially when used as a diagnostic medical term. Psychiatry must “cancel” its archaic names, which are infused with negative connotations. Reinventing the psychiatric lexicon is a necessary act of renewal in a specialty where a poorly worded diagnostic label can morph into the equivalent of a “scarlet letter.” Think of other contemptuous terms, such as refrigerator mother, male hysteria, moral insanity, toxic parents, inadequate personality disorder, neurasthenia, or catastrophic schizophrenia.
General medicine regularly discards many of its obsolete terms.11 These include terms such as ablepsy, ague, camp fever, bloody flux, chlorosis, catarrh, consumption, dropsy, French pox, phthisis, milk sickness, and scrumpox.
Think also of how society abandoned the antediluvian names of boys and girls. Few parents these days would name their son Ackley, Allard, Arundel, Awarnach, Beldon, Durward, Grower, Kenlm, or Legolan, or name their daughter Afton, Agrona, Arantxa, Corliss, Demelza, Eartha, Maida, Obsession, Radella, or Sacrifice.In summary, a necessary part of psychiatry’s progress is shedding obsolete terminology, even if it means slaughtering some widely used “traditional” vocabulary. It is a necessary act of renewal, and the image of psychiatry will be burnished by it.
1. Nasrallah HA. Borderline personality disorder is a heritable brain disease. Current Psychiatry. 2014;13(4):19-20,32.
2. Sagarwala R, Nasrallah HA. White matter pathology in patients with borderline personality disorder: a review of controlled DTI studies. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2020;32(4):281-286.
3. Keshavan MS, Tandon R, Nasrallah HA. Renaming schizophrenia: keeping up with the facts. Schizophr Res. 2013;148(1-3):1-2.
4. Lasalvia A, Penta E, Sartorius N, et al. Should the label “schizophrenia” be abandoned? Schizophr Res. 2015;162(1-3):276-284.
5. Takahashi H, Ideno T, Okubo S, et al. Impact of changing the Japanese term for “schizophrenia” for reasons of stereotypical beliefs of schizophrenia in Japanese youth. Schizophr Res. 2009;112(1-3):149-152.
6. Johanson M, Vaurio D, Tiihunen J, et al. A systematic literature review of neuroimaging of psychopathic traits. Front Psychiatry. 2020;10:1027.
7. Yang, W, Cun L, Du X, et al. Gender differences in brain structure and resting-state functional connectivity related to narcissistic personality. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10924.
8. Chester DS, Cynam DR, Powell DK, et al. Narcissismis associated with weakened frontostriatal connectivity: a DTI study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016;11(7):1036-1040.
9. Nenadic I, Gullmar D, Dietzek M, et al. Brain structure in narcissistic personality disorder: a VBM and DTI pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2015;231(2):184-186.
10. Mao Y, Sang N, Wang Y, et al. Reduced frontal cortex thickness and cortical volume associated with pathological narcissism. Neuroscience. 2016;378:51-57.
11. Nasrallah HA. The transient truths of medical ‘progress.’ Current Psychiatry. 2014;13(6):23-24.
1. Nasrallah HA. Borderline personality disorder is a heritable brain disease. Current Psychiatry. 2014;13(4):19-20,32.
2. Sagarwala R, Nasrallah HA. White matter pathology in patients with borderline personality disorder: a review of controlled DTI studies. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2020;32(4):281-286.
3. Keshavan MS, Tandon R, Nasrallah HA. Renaming schizophrenia: keeping up with the facts. Schizophr Res. 2013;148(1-3):1-2.
4. Lasalvia A, Penta E, Sartorius N, et al. Should the label “schizophrenia” be abandoned? Schizophr Res. 2015;162(1-3):276-284.
5. Takahashi H, Ideno T, Okubo S, et al. Impact of changing the Japanese term for “schizophrenia” for reasons of stereotypical beliefs of schizophrenia in Japanese youth. Schizophr Res. 2009;112(1-3):149-152.
6. Johanson M, Vaurio D, Tiihunen J, et al. A systematic literature review of neuroimaging of psychopathic traits. Front Psychiatry. 2020;10:1027.
7. Yang, W, Cun L, Du X, et al. Gender differences in brain structure and resting-state functional connectivity related to narcissistic personality. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10924.
8. Chester DS, Cynam DR, Powell DK, et al. Narcissismis associated with weakened frontostriatal connectivity: a DTI study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016;11(7):1036-1040.
9. Nenadic I, Gullmar D, Dietzek M, et al. Brain structure in narcissistic personality disorder: a VBM and DTI pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2015;231(2):184-186.
10. Mao Y, Sang N, Wang Y, et al. Reduced frontal cortex thickness and cortical volume associated with pathological narcissism. Neuroscience. 2016;378:51-57.
11. Nasrallah HA. The transient truths of medical ‘progress.’ Current Psychiatry. 2014;13(6):23-24.
