User login
For MD-IQ use only
COVID-19: No U.S. spike expected in pandemic-related suicidal ideation
Americans are not feeling more suicidal even in the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic of spring 2020, according to analysis of real-time national data accrued through the Crisis Text Line.
But that’s not to say Americans are feeling less distressed. Quite the contrary, Nancy Lublin, CEO and cofounder of Crisis Text Line, noted at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.
“We’ve seen a 40% increase in volume since early March. Seventy-eight percent of our conversations are now including words like ‘freaked out,’ ‘panicked,’ ‘scared.’ People are worried about COVID-19. They’re nervous about symptoms; they’re concerned for family on the front lines,” she said.
And yet, from mid-March through mid-April, only 22% of texters to the crisis line expressed suicidal ideation, down from a usual background rate of 28%. Moreover, just 13% of texters who mentioned ‘COVID,’ ‘quarantine,’ or ‘virus’ expressed suicidal ideation, compared with 25% of other texters.
Ms. Lublin and her data crunchers are tracking not only the impact of the disease, but they’re also monitoring the mental health effects of the quarantine and social distancing.
“People are away from their routines, and perhaps [are] quarantined with abusive people. We’ve seen a 48% increase in texts involving sexual abuse and a 74% increase in domestic violence,” she said.
Texts focused on eating disorders or body image issues have jumped by 45%. And roughly two-thirds of texters now describe feelings of depression.
One of the biggest mental health impacts she and colleagues have seen stem from the economic recession triggered by the pandemic.
“We’ve seen more people reach out with fears of bankruptcy, fears of homelessness, fears of financial ruin. Thirty-two percent of our texters now report household incomes under $20,000 per year. That’s up from 19% before,” according to Ms. Lublin.
The Crisis Text Line (text HOME to 741741) uses machine-learning algorithms that sift through incoming text messages from people in crisis for key words, then ranks the messages by severity. Since its launch in 2013, this service, available 24/7, has processed roughly 150 million text messages. The high-risk texters – for example, someone who’s swallowed a bottle of pills or is texting from the San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, as has occurred some 500 times – are connected in an average of 24 seconds with a thoroughly trained volunteer crisis counselor. And there is a third party in these texting conversations: a paid staff supervisor with a master’s degree in a relevant discipline who follows the encounter in real time and can step in if needed.
“Active rescues are involved in less than 1% of our conversations, but still we do them on average 26 times per day. Over the years, we’ve completed more than 32,000 active rescues,” she said.
The Crisis Text Line is not exclusively a suicide prevention hotline. The top five issues people text about involve relationship concerns, depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. Over time, Ms. Lublin and staff have used Big Data to tweak the screening algorithm as they’ve identified even higher red flag texting words than “suicide.”
“The word ‘military’ makes it twice as likely that we’ll have to call 9-1-1 than the word ‘suicide.’ ‘Gun,’ ‘rope’ – four times as likely. In the [United KIngdom], where we’re also operating, we see the word ‘cliff’ is a more lethal word than the word ‘suicide.’ But the most dangerous words that we see are any named pill,” she said.
The Crisis Text Line was recently awarded a 2020 TED Audacious Project grant to expand their services from English to also be offered in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Arabic worldwide within the next two and a half years. This will provide coverage to one-third of the world’s population, including people with cell phones living in countries with very limited mental health services.
Will COVID-19 trigger a spike in deaths by suicide?
Whether the COVID-19 pandemic will result in a bump in suicide rates is unclear and will remain so for quite a while, according to David Gunnell, MD, PhD, a suicidologist and professor of epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).
In the United Kingdom, investigation of a suspicious death typically takes more than 6 months before an official declaration of suicide is recorded by the medical examiner. The lag time is even longer in the United States: The latest national suicide rate data are for 2018 because state-by-state reporting practices vary widely, he noted at a National Press Foundation briefing on COVID-19 and mental health.
Although suicide is consistently the 10th-leading cause of death in the United States, it’s important to put it in perspective, he added. In 2018, there were an average of 4,000 deaths by suicide per month nationally, whereas in March and April of 2020, there were 28,400 deaths per month attributable to COVID-19.
A classic study of the Spanish influenza pandemic in the United States during 1918-1919 concluded that there was “a slight upturn” in the rate of suicide in the months following the pandemic’s peak. More recently, a study of the 2003 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic in Hong Kong found roughly a 30% increase in the rate of suicide among the elderly during that time frame, Dr. Gunnell noted.
“What limited evidence there is provides an indication of a small rise in suicides, but the number of deaths is far outweighed by the number of deaths associated with these big pandemics,” according to the epidemiologist.
Pandemics aside, there is far more compelling evidence that periods of economic recession are associated with an increase in the suicide rate, he added.
Another speaker, Holly C. Wilcox, PhD, a psychiatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, commented: “It’s not surprising that, during times of disaster the suicide rates decrease a bit. It could be because of people coming toghether. It could be one silver lining of COVID-19. But if there’s prolonged stress economically and socially and we can’t work towards reducing stress for people, we could see an increase. I don’t know if we will.”
In a recent article, Dr. Gunnell and coauthors offered a series of recommendations aimed at blunting the mental health consequences of COVID-19 and the related economic fallout (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30171-1).
The authors highlighted the need for interventions aimed at defusing the adverse impact of self-isolation, social distancing, fear, an anticipated rise in alcohol misuse, joblessness, interrupted education, bereavement, and complicated grief. Governments can blunt the well-established effect of financial distress as a risk factor for suicide by providing safety nets in the form of supports for housing, food, and unemployment benefits. And it will be important that those mental health services that develop expertise in performing psychiatric assessments and interventions remotely via telemedicine share their insights, Dr. Gunnell said.
Americans are not feeling more suicidal even in the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic of spring 2020, according to analysis of real-time national data accrued through the Crisis Text Line.
But that’s not to say Americans are feeling less distressed. Quite the contrary, Nancy Lublin, CEO and cofounder of Crisis Text Line, noted at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.
“We’ve seen a 40% increase in volume since early March. Seventy-eight percent of our conversations are now including words like ‘freaked out,’ ‘panicked,’ ‘scared.’ People are worried about COVID-19. They’re nervous about symptoms; they’re concerned for family on the front lines,” she said.
And yet, from mid-March through mid-April, only 22% of texters to the crisis line expressed suicidal ideation, down from a usual background rate of 28%. Moreover, just 13% of texters who mentioned ‘COVID,’ ‘quarantine,’ or ‘virus’ expressed suicidal ideation, compared with 25% of other texters.
Ms. Lublin and her data crunchers are tracking not only the impact of the disease, but they’re also monitoring the mental health effects of the quarantine and social distancing.
“People are away from their routines, and perhaps [are] quarantined with abusive people. We’ve seen a 48% increase in texts involving sexual abuse and a 74% increase in domestic violence,” she said.
Texts focused on eating disorders or body image issues have jumped by 45%. And roughly two-thirds of texters now describe feelings of depression.
One of the biggest mental health impacts she and colleagues have seen stem from the economic recession triggered by the pandemic.
“We’ve seen more people reach out with fears of bankruptcy, fears of homelessness, fears of financial ruin. Thirty-two percent of our texters now report household incomes under $20,000 per year. That’s up from 19% before,” according to Ms. Lublin.
The Crisis Text Line (text HOME to 741741) uses machine-learning algorithms that sift through incoming text messages from people in crisis for key words, then ranks the messages by severity. Since its launch in 2013, this service, available 24/7, has processed roughly 150 million text messages. The high-risk texters – for example, someone who’s swallowed a bottle of pills or is texting from the San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, as has occurred some 500 times – are connected in an average of 24 seconds with a thoroughly trained volunteer crisis counselor. And there is a third party in these texting conversations: a paid staff supervisor with a master’s degree in a relevant discipline who follows the encounter in real time and can step in if needed.
“Active rescues are involved in less than 1% of our conversations, but still we do them on average 26 times per day. Over the years, we’ve completed more than 32,000 active rescues,” she said.
The Crisis Text Line is not exclusively a suicide prevention hotline. The top five issues people text about involve relationship concerns, depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. Over time, Ms. Lublin and staff have used Big Data to tweak the screening algorithm as they’ve identified even higher red flag texting words than “suicide.”
“The word ‘military’ makes it twice as likely that we’ll have to call 9-1-1 than the word ‘suicide.’ ‘Gun,’ ‘rope’ – four times as likely. In the [United KIngdom], where we’re also operating, we see the word ‘cliff’ is a more lethal word than the word ‘suicide.’ But the most dangerous words that we see are any named pill,” she said.
The Crisis Text Line was recently awarded a 2020 TED Audacious Project grant to expand their services from English to also be offered in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Arabic worldwide within the next two and a half years. This will provide coverage to one-third of the world’s population, including people with cell phones living in countries with very limited mental health services.
Will COVID-19 trigger a spike in deaths by suicide?
Whether the COVID-19 pandemic will result in a bump in suicide rates is unclear and will remain so for quite a while, according to David Gunnell, MD, PhD, a suicidologist and professor of epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).
In the United Kingdom, investigation of a suspicious death typically takes more than 6 months before an official declaration of suicide is recorded by the medical examiner. The lag time is even longer in the United States: The latest national suicide rate data are for 2018 because state-by-state reporting practices vary widely, he noted at a National Press Foundation briefing on COVID-19 and mental health.
