Mixed Topics

Dear colleagues,

The first issue of The New Gastroenterologist in 2020 consists of a particularly interesting array of articles and the introduction of a new medical ethics series!

This month’s “In Focus” article, brought to you by Jennifer Maratt (Indiana University) and Elena Stoffel (University of Michigan), provides a high yield overview of hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes, with guidance on when a referral to a high risk cancer specialist and geneticist is warranted.

Daniel Mills (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) gives us a valuable legal perspective of the role of electronic patient portals in the dissemination of information and medical advice to patients – such an important topic for everyone to be aware of as the nature of patient communication now strongly relies on electronic messaging.

R. Thomas Finn III (Palo Alto Medical Foundation) and David Leiman (Duke) nicely broach the issue of patient satisfaction. This is a timely topic as many institutions are not only publishing patient reviews online so that they are readily available to the public, but are also making financial incentives contingent on high patient ratings. The article discusses the evolution of the emphasis placed on patient satisfaction throughout the years with tips on how to navigate some of the distinct challenges within gastroenterology.

As part of our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives series, David Stokesberry (Digestive Disease Specialists Inc, Oklahoma City) discusses the nuts and bolts of ambulatory endoscopy centers and some of the challenges and benefits that accompany ownership of such centers.

An often overlooked aspect of gastroenterology training is nutrition. In our postfellowship pathways section, Dejan Micic (University of Chicago) outlines his decision to pursue a career in nutrition support, small bowel disorders, and the practice of deep enteroscopy.

Finally, this quarter’s newsletter features the start of a new section, which I am very excited to introduce – a case based series which will address issues in clinical medical ethics specific to gastroenterology. Lauren Feld (University of Washington) writes the inaugural piece for the section, providing a systematic approach to the patient with an existing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order that is about to undergo endoscopy.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Sincerely,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief

Dear colleagues,

The first issue of The New Gastroenterologist in 2020 consists of a particularly interesting array of articles and the introduction of a new medical ethics series!

This month’s “In Focus” article, brought to you by Jennifer Maratt (Indiana University) and Elena Stoffel (University of Michigan), provides a high yield overview of hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes, with guidance on when a referral to a high risk cancer specialist and geneticist is warranted.

Daniel Mills (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) gives us a valuable legal perspective of the role of electronic patient portals in the dissemination of information and medical advice to patients – such an important topic for everyone to be aware of as the nature of patient communication now strongly relies on electronic messaging.

R. Thomas Finn III (Palo Alto Medical Foundation) and David Leiman (Duke) nicely broach the issue of patient satisfaction. This is a timely topic as many institutions are not only publishing patient reviews online so that they are readily available to the public, but are also making financial incentives contingent on high patient ratings. The article discusses the evolution of the emphasis placed on patient satisfaction throughout the years with tips on how to navigate some of the distinct challenges within gastroenterology.

As part of our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives series, David Stokesberry (Digestive Disease Specialists Inc, Oklahoma City) discusses the nuts and bolts of ambulatory endoscopy centers and some of the challenges and benefits that accompany ownership of such centers.

An often overlooked aspect of gastroenterology training is nutrition. In our postfellowship pathways section, Dejan Micic (University of Chicago) outlines his decision to pursue a career in nutrition support, small bowel disorders, and the practice of deep enteroscopy.

Finally, this quarter’s newsletter features the start of a new section, which I am very excited to introduce – a case based series which will address issues in clinical medical ethics specific to gastroenterology. Lauren Feld (University of Washington) writes the inaugural piece for the section, providing a systematic approach to the patient with an existing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order that is about to undergo endoscopy.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Sincerely,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief

Dear colleagues,

The first issue of The New Gastroenterologist in 2020 consists of a particularly interesting array of articles and the introduction of a new medical ethics series!

This month’s “In Focus” article, brought to you by Jennifer Maratt (Indiana University) and Elena Stoffel (University of Michigan), provides a high yield overview of hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes, with guidance on when a referral to a high risk cancer specialist and geneticist is warranted.

Daniel Mills (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) gives us a valuable legal perspective of the role of electronic patient portals in the dissemination of information and medical advice to patients – such an important topic for everyone to be aware of as the nature of patient communication now strongly relies on electronic messaging.

R. Thomas Finn III (Palo Alto Medical Foundation) and David Leiman (Duke) nicely broach the issue of patient satisfaction. This is a timely topic as many institutions are not only publishing patient reviews online so that they are readily available to the public, but are also making financial incentives contingent on high patient ratings. The article discusses the evolution of the emphasis placed on patient satisfaction throughout the years with tips on how to navigate some of the distinct challenges within gastroenterology.