Although suicide is consistently the 10th-leading cause of death in the United States, it’s important to put it in perspective, he added. In 2018, there were an average of 4,000 deaths by suicide per month nationally, whereas in March and April of 2020, there were 28,400 deaths per month attributable to COVID-19.
A classic study of the Spanish influenza pandemic in the United States during 1918-1919 concluded that there was “a slight upturn” in the rate of suicide in the months following the pandemic’s peak. More recently, a study of the 2003 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic in Hong Kong found roughly a 30% increase in the rate of suicide among the elderly during that time frame, Dr. Gunnell noted.
“What limited evidence there is provides an indication of a small rise in suicides, but the number of deaths is far outweighed by the number of deaths associated with these big pandemics,” according to the epidemiologist.
Pandemics aside, there is far more compelling evidence that periods of economic recession are associated with an increase in the suicide rate, he added.
Another speaker, Holly C. Wilcox, PhD, a psychiatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, commented: “It’s not surprising that, during times of disaster the suicide rates decrease a bit. It could be because of people coming toghether. It could be one silver lining of COVID-19. But if there’s prolonged stress economically and socially and we can’t work towards reducing stress for people, we could see an increase. I don’t know if we will.”
In a recent article, Dr. Gunnell and coauthors offered a series of recommendations aimed at blunting the mental health consequences of COVID-19 and the related economic fallout (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30171-1).
The authors highlighted the need for interventions aimed at defusing the adverse impact of self-isolation, social distancing, fear, an anticipated rise in alcohol misuse, joblessness, interrupted education, bereavement, and complicated grief. Governments can blunt the well-established effect of financial distress as a risk factor for suicide by providing safety nets in the form of supports for housing, food, and unemployment benefits. And it will be important that those mental health services that develop expertise in performing psychiatric assessments and interventions remotely via telemedicine share their insights, Dr. Gunnell said.
Americans are not feeling more suicidal even in the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic of spring 2020, according to analysis of real-time national data accrued through the Crisis Text Line.
But that’s not to say Americans are feeling less distressed. Quite the contrary, Nancy Lublin, CEO and cofounder of Crisis Text Line, noted at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.
“We’ve seen a 40% increase in volume since early March. Seventy-eight percent of our conversations are now including words like ‘freaked out,’ ‘panicked,’ ‘scared.’ People are worried about COVID-19. They’re nervous about symptoms; they’re concerned for family on the front lines,” she said.
And yet, from mid-March through mid-April, only 22% of texters to the crisis line expressed suicidal ideation, down from a usual background rate of 28%. Moreover, just 13% of texters who mentioned ‘COVID,’ ‘quarantine,’ or ‘virus’ expressed suicidal ideation, compared with 25% of other texters.
Ms. Lublin and her data crunchers are tracking not only the impact of the disease, but they’re also monitoring the mental health effects of the quarantine and social distancing.
“People are away from their routines, and perhaps [are] quarantined with abusive people. We’ve seen a 48% increase in texts involving sexual abuse and a 74% increase in domestic violence,” she said.
Texts focused on eating disorders or body image issues have jumped by 45%. And roughly two-thirds of texters now describe feelings of depression.
One of the biggest mental health impacts she and colleagues have seen stem from the economic recession triggered by the pandemic.
“We’ve seen more people reach out with fears of bankruptcy, fears of homelessness, fears of financial ruin. Thirty-two percent of our texters now report household incomes under $20,000 per year. That’s up from 19% before,” according to Ms. Lublin.
The Crisis Text Line (text HOME to 741741) uses machine-learning algorithms that sift through incoming text messages from people in crisis for key words, then ranks the messages by severity. Since its launch in 2013, this service, available 24/7, has processed roughly 150 million text messages. The high-risk texters – for example, someone who’s swallowed a bottle of pills or is texting from the San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, as has occurred some 500 times – are connected in an average of 24 seconds with a thoroughly trained volunteer crisis counselor. And there is a third party in these texting conversations: a paid staff supervisor with a master’s degree in a relevant discipline who follows the encounter in real time and can step in if needed.
“Active rescues are involved in less than 1% of our conversations, but still we do them on average 26 times per day. Over the years, we’ve completed more than 32,000 active rescues,” she said.
The Crisis Text Line is not exclusively a suicide prevention hotline. The top five issues people text about involve relationship concerns, depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. Over time, Ms. Lublin and staff have used Big Data to tweak the screening algorithm as they’ve identified even higher red flag texting words than “suicide.”
“The word ‘military’ makes it twice as likely that we’ll have to call 9-1-1 than the word ‘suicide.’ ‘Gun,’ ‘rope’ – four times as likely. In the [United KIngdom], where we’re also operating, we see the word ‘cliff’ is a more lethal word than the word ‘suicide.’ But the most dangerous words that we see are any named pill,” she said.
The Crisis Text Line was recently awarded a 2020 TED Audacious Project grant to expand their services from English to also be offered in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Arabic worldwide within the next two and a half years. This will provide coverage to one-third of the world’s population, including people with cell phones living in countries with very limited mental health services.
Will COVID-19 trigger a spike in deaths by suicide?
Whether the COVID-19 pandemic will result in a bump in suicide rates is unclear and will remain so for quite a while, according to David Gunnell, MD, PhD, a suicidologist and professor of epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).
In the United Kingdom, investigation of a suspicious death typically takes more than 6 months before an official declaration of suicide is recorded by the medical examiner. The lag time is even longer in the United States: The latest national suicide rate data are for 2018 because state-by-state reporting practices vary widely, he noted at a National Press Foundation briefing on COVID-19 and mental health.
Although suicide is consistently the 10th-leading cause of death in the United States, it’s important to put it in perspective, he added. In 2018, there were an average of 4,000 deaths by suicide per month nationally, whereas in March and April of 2020, there were 28,400 deaths per month attributable to COVID-19.
A classic study of the Spanish influenza pandemic in the United States during 1918-1919 concluded that there was “a slight upturn” in the rate of suicide in the months following the pandemic’s peak. More recently, a study of the 2003 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic in Hong Kong found roughly a 30% increase in the rate of suicide among the elderly during that time frame, Dr. Gunnell noted.
“What limited evidence there is provides an indication of a small rise in suicides, but the number of deaths is far outweighed by the number of deaths associated with these big pandemics,” according to the epidemiologist.
Pandemics aside, there is far more compelling evidence that periods of economic recession are associated with an increase in the suicide rate, he added.
Another speaker, Holly C. Wilcox, PhD, a psychiatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, commented: “It’s not surprising that, during times of disaster the suicide rates decrease a bit. It could be because of people coming toghether. It could be one silver lining of COVID-19. But if there’s prolonged stress economically and socially and we can’t work towards reducing stress for people, we could see an increase. I don’t know if we will.”
In a recent article, Dr. Gunnell and coauthors offered a series of recommendations aimed at blunting the mental health consequences of COVID-19 and the related economic fallout (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30171-1).
The authors highlighted the need for interventions aimed at defusing the adverse impact of self-isolation, social distancing, fear, an anticipated rise in alcohol misuse, joblessness, interrupted education, bereavement, and complicated grief. Governments can blunt the well-established effect of financial distress as a risk factor for suicide by providing safety nets in the form of supports for housing, food, and unemployment benefits. And it will be important that those mental health services that develop expertise in performing psychiatric assessments and interventions remotely via telemedicine share their insights, Dr. Gunnell said.
FROM AAS 2020
COVID-19: Calls to NYC crisis hotline soar
Calls to a mental health crisis hotline in New York City have soared during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has closed schools and businesses, put millions out of work, and ushered in stay-at-home orders.
ensuring that care is available when and where needed during a crisis, whether that be an individual crisis, a local community crisis, or a national mental health crisis like we are facing right now,” said Kimberly Williams, president and CEO of Vibrant Emotional Health.
Vibrant Emotional Health, formerly the Mental Health Association of New York City, provides crisis line services across the United States in partnership with local and federal governments and corporations. NYC Well is one of them.
Ms. Williams and two of her colleagues spoke about crisis hotlines April 25 during the American Psychiatric Association’s Virtual Spring Highlights Meeting.
Rapid crisis intervention
Crisis hotlines provide “rapid crisis intervention, delivering help immediately from trained crisis counselors who respond to unique needs, actively engage in collaborative problem solving, and assess risk for suicide,” Ms. Williams said.
They have a proven track record, she noted. Research shows that they are able to decrease emotional distress and reduce suicidality in crisis situations.
Kelly Clarke, program director of NYC Well, noted that inbound call volume has increased roughly 50% since the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
Callers to NYC Well most commonly report mood/anxiety concerns, stressful life events, and interpersonal problems. “Many people are reaching out to seek support in how to manage their own emotional well-being in light of the pandemic and the restrictions put in place,” said Ms. Clarke.
Multilingual peer support specialists and counselors with NYC Well provide free, confidential support by talk, text, or chat 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days a year. The service also provides mobile crisis teams and follow-up services. NYC Well has set up a landing page of resources specifically geared toward COVID-19.
How to cope with the rapid growth and at the same time ensure high quality of services are two key challenges for NYC Well, Ms. Clarke said.
“Absolutely essential” service
For John Draper, PhD, the experience early in his career of working on a mobile mental health crisis team in Brooklyn “changed his life.”
First, it showed him that, for people who are severely psychiatrically ill, “care has to come to them,” said Dr. Draper, executive vice president of national networks for Vibrant Emotional Health.
“So many of the people we were seeing were too depressed to get out of bed, much less get to a clinic, and I realized our system was not set up to serve its customers. It was like putting a spinal cord injury clinic at the top of a stairs,” he said.
Crisis hotlines are “absolutely essential.” Their value for communities and individuals “can’t be overestimated,” said Dr. Draper.
This was revealed after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and now with COVID-19, said Dr. Draper. He noted, that following the attacks of 9/11, a federal report referred to crisis hotlines as “the single most important asset in the response.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Calls to a mental health crisis hotline in New York City have soared during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has closed schools and businesses, put millions out of work, and ushered in stay-at-home orders.
ensuring that care is available when and where needed during a crisis, whether that be an individual crisis, a local community crisis, or a national mental health crisis like we are facing right now,” said Kimberly Williams, president and CEO of Vibrant Emotional Health.
Vibrant Emotional Health, formerly the Mental Health Association of New York City, provides crisis line services across the United States in partnership with local and federal governments and corporations. NYC Well is one of them.
Ms. Williams and two of her colleagues spoke about crisis hotlines April 25 during the American Psychiatric Association’s Virtual Spring Highlights Meeting.
Rapid crisis intervention
Crisis hotlines provide “rapid crisis intervention, delivering help immediately from trained crisis counselors who respond to unique needs, actively engage in collaborative problem solving, and assess risk for suicide,” Ms. Williams said.
They have a proven track record, she noted. Research shows that they are able to decrease emotional distress and reduce suicidality in crisis situations.
Kelly Clarke, program director of NYC Well, noted that inbound call volume has increased roughly 50% since the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
Callers to NYC Well most commonly report mood/anxiety concerns, stressful life events, and interpersonal problems. “Many people are reaching out to seek support in how to manage their own emotional well-being in light of the pandemic and the restrictions put in place,” said Ms. Clarke.
Multilingual peer support specialists and counselors with NYC Well provide free, confidential support by talk, text, or chat 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days a year. The service also provides mobile crisis teams and follow-up services. NYC Well has set up a landing page of resources specifically geared toward COVID-19.
How to cope with the rapid growth and at the same time ensure high quality of services are two key challenges for NYC Well, Ms. Clarke said.
“Absolutely essential” service
For John Draper, PhD, the experience early in his career of working on a mobile mental health crisis team in Brooklyn “changed his life.”
First, it showed him that, for people who are severely psychiatrically ill, “care has to come to them,” said Dr. Draper, executive vice president of national networks for Vibrant Emotional Health.
“So many of the people we were seeing were too depressed to get out of bed, much less get to a clinic, and I realized our system was not set up to serve its customers. It was like putting a spinal cord injury clinic at the top of a stairs,” he said.
Crisis hotlines are “absolutely essential.” Their value for communities and individuals “can’t be overestimated,” said Dr. Draper.
This was revealed after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and now with COVID-19, said Dr. Draper. He noted, that following the attacks of 9/11, a federal report referred to crisis hotlines as “the single most important asset in the response.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Calls to a mental health crisis hotline in New York City have soared during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has closed schools and businesses, put millions out of work, and ushered in stay-at-home orders.
ensuring that care is available when and where needed during a crisis, whether that be an individual crisis, a local community crisis, or a national mental health crisis like we are facing right now,” said Kimberly Williams, president and CEO of Vibrant Emotional Health.
Vibrant Emotional Health, formerly the Mental Health Association of New York City, provides crisis line services across the United States in partnership with local and federal governments and corporations. NYC Well is one of them.
Ms. Williams and two of her colleagues spoke about crisis hotlines April 25 during the American Psychiatric Association’s Virtual Spring Highlights Meeting.
Rapid crisis intervention
Crisis hotlines provide “rapid crisis intervention, delivering help immediately from trained crisis counselors who respond to unique needs, actively engage in collaborative problem solving, and assess risk for suicide,” Ms. Williams said.
They have a proven track record, she noted. Research shows that they are able to decrease emotional distress and reduce suicidality in crisis situations.
Kelly Clarke, program director of NYC Well, noted that inbound call volume has increased roughly 50% since the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
Callers to NYC Well most commonly report mood/anxiety concerns, stressful life events, and interpersonal problems. “Many people are reaching out to seek support in how to manage their own emotional well-being in light of the pandemic and the restrictions put in place,” said Ms. Clarke.
Multilingual peer support specialists and counselors with NYC Well provide free, confidential support by talk, text, or chat 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days a year. The service also provides mobile crisis teams and follow-up services. NYC Well has set up a landing page of resources specifically geared toward COVID-19.
How to cope with the rapid growth and at the same time ensure high quality of services are two key challenges for NYC Well, Ms. Clarke said.
“Absolutely essential” service
For John Draper, PhD, the experience early in his career of working on a mobile mental health crisis team in Brooklyn “changed his life.”
First, it showed him that, for people who are severely psychiatrically ill, “care has to come to them,” said Dr. Draper, executive vice president of national networks for Vibrant Emotional Health.
“So many of the people we were seeing were too depressed to get out of bed, much less get to a clinic, and I realized our system was not set up to serve its customers. It was like putting a spinal cord injury clinic at the top of a stairs,” he said.
Crisis hotlines are “absolutely essential.” Their value for communities and individuals “can’t be overestimated,” said Dr. Draper.
This was revealed after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and now with COVID-19, said Dr. Draper. He noted, that following the attacks of 9/11, a federal report referred to crisis hotlines as “the single most important asset in the response.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Consensus recommendations on AMI management during COVID-19
A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.
“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.
SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.
A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.
They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.
Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.
The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.
“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.
SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.
A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.
They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.
Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.
The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.
“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.
SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.
A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.
They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.
Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.
The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Visa worries besiege immigrant physicians fighting COVID-19
Physicians and their sponsoring health care facilities shouldn’t have to worry about visa technicalities as they work on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic, said health care leaders and immigration reform advocates.
In a press call hosted by the National Immigration Forum, speakers highlighted the need for fast and flexible solutions to enable health care workers, including physicians, to contribute to efforts to combat the pandemic.
Nationwide, over one in five physicians are immigrants, according to data from the Forum. That figure is over one in three in New York, New Jersey, and California, three states hard-hit by COVID-19 cases.
Many physicians stand willing and able to serve where they’re needed, but visa restrictions often block the ability of immigrant physicians to meet COVID-19 surges across the country, said Amit Vashist, MD, senior vice president and chief clinical officer for Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn., and a member of the public policy committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine. Ballad Health is an integrated health care system that serves 29 counties in the rural Southeast.
“This pandemic is a war with an invisible enemy, and immigrant physicians have been absolutely critical to providing quality care, especially on the front lines – but current visa restrictions have limited the ability to deploy these physicians in communities with the greatest need,” said Dr. Vashist during the press conference.
Visa requirements currently tie a non-US citizen resident physician to a particular institution and facility, limiting the ability to meet demand flexibly. “Federal agencies and Congress should provide additional flexibility in visa processing to allow for automatic renewals and expediting processing so immigrant medical workers can focus on treating the sick and not on their visa requirements,” said Dr. Vashist.
Dr. Vashist noted that, when he speaks with the many Ballad Health hospitalists who are waiting on permanent residency or citizenship, many of them also cite worries about the fate of their families should they themselves fall ill. Depending on the physician’s visa status, the family may face deportation without recourse if the physician should die.
“Tens of thousands of our physicians continue to endure years, even decades of waiting to obtain a permanent residency in the United States and at the same time, relentlessly and fearlessly serve their communities including in this COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Vashist. “It’s time we take care of them and their long-term immigration needs, and give them the peace of mind that they so desperately deserve,” he added.
Frank Trinity, chief legal officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, also participated in the call. “For decades,” he said, the United States “has relied on physicians from other countries, especially in rural and underserved areas.”
One of these physicians, Mihir Patel, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Ballad Health, came to the United States in 2005, but 15 years later is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. He is the corporate director of Ballad’s telemedicine program and is now also the medical director of the health system’s COVID-10 Strike Team.
“During the COVID crisis, these restrictions can cause significant negative impact for small rural hospitals,” Dr. Patel said. “There are physicians on a visa who cannot legally work outside their primary facilities – even though they are willing to do so.”
Regarding the pandemic, Mr. Trinity expressed concerns about whether the surge of patients would “outstrip our workforce.” He noted that, with an unprecedented number of desperately ill patients needing emergency care all across the country, “now is the time for our government to take every possible action to ensure that these highly qualified and courageous health professionals are available in the fight against the coronavirus.”
Mr. Trinity outlined five governmental actions AAMC is proposing to allow immigrant physicians to participate fully in the battle against COVID-19. The first would be to approve a blanket extension of visa deadlines. The second would be to expedite processing of visa extension applications, including reinstating expedited processing of physicians currently holding H-1B visa status.
The third action proposed by AAMC is to provide flexibility to visa sponsors during the emergency so that an individual whose visa is currently limited to a particular program can provide care at another location or by means of telehealth.
Fourth, AAMC proposes streamlined entry for the 4,200 physicians who are matched into residency programs so that they may begin their residencies on time or early.
Finally, Mr. Trinity said that AAMC is proposing that work authorizations be maintained for the 29,000 physicians who are currently not U.S. citizens and actively participating in the health care workforce.