As part of our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives series, David Stokesberry (Digestive Disease Specialists Inc, Oklahoma City) discusses the nuts and bolts of ambulatory endoscopy centers and some of the challenges and benefits that accompany ownership of such centers.

An often overlooked aspect of gastroenterology training is nutrition. In our postfellowship pathways section, Dejan Micic (University of Chicago) outlines his decision to pursue a career in nutrition support, small bowel disorders, and the practice of deep enteroscopy.

Finally, this quarter’s newsletter features the start of a new section, which I am very excited to introduce – a case based series which will address issues in clinical medical ethics specific to gastroenterology. Lauren Feld (University of Washington) writes the inaugural piece for the section, providing a systematic approach to the patient with an existing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order that is about to undergo endoscopy.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Sincerely,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief

As practicing clinicians, we all want to do what is best for patients. We hope our treatments will improve actual health outcomes (and not intermediate process metrics), so we make decisions based on “evidence” that lies on a continuum from “I hope” on one end to “I’m sure” on the other. This month, our three lead articles represent differing points along that continuum.

First, we consider H. pylori and gastric cancer. We know H. pylori eradication reduces ulcer risk and that H. pylori is a risk for gastric cancer. We did not know whether eradication reduces cancer risk. In a large retrospective study from the VA, Kumar et al demonstrated that eradication (not just treatment) substantially reduced subsequent gastric cancers. These data are not definitive, but they nudge us towards the “I’m sure” end of the continuum.

A second group of studies (both retrospective and prospective) suggests that successful weight loss after bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial reduction of risk for 13 cancer types related to obesity. Moderate evidence but again nudging us away from “I hope.”

A third article highlights the recent Clinical Practice Update on Barrett’s esophagus published by the AGA Clinical Practice Update Committee in Gastroenterology’s February 2020 issue. This practice update helps us understand the impact we will make on cancer reduction with surveillance and treatment of Barrett’s. Despite this publication, Barrett’s management remains closer to “hope” than “sure.”

The difficulty we face, as clinician or patient, is what to do when outcomes are really serious but evidence remains close to the “I hope” end. Take a reasonably healthy 68-year-old man with asymptomatic coronary disease, but a very high (and increasing) coronary artery calcium score, despite maximum statins and appropriate lifestyle practices. Should he initiate a PCSK9 inhibitor ($14,000 per year) absent evidence that it would alter cardiac risk? Recently, a retrospective study nudged us along the continuum (Peng et al. JACC Cardiovascular Imaging. 2020 Jan;13[1 Pt 1]:83-93). A serious outcome, suggestive but not definitive evidence, and no time for an RCT. Will such aggressive therapy help? I sure hope so.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

As practicing clinicians, we all want to do what is best for patients. We hope our treatments will improve actual health outcomes (and not intermediate process metrics), so we make decisions based on “evidence” that lies on a continuum from “I hope” on one end to “I’m sure” on the other. This month, our three lead articles represent differing points along that continuum.

First, we consider H. pylori and gastric cancer. We know H. pylori eradication reduces ulcer risk and that H. pylori is a risk for gastric cancer. We did not know whether eradication reduces cancer risk. In a large retrospective study from the VA, Kumar et al demonstrated that eradication (not just treatment) substantially reduced subsequent gastric cancers. These data are not definitive, but they nudge us towards the “I’m sure” end of the continuum.

A second group of studies (both retrospective and prospective) suggests that successful weight loss after bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial reduction of risk for 13 cancer types related to obesity. Moderate evidence but again nudging us away from “I hope.”

A third article highlights the recent Clinical Practice Update on Barrett’s esophagus published by the AGA Clinical Practice Update Committee in Gastroenterology’s February 2020 issue. This practice update helps us understand the impact we will make on cancer reduction with surveillance and treatment of Barrett’s. Despite this publication, Barrett’s management remains closer to “hope” than “sure.”

The difficulty we face, as clinician or patient, is what to do when outcomes are really serious but evidence remains close to the “I hope” end. Take a reasonably healthy 68-year-old man with asymptomatic coronary disease, but a very high (and increasing) coronary artery calcium score, despite maximum statins and appropriate lifestyle practices. Should he initiate a PCSK9 inhibitor ($14,000 per year) absent evidence that it would alter cardiac risk? Recently, a retrospective study nudged us along the continuum (Peng et al. JACC Cardiovascular Imaging. 2020 Jan;13[1 Pt 1]:83-93). A serious outcome, suggestive but not definitive evidence, and no time for an RCT. Will such aggressive therapy help? I sure hope so.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

As practicing clinicians, we all want to do what is best for patients. We hope our treatments will improve actual health outcomes (and not intermediate process metrics), so we make decisions based on “evidence” that lies on a continuum from “I hope” on one end to “I’m sure” on the other. This month, our three lead articles represent differing points along that continuum.