Jacinta Ma, the Forum’s vice president of policy and advocacy, said immigrants are a critical component of the U.S. health care workforce as a whole.
“With immigrants accounting for 17% of health care workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s clear that they are vital to our communities,” she said. “Congress and the Trump administration both have an opportunity to advance solutions that protect immigrants, and remove immigration-related barriers for immigrant medical professionals by ensuring that immigrant doctors, nurses, home health care workers, researchers, and others can continue their vital work during this pandemic while being afforded adequate protection from COVID-19.”
Physicians and their sponsoring health care facilities shouldn’t have to worry about visa technicalities as they work on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic, said health care leaders and immigration reform advocates.
In a press call hosted by the National Immigration Forum, speakers highlighted the need for fast and flexible solutions to enable health care workers, including physicians, to contribute to efforts to combat the pandemic.
Nationwide, over one in five physicians are immigrants, according to data from the Forum. That figure is over one in three in New York, New Jersey, and California, three states hard-hit by COVID-19 cases.
Many physicians stand willing and able to serve where they’re needed, but visa restrictions often block the ability of immigrant physicians to meet COVID-19 surges across the country, said Amit Vashist, MD, senior vice president and chief clinical officer for Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn., and a member of the public policy committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine. Ballad Health is an integrated health care system that serves 29 counties in the rural Southeast.
“This pandemic is a war with an invisible enemy, and immigrant physicians have been absolutely critical to providing quality care, especially on the front lines – but current visa restrictions have limited the ability to deploy these physicians in communities with the greatest need,” said Dr. Vashist during the press conference.
Visa requirements currently tie a non-US citizen resident physician to a particular institution and facility, limiting the ability to meet demand flexibly. “Federal agencies and Congress should provide additional flexibility in visa processing to allow for automatic renewals and expediting processing so immigrant medical workers can focus on treating the sick and not on their visa requirements,” said Dr. Vashist.
Dr. Vashist noted that, when he speaks with the many Ballad Health hospitalists who are waiting on permanent residency or citizenship, many of them also cite worries about the fate of their families should they themselves fall ill. Depending on the physician’s visa status, the family may face deportation without recourse if the physician should die.
“Tens of thousands of our physicians continue to endure years, even decades of waiting to obtain a permanent residency in the United States and at the same time, relentlessly and fearlessly serve their communities including in this COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Vashist. “It’s time we take care of them and their long-term immigration needs, and give them the peace of mind that they so desperately deserve,” he added.
Frank Trinity, chief legal officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, also participated in the call. “For decades,” he said, the United States “has relied on physicians from other countries, especially in rural and underserved areas.”
One of these physicians, Mihir Patel, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Ballad Health, came to the United States in 2005, but 15 years later is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. He is the corporate director of Ballad’s telemedicine program and is now also the medical director of the health system’s COVID-10 Strike Team.
“During the COVID crisis, these restrictions can cause significant negative impact for small rural hospitals,” Dr. Patel said. “There are physicians on a visa who cannot legally work outside their primary facilities – even though they are willing to do so.”
Regarding the pandemic, Mr. Trinity expressed concerns about whether the surge of patients would “outstrip our workforce.” He noted that, with an unprecedented number of desperately ill patients needing emergency care all across the country, “now is the time for our government to take every possible action to ensure that these highly qualified and courageous health professionals are available in the fight against the coronavirus.”
Mr. Trinity outlined five governmental actions AAMC is proposing to allow immigrant physicians to participate fully in the battle against COVID-19. The first would be to approve a blanket extension of visa deadlines. The second would be to expedite processing of visa extension applications, including reinstating expedited processing of physicians currently holding H-1B visa status.
The third action proposed by AAMC is to provide flexibility to visa sponsors during the emergency so that an individual whose visa is currently limited to a particular program can provide care at another location or by means of telehealth.
Fourth, AAMC proposes streamlined entry for the 4,200 physicians who are matched into residency programs so that they may begin their residencies on time or early.
Finally, Mr. Trinity said that AAMC is proposing that work authorizations be maintained for the 29,000 physicians who are currently not U.S. citizens and actively participating in the health care workforce.
Jacinta Ma, the Forum’s vice president of policy and advocacy, said immigrants are a critical component of the U.S. health care workforce as a whole.
“With immigrants accounting for 17% of health care workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s clear that they are vital to our communities,” she said. “Congress and the Trump administration both have an opportunity to advance solutions that protect immigrants, and remove immigration-related barriers for immigrant medical professionals by ensuring that immigrant doctors, nurses, home health care workers, researchers, and others can continue their vital work during this pandemic while being afforded adequate protection from COVID-19.”
Physicians and their sponsoring health care facilities shouldn’t have to worry about visa technicalities as they work on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic, said health care leaders and immigration reform advocates.
In a press call hosted by the National Immigration Forum, speakers highlighted the need for fast and flexible solutions to enable health care workers, including physicians, to contribute to efforts to combat the pandemic.
Nationwide, over one in five physicians are immigrants, according to data from the Forum. That figure is over one in three in New York, New Jersey, and California, three states hard-hit by COVID-19 cases.
Many physicians stand willing and able to serve where they’re needed, but visa restrictions often block the ability of immigrant physicians to meet COVID-19 surges across the country, said Amit Vashist, MD, senior vice president and chief clinical officer for Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn., and a member of the public policy committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine. Ballad Health is an integrated health care system that serves 29 counties in the rural Southeast.
“This pandemic is a war with an invisible enemy, and immigrant physicians have been absolutely critical to providing quality care, especially on the front lines – but current visa restrictions have limited the ability to deploy these physicians in communities with the greatest need,” said Dr. Vashist during the press conference.
Visa requirements currently tie a non-US citizen resident physician to a particular institution and facility, limiting the ability to meet demand flexibly. “Federal agencies and Congress should provide additional flexibility in visa processing to allow for automatic renewals and expediting processing so immigrant medical workers can focus on treating the sick and not on their visa requirements,” said Dr. Vashist.
Dr. Vashist noted that, when he speaks with the many Ballad Health hospitalists who are waiting on permanent residency or citizenship, many of them also cite worries about the fate of their families should they themselves fall ill. Depending on the physician’s visa status, the family may face deportation without recourse if the physician should die.
“Tens of thousands of our physicians continue to endure years, even decades of waiting to obtain a permanent residency in the United States and at the same time, relentlessly and fearlessly serve their communities including in this COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Vashist. “It’s time we take care of them and their long-term immigration needs, and give them the peace of mind that they so desperately deserve,” he added.
Frank Trinity, chief legal officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, also participated in the call. “For decades,” he said, the United States “has relied on physicians from other countries, especially in rural and underserved areas.”
One of these physicians, Mihir Patel, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Ballad Health, came to the United States in 2005, but 15 years later is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. He is the corporate director of Ballad’s telemedicine program and is now also the medical director of the health system’s COVID-10 Strike Team.
“During the COVID crisis, these restrictions can cause significant negative impact for small rural hospitals,” Dr. Patel said. “There are physicians on a visa who cannot legally work outside their primary facilities – even though they are willing to do so.”
Regarding the pandemic, Mr. Trinity expressed concerns about whether the surge of patients would “outstrip our workforce.” He noted that, with an unprecedented number of desperately ill patients needing emergency care all across the country, “now is the time for our government to take every possible action to ensure that these highly qualified and courageous health professionals are available in the fight against the coronavirus.”
Mr. Trinity outlined five governmental actions AAMC is proposing to allow immigrant physicians to participate fully in the battle against COVID-19. The first would be to approve a blanket extension of visa deadlines. The second would be to expedite processing of visa extension applications, including reinstating expedited processing of physicians currently holding H-1B visa status.
The third action proposed by AAMC is to provide flexibility to visa sponsors during the emergency so that an individual whose visa is currently limited to a particular program can provide care at another location or by means of telehealth.
Fourth, AAMC proposes streamlined entry for the 4,200 physicians who are matched into residency programs so that they may begin their residencies on time or early.
Finally, Mr. Trinity said that AAMC is proposing that work authorizations be maintained for the 29,000 physicians who are currently not U.S. citizens and actively participating in the health care workforce.
Jacinta Ma, the Forum’s vice president of policy and advocacy, said immigrants are a critical component of the U.S. health care workforce as a whole.
“With immigrants accounting for 17% of health care workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s clear that they are vital to our communities,” she said. “Congress and the Trump administration both have an opportunity to advance solutions that protect immigrants, and remove immigration-related barriers for immigrant medical professionals by ensuring that immigrant doctors, nurses, home health care workers, researchers, and others can continue their vital work during this pandemic while being afforded adequate protection from COVID-19.”
COVID-19 decimates outpatient visits
There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.
The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.
Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.
The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.
The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.
They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.
Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.
However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
Decline by specialty
Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.
Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.
Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).
School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.
The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.
Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.
The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.
The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.
They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.
Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.
However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
Decline by specialty
Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.
Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.
Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).
School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.
The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.
Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.
The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.
The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.
They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.
Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.
However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
Decline by specialty
Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.
Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.
Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).
School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What’s in your wallet? Trends in hospitalist compensation
Ever wonder how your hospitalist group’s compensation stacks up? Whether you’re a practicing hospitalist curious about how competitive your compensation package is or a hospital medicine group leader performing an appraisal of your group’s salary structure, chances are you’re looking to fair market benchmarks for hospitalist compensation. In the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partners with the Medical Group Management Association to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity.