First, we consider H. pylori and gastric cancer. We know H. pylori eradication reduces ulcer risk and that H. pylori is a risk for gastric cancer. We did not know whether eradication reduces cancer risk. In a large retrospective study from the VA, Kumar et al demonstrated that eradication (not just treatment) substantially reduced subsequent gastric cancers. These data are not definitive, but they nudge us towards the “I’m sure” end of the continuum.

A second group of studies (both retrospective and prospective) suggests that successful weight loss after bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial reduction of risk for 13 cancer types related to obesity. Moderate evidence but again nudging us away from “I hope.”

A third article highlights the recent Clinical Practice Update on Barrett’s esophagus published by the AGA Clinical Practice Update Committee in Gastroenterology’s February 2020 issue. This practice update helps us understand the impact we will make on cancer reduction with surveillance and treatment of Barrett’s. Despite this publication, Barrett’s management remains closer to “hope” than “sure.”

The difficulty we face, as clinician or patient, is what to do when outcomes are really serious but evidence remains close to the “I hope” end. Take a reasonably healthy 68-year-old man with asymptomatic coronary disease, but a very high (and increasing) coronary artery calcium score, despite maximum statins and appropriate lifestyle practices. Should he initiate a PCSK9 inhibitor ($14,000 per year) absent evidence that it would alter cardiac risk? Recently, a retrospective study nudged us along the continuum (Peng et al. JACC Cardiovascular Imaging. 2020 Jan;13[1 Pt 1]:83-93). A serious outcome, suggestive but not definitive evidence, and no time for an RCT. Will such aggressive therapy help? I sure hope so.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

In hospital medicine, inpatients often request more freedom to move within the hospital complex for a wide range of both benign and potentially concerning reasons, says Sara Stream, MD.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Hospitalists are often confronted with a dilemma when considering these patient requests: how to promote patient-centered care and autonomy while balancing patient safety, concerns for hospital liability, and the delivery of timely, efficient medical care,” said Dr. Stream, a hospitalist at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. Guidance from medical literature and institutional policies on inpatient movement are lacking, so Dr. Stream coauthored an article seeking to develop a framework with which hospitalists can approach patient requests for liberalized movement.

The authors concluded that for a small subset of patients, liberalized movement within the hospital may be clinically feasible: those who are medically, physically, and psychiatrically stable enough to move off their assigned floors without inordinate risk. “For the rest of inpatients, movement outside their monitored inpatient settings may interfere with appropriate medical care and undermine the indications for acute hospitalization,” Dr. Stream said.

Creating institutional policy that identifies relevant clinical, legal and ethical considerations, while incorporating the varied perspectives of physicians, patients, nurses, and hospital administration/risk management will allow requests for increased movement to be evaluated systematically and transparently.

“When patients request liberalized movement, hospitalists should consider the requests systematically: first to identify the intent behind requests, and then to follow a framework to determine whether increased movement would be safe and allow appropriate medical care without creating additional risks,” Dr. Stream said.

Hospitalists should assess and compile individual patient requests for liberalized movement and work with other physicians, nurses, hospital administration, and risk management to devise pertinent policy on this issue that is specific to their institutions. “By eventually creating clear guidelines in policy, health care providers will spend less time managing each individual request to leave the floor because they have a systematic strategy for making consistent decisions about patient movement,” the authors concluded.

Reference

1. Stream S, Alfandre D. “Just Getting a Cup of Coffee” – Considering Best Practices for Patients’ Movement off the Hospital Floor. J Hosp Med. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3227.

In hospital medicine, inpatients often request more freedom to move within the hospital complex for a wide range of both benign and potentially concerning reasons, says Sara Stream, MD.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Hospitalists are often confronted with a dilemma when considering these patient requests: how to promote patient-centered care and autonomy while balancing patient safety, concerns for hospital liability, and the delivery of timely, efficient medical care,” said Dr. Stream, a hospitalist at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. Guidance from medical literature and institutional policies on inpatient movement are lacking, so Dr. Stream coauthored an article seeking to develop a framework with which hospitalists can approach patient requests for liberalized movement.