In 2018, the median compensation for adult hospitalist respondents was $289,151, an increase of over $10,000 from 2016. When comparing compensation across different regions, there appear to be remarkable differences across the nation. Not surprisingly, hospitalists in the South fare better than their colleagues in the East, with a reported median compensation difference of nearly $33,000. Does that make you want to move to Texas? What about the even more striking difference between adult hospitalists and pediatric hospitalists, whose median compensation was reported to be $205,342 in 2018?
A common pitfall in compensation analysis is comparing wages across regions and specialties without considering productivity. Reviewing compensation per work relative value units (wRVU) and compensation per encounter offer additional insight for a more comprehensive assessment of compensation.
A regional comparison of compensation per wRVU reveals that hospitalists in the West earn more per wRVU than their colleagues in other parts of the country, including the South. Specifically, compensation per wRVU in the West is $86.57; in the South, $59.38; in the East, $65.74; and in the Midwest, $73.08. A similar comparison of compensation per wRVU (see Figure 1) suggests that academic adult, academic pediatric, and nonacademic adult hospitalists are fairly evenly compensated when considering productivity, but nonacademic pediatric hospitalist respondents earned significantly more per wRVU. From this perspective, pediatric hospitalists appear to be similarly compensated, if not better, than their adult hospitalist colleagues.
While differences in compensation per wRVU may be minimal between nonacademic and academic hospitalists, there remains a significant difference in total compensation. Median compensation for nonacademic internal medicine hospitalists was approximately $63,000 more than that reported for academic internal medicine hospitalists. This doesn’t come as a surprise since compensation tends to be lower in academic settings across all specialties. It could be valuable for future compensation and productivity assessments to define and measure academic and other forms of nonbillable hospitalist productivity. Development of national standards for nonbillable productivity units could help create a more comprehensive model for structuring hospitalist compensation.
While it’s important to understand compensation benchmarks in order to remain competitive as an hospital medicine group, money isn’t everything. Group culture, professional development and growth opportunities, and schedules that afford better work-life integration are important factors that contribute to hospitalist “compensation” valuations. Arguably these factors are more valuable than any compensation package, but it’s not easy to quantify their weight. Some indirect forms of compensation include paid time off, paid sick days, and support for professional development through allowances and protected time off for CME. Other indirect compensation includes tuition benefits for hospitalists and their family, retirement benefits programs, and the unicorn of benefits – pension plans. In the 2018 SoHM survey, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $19,875, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $28,340.
The good news is that hospitalist physician compensation has continued to rise, compared with previous years (see Figure 2), despite the relative flat trends in wRVUs and encounters. Among other reasons, this may reflect a shift from compensating hospitalists for volume towards compensation for their value.
The not-so-good news? In contrast to prior SoHM Surveys reporting compensation differences that increased at a rate of 8%-10% every 2 years, the difference in median compensation between 2016 and 2018 was 3.7%. Several factors could play into the slower acceleration rate, including differences in respondent groups between 2016 and 2018. It will be more intriguing to know whether we’re starting to see hospitalist compensation leveling off.
As the 2020 SoHM surveying period just concluded, it remains to be seen how compensation has changed in the past 2 years and whether hospitalist compensation is starting to plateau. Stay tuned for the 2020 SoHM Report available later this year, which will offer invaluable insights into hospitalist compensation trends. You can sign up to be notified when it becomes available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/SoHM.
Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.
Ever wonder how your hospitalist group’s compensation stacks up? Whether you’re a practicing hospitalist curious about how competitive your compensation package is or a hospital medicine group leader performing an appraisal of your group’s salary structure, chances are you’re looking to fair market benchmarks for hospitalist compensation. In the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partners with the Medical Group Management Association to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity.
In 2018, the median compensation for adult hospitalist respondents was $289,151, an increase of over $10,000 from 2016. When comparing compensation across different regions, there appear to be remarkable differences across the nation. Not surprisingly, hospitalists in the South fare better than their colleagues in the East, with a reported median compensation difference of nearly $33,000. Does that make you want to move to Texas? What about the even more striking difference between adult hospitalists and pediatric hospitalists, whose median compensation was reported to be $205,342 in 2018?
A common pitfall in compensation analysis is comparing wages across regions and specialties without considering productivity. Reviewing compensation per work relative value units (wRVU) and compensation per encounter offer additional insight for a more comprehensive assessment of compensation.
A regional comparison of compensation per wRVU reveals that hospitalists in the West earn more per wRVU than their colleagues in other parts of the country, including the South. Specifically, compensation per wRVU in the West is $86.57; in the South, $59.38; in the East, $65.74; and in the Midwest, $73.08. A similar comparison of compensation per wRVU (see Figure 1) suggests that academic adult, academic pediatric, and nonacademic adult hospitalists are fairly evenly compensated when considering productivity, but nonacademic pediatric hospitalist respondents earned significantly more per wRVU. From this perspective, pediatric hospitalists appear to be similarly compensated, if not better, than their adult hospitalist colleagues.
While differences in compensation per wRVU may be minimal between nonacademic and academic hospitalists, there remains a significant difference in total compensation. Median compensation for nonacademic internal medicine hospitalists was approximately $63,000 more than that reported for academic internal medicine hospitalists. This doesn’t come as a surprise since compensation tends to be lower in academic settings across all specialties. It could be valuable for future compensation and productivity assessments to define and measure academic and other forms of nonbillable hospitalist productivity. Development of national standards for nonbillable productivity units could help create a more comprehensive model for structuring hospitalist compensation.
While it’s important to understand compensation benchmarks in order to remain competitive as an hospital medicine group, money isn’t everything. Group culture, professional development and growth opportunities, and schedules that afford better work-life integration are important factors that contribute to hospitalist “compensation” valuations. Arguably these factors are more valuable than any compensation package, but it’s not easy to quantify their weight. Some indirect forms of compensation include paid time off, paid sick days, and support for professional development through allowances and protected time off for CME. Other indirect compensation includes tuition benefits for hospitalists and their family, retirement benefits programs, and the unicorn of benefits – pension plans. In the 2018 SoHM survey, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $19,875, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $28,340.
The good news is that hospitalist physician compensation has continued to rise, compared with previous years (see Figure 2), despite the relative flat trends in wRVUs and encounters. Among other reasons, this may reflect a shift from compensating hospitalists for volume towards compensation for their value.
The not-so-good news? In contrast to prior SoHM Surveys reporting compensation differences that increased at a rate of 8%-10% every 2 years, the difference in median compensation between 2016 and 2018 was 3.7%. Several factors could play into the slower acceleration rate, including differences in respondent groups between 2016 and 2018. It will be more intriguing to know whether we’re starting to see hospitalist compensation leveling off.
As the 2020 SoHM surveying period just concluded, it remains to be seen how compensation has changed in the past 2 years and whether hospitalist compensation is starting to plateau. Stay tuned for the 2020 SoHM Report available later this year, which will offer invaluable insights into hospitalist compensation trends. You can sign up to be notified when it becomes available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/SoHM.
Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.
Ever wonder how your hospitalist group’s compensation stacks up? Whether you’re a practicing hospitalist curious about how competitive your compensation package is or a hospital medicine group leader performing an appraisal of your group’s salary structure, chances are you’re looking to fair market benchmarks for hospitalist compensation. In the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partners with the Medical Group Management Association to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity.
In 2018, the median compensation for adult hospitalist respondents was $289,151, an increase of over $10,000 from 2016. When comparing compensation across different regions, there appear to be remarkable differences across the nation. Not surprisingly, hospitalists in the South fare better than their colleagues in the East, with a reported median compensation difference of nearly $33,000. Does that make you want to move to Texas? What about the even more striking difference between adult hospitalists and pediatric hospitalists, whose median compensation was reported to be $205,342 in 2018?
A common pitfall in compensation analysis is comparing wages across regions and specialties without considering productivity. Reviewing compensation per work relative value units (wRVU) and compensation per encounter offer additional insight for a more comprehensive assessment of compensation.
A regional comparison of compensation per wRVU reveals that hospitalists in the West earn more per wRVU than their colleagues in other parts of the country, including the South. Specifically, compensation per wRVU in the West is $86.57; in the South, $59.38; in the East, $65.74; and in the Midwest, $73.08. A similar comparison of compensation per wRVU (see Figure 1) suggests that academic adult, academic pediatric, and nonacademic adult hospitalists are fairly evenly compensated when considering productivity, but nonacademic pediatric hospitalist respondents earned significantly more per wRVU. From this perspective, pediatric hospitalists appear to be similarly compensated, if not better, than their adult hospitalist colleagues.
While differences in compensation per wRVU may be minimal between nonacademic and academic hospitalists, there remains a significant difference in total compensation. Median compensation for nonacademic internal medicine hospitalists was approximately $63,000 more than that reported for academic internal medicine hospitalists. This doesn’t come as a surprise since compensation tends to be lower in academic settings across all specialties. It could be valuable for future compensation and productivity assessments to define and measure academic and other forms of nonbillable hospitalist productivity. Development of national standards for nonbillable productivity units could help create a more comprehensive model for structuring hospitalist compensation.
While it’s important to understand compensation benchmarks in order to remain competitive as an hospital medicine group, money isn’t everything. Group culture, professional development and growth opportunities, and schedules that afford better work-life integration are important factors that contribute to hospitalist “compensation” valuations. Arguably these factors are more valuable than any compensation package, but it’s not easy to quantify their weight. Some indirect forms of compensation include paid time off, paid sick days, and support for professional development through allowances and protected time off for CME. Other indirect compensation includes tuition benefits for hospitalists and their family, retirement benefits programs, and the unicorn of benefits – pension plans. In the 2018 SoHM survey, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $19,875, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $28,340.
The good news is that hospitalist physician compensation has continued to rise, compared with previous years (see Figure 2), despite the relative flat trends in wRVUs and encounters. Among other reasons, this may reflect a shift from compensating hospitalists for volume towards compensation for their value.
The not-so-good news? In contrast to prior SoHM Surveys reporting compensation differences that increased at a rate of 8%-10% every 2 years, the difference in median compensation between 2016 and 2018 was 3.7%. Several factors could play into the slower acceleration rate, including differences in respondent groups between 2016 and 2018. It will be more intriguing to know whether we’re starting to see hospitalist compensation leveling off.
As the 2020 SoHM surveying period just concluded, it remains to be seen how compensation has changed in the past 2 years and whether hospitalist compensation is starting to plateau. Stay tuned for the 2020 SoHM Report available later this year, which will offer invaluable insights into hospitalist compensation trends. You can sign up to be notified when it becomes available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/SoHM.
Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.
FDA reiterates hydroxychloroquine limitations for COVID-19
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
FROM THE FDA
COVID-19: Implications in gastroenterology
What is coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
COVID-19 is a viral respiratory illness that can be potentially life-threatening and is caused by a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2). The constellation of symptoms varies in severity but most often includes fever, fatigue, myalgias, cough, and dyspnea. Digestive symptoms such as anorexia, nausea, and diarrhea have also been reported.1 The incubation period of the virus appears to range from 1 to 14 days, most commonly between 3 and 7 days.2 The virus is characterized by its efficient person-to-person transmission, with each case leading to 1.4-3.9 additional infected individuals on average, which has led to a global pandemic and one of the most significant public health crises in modern history.
What are the most vulnerable patient populations within a typical gastroenterology practice?
While the virus can affect anyone, and there are increasing reports of young individuals requiring intensive care, older patients are thought to be at the highest risk for severe disease – particularly those older than age 60 years. Those who developed disease requiring admission to an ICU in Wuhan, China, had a median age of 66 years with comorbid conditions including hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.3 In addition to these, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies those who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility to be at high risk, and patients with chronic lung disease, severe obesity, renal failure, or liver disease also may be at increased risk.4 There is often a question if patients on immunosuppression, such as those with inflammatory bowel disease, are at increased risk for the development of infection. At the time of writing, there are not available data that demonstrate this association. Regarding pregnant and lactating women, limited studies done on pregnant patients with COVID-19 revealed that the virus was not transmitted to the fetus in later stages of pregnancy or into breast milk.5 As there is much that has yet to be clearly elucidated, it is prudent to recommend that all patients adhere to social distancing guidelines (including working from home when possible) as well as frequent and thorough hand washing, avoidance of touching one’s face, and avoidance of sick contacts.
Can COVID-19 present with gastrointestinal symptoms?
While initial reports did not describe this as a common presentation, a subsequent multicenter study out of the Hubei province in China reported that nearly half of all patients in the study with COVID-19 had one or more digestive symptoms as their chief complaint. Of note, the study cited the most common digestive complaint as anorexia, which is not necessarily specific to the gastrointestinal tract. Twenty percent of the patients in their cohort did report either abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea.1,6 The majority had concomitant respiratory symptoms, though a small minority (7%) had digestive symptoms only. In patients reporting diarrhea, it was not described as high volume or clinically severe, but the digestive symptoms worsened with severity of the overall disease. Interestingly, the first patient with COVID-19 in the United States presented with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; ultimately, stool and respiratory specimens tested positive for the virus. This has led to the question of fecal-oral transmission in addition to, or in lieu of, aerosolization, which has been thought to be the primary mode of transmission.7 There have also been increasing reports of ageusia and anosmia, sometimes as the presenting complaint.8 More data are certainly needed; however, the possibility of gastrointestinal symptoms as a manifestation of COVID-19 and of fecal-oral transmission should be kept in mind when evaluating patients and performing procedures.
What kind of personal protective equipment (PPE) should I wear while performing endoscopy?
An early publication from Italy suggested a risk-stratification system in order to dictate the type of PPE to wear for endoscopy; however, official recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) have since emerged.9,10 For both upper and lower endoscopic procedures, regardless of COVID-19 status, it is recommended to wear a respirator mask, which is specifically designed to block aerosols (N95, N99, or powered air purifying respirator). Given that upper endoscopic procedures are aerosol-generating procedures and there is a theoretic risk to aerosolization during colonoscopy (especially during insertion of instruments through the biopsy channel), respirator masks will provide the most protection to the endoscopist. In addition, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in fecal samples, although of unclear clinical significance at this time, led to the recommended use of respirators for lower endoscopic procedures as well.
Furthermore, endoscopists should double-glove for all endoscopic procedures in order to reduce viral transmission from contaminated PPE to hands or clothing. Also, in known or presumptive COVID-19 positive patients, negative pressure rooms for endoscopy should be utilized when available.10
If I have been exposed or if I develop symptoms suspicious for COVID-19, what should I do?
First and foremost, a health care provider should reach out to their physician as well as department leadership if in either situation. The CDC recommends immediate self-quarantine if there is any suspicion you may have COVID-19 to minimize further person-to-person transmission.11 This means staying home from work, avoiding public places, and if possible, separating yourself from others in your home. The decision for testing may be individualized based on regional availability of tests, nature of exposure, or severity of symptoms. Many institutions have a sick health care worker triage number in place to advise further. Be cognizant of your symptoms, particularly your respiratory status, and if your condition appears to be worsening seek prompt medical attention and, if possible, call ahead to facilitate being triaged appropriately upon arrival.
As a trainee, how can I minimize my risk while continuing medical education?
Most institutions are implementing ways to minimize exposure of trainees to patients. Ways of doing so include limiting the number of individuals on bedside rounds, providing consultative care and recommendations remotely, conducting team discussions of patients remotely, avoiding workrooms or common areas, and practicing social distancing at the hospital. Some institutions are also consolidating inpatient fellows/services in order to limit fellow time in the hospital, recommending against fellow participation in endoscopy and in-person ambulatory care in order to protect fellows as well as preserve PPE. The reduction in in-person clinical care should be tempered by continuing to prioritize medical education during this time. Fellows can still be involved in an outpatient clinic setting by conducting virtual visits and engaging in telehealth, as many specialties are instituting. Furthermore, clinical conferences, board reviews, and journal club can still be conducted through digital platforms and remain interactive. Trainees can also wisely utilize this unexpected period away from the hospital to complete research projects, case reports, and review articles, thereby strengthening resumes for upcoming job searches or advanced fellowship applications.
To engage in more discussion on how to navigate educational activities in fellowship at this time, visit the AGA community.
To learn more about COVID-19 and its implications for gastroenterologists, visit the AGA university site which features helpful educational modules.
Lastly, the Joint GI Society message on COVID-19 can be found here.
References
1. Pan L et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with digestive symptoms in Hubei, China: a descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study. Am J Gastro. 2020. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000620.
2. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395:497-506.
3. Wang D et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020 Feb 7;323(11):1061-9.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Information for Healthcare Professionals: COVID-19 and Underlying Conditions. Accessed March 22, 2020.
5. Schwartz DA. An analysis of 38 pregnant women with COVID-19, their newborn infants, and maternal-fetal transmission of SARS-CoV-2: Maternal coronavirus infections and pregnancy outcomes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0901-SA.
6. Guan W et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032.
7. Gu J et al. COVID-19: Gastrointestinal manifestations and potential fecal-oral transmission. Gastroenterology. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054.
8. The New York Times. Roni Caryn Rabin, “Lost Sense of Smell May Be a Clue to Coronavirus Infection.” Accessed March 24, 2020.
9. Repici A et al. Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: What the department of endoscopy should know. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Mar 14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.019.
10. Sultan S et al. AGA Institute rapid recommendations for gastrointestinal procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gastroenterology. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.072.
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19: What to do if you are sick. Accessed March 22, 2020.
Dr. V.L. Rao is assistant professor of medicine, section of gastroenterology, hepatology, nutrition, department of internal medicine, University of Chicago Medicine; Dr. K. Rao is assistant professor, division of infectious diseases, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
What is coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
COVID-19 is a viral respiratory illness that can be potentially life-threatening and is caused by a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2). The constellation of symptoms varies in severity but most often includes fever, fatigue, myalgias, cough, and dyspnea. Digestive symptoms such as anorexia, nausea, and diarrhea have also been reported.1 The incubation period of the virus appears to range from 1 to 14 days, most commonly between 3 and 7 days.2 The virus is characterized by its efficient person-to-person transmission, with each case leading to 1.4-3.9 additional infected individuals on average, which has led to a global pandemic and one of the most significant public health crises in modern history.
What are the most vulnerable patient populations within a typical gastroenterology practice?
While the virus can affect anyone, and there are increasing reports of young individuals requiring intensive care, older patients are thought to be at the highest risk for severe disease – particularly those older than age 60 years. Those who developed disease requiring admission to an ICU in Wuhan, China, had a median age of 66 years with comorbid conditions including hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.3 In addition to these, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies those who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility to be at high risk, and patients with chronic lung disease, severe obesity, renal failure, or liver disease also may be at increased risk.4 There is often a question if patients on immunosuppression, such as those with inflammatory bowel disease, are at increased risk for the development of infection. At the time of writing, there are not available data that demonstrate this association. Regarding pregnant and lactating women, limited studies done on pregnant patients with COVID-19 revealed that the virus was not transmitted to the fetus in later stages of pregnancy or into breast milk.5 As there is much that has yet to be clearly elucidated, it is prudent to recommend that all patients adhere to social distancing guidelines (including working from home when possible) as well as frequent and thorough hand washing, avoidance of touching one’s face, and avoidance of sick contacts.
Can COVID-19 present with gastrointestinal symptoms?
While initial reports did not describe this as a common presentation, a subsequent multicenter study out of the Hubei province in China reported that nearly half of all patients in the study with COVID-19 had one or more digestive symptoms as their chief complaint. Of note, the study cited the most common digestive complaint as anorexia, which is not necessarily specific to the gastrointestinal tract. Twenty percent of the patients in their cohort did report either abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea.1,6 The majority had concomitant respiratory symptoms, though a small minority (7%) had digestive symptoms only. In patients reporting diarrhea, it was not described as high volume or clinically severe, but the digestive symptoms worsened with severity of the overall disease. Interestingly, the first patient with COVID-19 in the United States presented with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; ultimately, stool and respiratory specimens tested positive for the virus. This has led to the question of fecal-oral transmission in addition to, or in lieu of, aerosolization, which has been thought to be the primary mode of transmission.7 There have also been increasing reports of ageusia and anosmia, sometimes as the presenting complaint.8 More data are certainly needed; however, the possibility of gastrointestinal symptoms as a manifestation of COVID-19 and of fecal-oral transmission should be kept in mind when evaluating patients and performing procedures.
What kind of personal protective equipment (PPE) should I wear while performing endoscopy?
An early publication from Italy suggested a risk-stratification system in order to dictate the type of PPE to wear for endoscopy; however, official recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) have since emerged.9,10 For both upper and lower endoscopic procedures, regardless of COVID-19 status, it is recommended to wear a respirator mask, which is specifically designed to block aerosols (N95, N99, or powered air purifying respirator). Given that upper endoscopic procedures are aerosol-generating procedures and there is a theoretic risk to aerosolization during colonoscopy (especially during insertion of instruments through the biopsy channel), respirator masks will provide the most protection to the endoscopist. In addition, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in fecal samples, although of unclear clinical significance at this time, led to the recommended use of respirators for lower endoscopic procedures as well.
Furthermore, endoscopists should double-glove for all endoscopic procedures in order to reduce viral transmission from contaminated PPE to hands or clothing. Also, in known or presumptive COVID-19 positive patients, negative pressure rooms for endoscopy should be utilized when available.10
If I have been exposed or if I develop symptoms suspicious for COVID-19, what should I do?
First and foremost, a health care provider should reach out to their physician as well as department leadership if in either situation. The CDC recommends immediate self-quarantine if there is any suspicion you may have COVID-19 to minimize further person-to-person transmission.11 This means staying home from work, avoiding public places, and if possible, separating yourself from others in your home. The decision for testing may be individualized based on regional availability of tests, nature of exposure, or severity of symptoms. Many institutions have a sick health care worker triage number in place to advise further. Be cognizant of your symptoms, particularly your respiratory status, and if your condition appears to be worsening seek prompt medical attention and, if possible, call ahead to facilitate being triaged appropriately upon arrival.
As a trainee, how can I minimize my risk while continuing medical education?
Most institutions are implementing ways to minimize exposure of trainees to patients. Ways of doing so include limiting the number of individuals on bedside rounds, providing consultative care and recommendations remotely, conducting team discussions of patients remotely, avoiding workrooms or common areas, and practicing social distancing at the hospital. Some institutions are also consolidating inpatient fellows/services in order to limit fellow time in the hospital, recommending against fellow participation in endoscopy and in-person ambulatory care in order to protect fellows as well as preserve PPE. The reduction in in-person clinical care should be tempered by continuing to prioritize medical education during this time. Fellows can still be involved in an outpatient clinic setting by conducting virtual visits and engaging in telehealth, as many specialties are instituting. Furthermore, clinical conferences, board reviews, and journal club can still be conducted through digital platforms and remain interactive. Trainees can also wisely utilize this unexpected period away from the hospital to complete research projects, case reports, and review articles, thereby strengthening resumes for upcoming job searches or advanced fellowship applications.
To engage in more discussion on how to navigate educational activities in fellowship at this time, visit the AGA community.
To learn more about COVID-19 and its implications for gastroenterologists, visit the AGA university site which features helpful educational modules.
Lastly, the Joint GI Society message on COVID-19 can be found here.
References
1. Pan L et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with digestive symptoms in Hubei, China: a descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study. Am J Gastro. 2020. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000620.
2. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395:497-506.
3. Wang D et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020 Feb 7;323(11):1061-9.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Information for Healthcare Professionals: COVID-19 and Underlying Conditions. Accessed March 22, 2020.
5. Schwartz DA. An analysis of 38 pregnant women with COVID-19, their newborn infants, and maternal-fetal transmission of SARS-CoV-2: Maternal coronavirus infections and pregnancy outcomes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0901-SA.
6. Guan W et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032.
7. Gu J et al. COVID-19: Gastrointestinal manifestations and potential fecal-oral transmission. Gastroenterology. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054.
8. The New York Times. Roni Caryn Rabin, “Lost Sense of Smell May Be a Clue to Coronavirus Infection.” Accessed March 24, 2020.
9. Repici A et al. Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: What the department of endoscopy should know. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Mar 14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.019.
10. Sultan S et al. AGA Institute rapid recommendations for gastrointestinal procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gastroenterology. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.072.
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19: What to do if you are sick. Accessed March 22, 2020.
Dr. V.L. Rao is assistant professor of medicine, section of gastroenterology, hepatology, nutrition, department of internal medicine, University of Chicago Medicine; Dr. K. Rao is assistant professor, division of infectious diseases, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
What is coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
COVID-19 is a viral respiratory illness that can be potentially life-threatening and is caused by a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2). The constellation of symptoms varies in severity but most often includes fever, fatigue, myalgias, cough, and dyspnea. Digestive symptoms such as anorexia, nausea, and diarrhea have also been reported.1 The incubation period of the virus appears to range from 1 to 14 days, most commonly between 3 and 7 days.2 The virus is characterized by its efficient person-to-person transmission, with each case leading to 1.4-3.9 additional infected individuals on average, which has led to a global pandemic and one of the most significant public health crises in modern history.
What are the most vulnerable patient populations within a typical gastroenterology practice?
While the virus can affect anyone, and there are increasing reports of young individuals requiring intensive care, older patients are thought to be at the highest risk for severe disease – particularly those older than age 60 years. Those who developed disease requiring admission to an ICU in Wuhan, China, had a median age of 66 years with comorbid conditions including hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.3 In addition to these, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies those who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility to be at high risk, and patients with chronic lung disease, severe obesity, renal failure, or liver disease also may be at increased risk.4 There is often a question if patients on immunosuppression, such as those with inflammatory bowel disease, are at increased risk for the development of infection. At the time of writing, there are not available data that demonstrate this association. Regarding pregnant and lactating women, limited studies done on pregnant patients with COVID-19 revealed that the virus was not transmitted to the fetus in later stages of pregnancy or into breast milk.5 As there is much that has yet to be clearly elucidated, it is prudent to recommend that all patients adhere to social distancing guidelines (including working from home when possible) as well as frequent and thorough hand washing, avoidance of touching one’s face, and avoidance of sick contacts.
Can COVID-19 present with gastrointestinal symptoms?
While initial reports did not describe this as a common presentation, a subsequent multicenter study out of the Hubei province in China reported that nearly half of all patients in the study with COVID-19 had one or more digestive symptoms as their chief complaint. Of note, the study cited the most common digestive complaint as anorexia, which is not necessarily specific to the gastrointestinal tract. Twenty percent of the patients in their cohort did report either abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea.1,6 The majority had concomitant respiratory symptoms, though a small minority (7%) had digestive symptoms only. In patients reporting diarrhea, it was not described as high volume or clinically severe, but the digestive symptoms worsened with severity of the overall disease. Interestingly, the first patient with COVID-19 in the United States presented with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; ultimately, stool and respiratory specimens tested positive for the virus. This has led to the question of fecal-oral transmission in addition to, or in lieu of, aerosolization, which has been thought to be the primary mode of transmission.7 There have also been increasing reports of ageusia and anosmia, sometimes as the presenting complaint.8 More data are certainly needed; however, the possibility of gastrointestinal symptoms as a manifestation of COVID-19 and of fecal-oral transmission should be kept in mind when evaluating patients and performing procedures.
What kind of personal protective equipment (PPE) should I wear while performing endoscopy?
An early publication from Italy suggested a risk-stratification system in order to dictate the type of PPE to wear for endoscopy; however, official recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) have since emerged.9,10 For both upper and lower endoscopic procedures, regardless of COVID-19 status, it is recommended to wear a respirator mask, which is specifically designed to block aerosols (N95, N99, or powered air purifying respirator). Given that upper endoscopic procedures are aerosol-generating procedures and there is a theoretic risk to aerosolization during colonoscopy (especially during insertion of instruments through the biopsy channel), respirator masks will provide the most protection to the endoscopist. In addition, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in fecal samples, although of unclear clinical significance at this time, led to the recommended use of respirators for lower endoscopic procedures as well.
Furthermore, endoscopists should double-glove for all endoscopic procedures in order to reduce viral transmission from contaminated PPE to hands or clothing. Also, in known or presumptive COVID-19 positive patients, negative pressure rooms for endoscopy should be utilized when available.10
If I have been exposed or if I develop symptoms suspicious for COVID-19, what should I do?
First and foremost, a health care provider should reach out to their physician as well as department leadership if in either situation. The CDC recommends immediate self-quarantine if there is any suspicion you may have COVID-19 to minimize further person-to-person transmission.11 This means staying home from work, avoiding public places, and if possible, separating yourself from others in your home. The decision for testing may be individualized based on regional availability of tests, nature of exposure, or severity of symptoms. Many institutions have a sick health care worker triage number in place to advise further. Be cognizant of your symptoms, particularly your respiratory status, and if your condition appears to be worsening seek prompt medical attention and, if possible, call ahead to facilitate being triaged appropriately upon arrival.
As a trainee, how can I minimize my risk while continuing medical education?
Most institutions are implementing ways to minimize exposure of trainees to patients. Ways of doing so include limiting the number of individuals on bedside rounds, providing consultative care and recommendations remotely, conducting team discussions of patients remotely, avoiding workrooms or common areas, and practicing social distancing at the hospital. Some institutions are also consolidating inpatient fellows/services in order to limit fellow time in the hospital, recommending against fellow participation in endoscopy and in-person ambulatory care in order to protect fellows as well as preserve PPE. The reduction in in-person clinical care should be tempered by continuing to prioritize medical education during this time. Fellows can still be involved in an outpatient clinic setting by conducting virtual visits and engaging in telehealth, as many specialties are instituting. Furthermore, clinical conferences, board reviews, and journal club can still be conducted through digital platforms and remain interactive. Trainees can also wisely utilize this unexpected period away from the hospital to complete research projects, case reports, and review articles, thereby strengthening resumes for upcoming job searches or advanced fellowship applications.
To engage in more discussion on how to navigate educational activities in fellowship at this time, visit the AGA community.
To learn more about COVID-19 and its implications for gastroenterologists, visit the AGA university site which features helpful educational modules.
Lastly, the Joint GI Society message on COVID-19 can be found here.
References
1. Pan L et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with digestive symptoms in Hubei, China: a descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study. Am J Gastro. 2020. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000620.
2. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395:497-506.
3. Wang D et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020 Feb 7;323(11):1061-9.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Information for Healthcare Professionals: COVID-19 and Underlying Conditions. Accessed March 22, 2020.
5. Schwartz DA. An analysis of 38 pregnant women with COVID-19, their newborn infants, and maternal-fetal transmission of SARS-CoV-2: Maternal coronavirus infections and pregnancy outcomes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0901-SA.
6. Guan W et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032.
7. Gu J et al. COVID-19: Gastrointestinal manifestations and potential fecal-oral transmission. Gastroenterology. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054.
8. The New York Times. Roni Caryn Rabin, “Lost Sense of Smell May Be a Clue to Coronavirus Infection.” Accessed March 24, 2020.
9. Repici A et al. Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: What the department of endoscopy should know. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Mar 14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.019.
10. Sultan S et al. AGA Institute rapid recommendations for gastrointestinal procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gastroenterology. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.072.
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19: What to do if you are sick. Accessed March 22, 2020.
Dr. V.L. Rao is assistant professor of medicine, section of gastroenterology, hepatology, nutrition, department of internal medicine, University of Chicago Medicine; Dr. K. Rao is assistant professor, division of infectious diseases, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
COVID-19: Experts call for ‘urgent’ global action to prevent suicide
A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.
“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.
The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.
“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.
“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.
Lessons from the past
During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.
There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak.
An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.
In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
These include:
- Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
- Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
- Staff training to support new ways of working.
- Increased support for mental health helplines.
- Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
- Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
- Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.
Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.
“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.
Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
Concerning spike in gun sales
Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.
“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported.
In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.
“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.
“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.
“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.
The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.
“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.
“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.
Lessons from the past
During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.
There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak.
An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.
In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
These include:
- Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
- Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
- Staff training to support new ways of working.
- Increased support for mental health helplines.
- Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
- Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
- Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.
Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.
“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.
Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
Concerning spike in gun sales
Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.
“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported.
In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.
“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.
“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.
“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.
The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.
“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.
“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.
Lessons from the past
During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.
There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak.
An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.
In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
These include:
- Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
- Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
- Staff training to support new ways of working.
- Increased support for mental health helplines.
- Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
- Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
- Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.
Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.
“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.
Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
Concerning spike in gun sales
Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.
“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported.
In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.
“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.
“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.
This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Global registry collects data on pediatric cancer patients with COVID-19
A week after its launch, a new online registry has information on more than 2 dozen cases of pediatric cancer patients with COVID-19.
The registry, created by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, is the first global COVID-19 registry for children with cancer.
Clinicians enter cases through an online form, then complete 30- and 60-day follow-up reports via email. St. Jude compiles the data and releases regularly updated summaries, including the number of cases by country and by treatment. Eventually, researchers might be able to apply for access to the raw data for their own projects.
It’s all free of charge, said Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, chair of the department of global pediatric medicine at St. Jude.
The registry is hosted on a website called “The Global COVID-19 Observatory and Resource Center for Childhood Cancer.” In addition to the registry, the website has a resource library and a discussion forum where clinicians can exchange information.
Other COVID-19 cancer registries have launched recently as well, including registries created by the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The idea is to compile and disseminate best practices and other information quickly amid concerns that immunosuppressed cancer patients might be especially vulnerable.
So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case for children. Their relative protection from the disease and serious complications seems to hold even when they have cancer, Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo said.
“When we talk with the people in China” the number of COVID-19 cases in children with cancer is “very small,” he said. There are a couple of reports from Europe finding the same thing, and the severity of COVID-19 also “seems to be lower than you would expect,” he added.
The new registry will help better define the situation, according to Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo.
St. Jude is working with European countries that have their own national pediatric cancer COVID-19 registries to share information. St. Jude’s ties with lower- and middle-income countries, established via the department of global pediatric medicine, should help populate the global registry as well.
Furthermore, international surveys are being planned to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on children with cancer and their access to care.
A week after its launch, a new online registry has information on more than 2 dozen cases of pediatric cancer patients with COVID-19.
The registry, created by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, is the first global COVID-19 registry for children with cancer.
Clinicians enter cases through an online form, then complete 30- and 60-day follow-up reports via email. St. Jude compiles the data and releases regularly updated summaries, including the number of cases by country and by treatment. Eventually, researchers might be able to apply for access to the raw data for their own projects.
It’s all free of charge, said Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, chair of the department of global pediatric medicine at St. Jude.
The registry is hosted on a website called “The Global COVID-19 Observatory and Resource Center for Childhood Cancer.” In addition to the registry, the website has a resource library and a discussion forum where clinicians can exchange information.
Other COVID-19 cancer registries have launched recently as well, including registries created by the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The idea is to compile and disseminate best practices and other information quickly amid concerns that immunosuppressed cancer patients might be especially vulnerable.
So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case for children. Their relative protection from the disease and serious complications seems to hold even when they have cancer, Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo said.
“When we talk with the people in China” the number of COVID-19 cases in children with cancer is “very small,” he said. There are a couple of reports from Europe finding the same thing, and the severity of COVID-19 also “seems to be lower than you would expect,” he added.
The new registry will help better define the situation, according to Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo.
St. Jude is working with European countries that have their own national pediatric cancer COVID-19 registries to share information. St. Jude’s ties with lower- and middle-income countries, established via the department of global pediatric medicine, should help populate the global registry as well.
Furthermore, international surveys are being planned to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on children with cancer and their access to care.
A week after its launch, a new online registry has information on more than 2 dozen cases of pediatric cancer patients with COVID-19.
The registry, created by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, is the first global COVID-19 registry for children with cancer.
Clinicians enter cases through an online form, then complete 30- and 60-day follow-up reports via email. St. Jude compiles the data and releases regularly updated summaries, including the number of cases by country and by treatment. Eventually, researchers might be able to apply for access to the raw data for their own projects.
It’s all free of charge, said Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, chair of the department of global pediatric medicine at St. Jude.
The registry is hosted on a website called “The Global COVID-19 Observatory and Resource Center for Childhood Cancer.” In addition to the registry, the website has a resource library and a discussion forum where clinicians can exchange information.
Other COVID-19 cancer registries have launched recently as well, including registries created by the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The idea is to compile and disseminate best practices and other information quickly amid concerns that immunosuppressed cancer patients might be especially vulnerable.
So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case for children. Their relative protection from the disease and serious complications seems to hold even when they have cancer, Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo said.
“When we talk with the people in China” the number of COVID-19 cases in children with cancer is “very small,” he said. There are a couple of reports from Europe finding the same thing, and the severity of COVID-19 also “seems to be lower than you would expect,” he added.
The new registry will help better define the situation, according to Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo.
St. Jude is working with European countries that have their own national pediatric cancer COVID-19 registries to share information. St. Jude’s ties with lower- and middle-income countries, established via the department of global pediatric medicine, should help populate the global registry as well.
Furthermore, international surveys are being planned to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on children with cancer and their access to care.