The authors concluded that for a small subset of patients, liberalized movement within the hospital may be clinically feasible: those who are medically, physically, and psychiatrically stable enough to move off their assigned floors without inordinate risk. “For the rest of inpatients, movement outside their monitored inpatient settings may interfere with appropriate medical care and undermine the indications for acute hospitalization,” Dr. Stream said.

Creating institutional policy that identifies relevant clinical, legal and ethical considerations, while incorporating the varied perspectives of physicians, patients, nurses, and hospital administration/risk management will allow requests for increased movement to be evaluated systematically and transparently.

“When patients request liberalized movement, hospitalists should consider the requests systematically: first to identify the intent behind requests, and then to follow a framework to determine whether increased movement would be safe and allow appropriate medical care without creating additional risks,” Dr. Stream said.

Hospitalists should assess and compile individual patient requests for liberalized movement and work with other physicians, nurses, hospital administration, and risk management to devise pertinent policy on this issue that is specific to their institutions. “By eventually creating clear guidelines in policy, health care providers will spend less time managing each individual request to leave the floor because they have a systematic strategy for making consistent decisions about patient movement,” the authors concluded.

Reference

1. Stream S, Alfandre D. “Just Getting a Cup of Coffee” – Considering Best Practices for Patients’ Movement off the Hospital Floor. J Hosp Med. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3227.

In hospital medicine, inpatients often request more freedom to move within the hospital complex for a wide range of both benign and potentially concerning reasons, says Sara Stream, MD.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Hospitalists are often confronted with a dilemma when considering these patient requests: how to promote patient-centered care and autonomy while balancing patient safety, concerns for hospital liability, and the delivery of timely, efficient medical care,” said Dr. Stream, a hospitalist at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. Guidance from medical literature and institutional policies on inpatient movement are lacking, so Dr. Stream coauthored an article seeking to develop a framework with which hospitalists can approach patient requests for liberalized movement.

The authors concluded that for a small subset of patients, liberalized movement within the hospital may be clinically feasible: those who are medically, physically, and psychiatrically stable enough to move off their assigned floors without inordinate risk. “For the rest of inpatients, movement outside their monitored inpatient settings may interfere with appropriate medical care and undermine the indications for acute hospitalization,” Dr. Stream said.

Creating institutional policy that identifies relevant clinical, legal and ethical considerations, while incorporating the varied perspectives of physicians, patients, nurses, and hospital administration/risk management will allow requests for increased movement to be evaluated systematically and transparently.

“When patients request liberalized movement, hospitalists should consider the requests systematically: first to identify the intent behind requests, and then to follow a framework to determine whether increased movement would be safe and allow appropriate medical care without creating additional risks,” Dr. Stream said.

Hospitalists should assess and compile individual patient requests for liberalized movement and work with other physicians, nurses, hospital administration, and risk management to devise pertinent policy on this issue that is specific to their institutions. “By eventually creating clear guidelines in policy, health care providers will spend less time managing each individual request to leave the floor because they have a systematic strategy for making consistent decisions about patient movement,” the authors concluded.

Reference

1. Stream S, Alfandre D. “Just Getting a Cup of Coffee” – Considering Best Practices for Patients’ Movement off the Hospital Floor. J Hosp Med. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3227.

Like me, some of you may have been following the agonizing news about the unprecedented brushfires in Australia that have devastated human, animal, and vegetative life in that country so culturally akin to our own.¹ For many people who believe the overwhelming majority of scientific reports on climate change, these apocalyptic fires are an empirical demonstration of the truth of the dire prophecies for the future of our planet. Scientists have demonstrated that although climate change may not have caused the worst fires in Australia’s history, they may have contributed to the conditions that enabled them to spread so far and wide and reach such a destructive intensity.²The heartbreaking pictures of singed koalas and displaced people and the helpless feeling that all I can do from here is donate money set me to thinking about the relationship between the military, health, and climate change, which is the subject of this column.

As I write this in mid-January of a new decade and glance at the weather headlines, I read about an earthquake in Puerto Rico and tornadoes in the southern US. This makes it quite plausible that our comfortable lifestyle and technological civilization could in the coming decades go the way of the dinosaurs, also victims of climate change.

Initially, my first thought about this relationship is a negative one—images of scorched earth policies that stretch back to ancient wars jump to mind. Reflection and research on the topic though suggest that the relationship may be more complicated and conflicted. Alas, I can only touch on a few of the themes in this brief format.

It may not be as obvious that climate change also threatens the military, which is the guardian of that civilization. In 2018, for example, Hurricane Michael caused nearly $5 billion in damages to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida.³ A year later, the US Department of Defense (DoD) released a report on the effects of climate change as mandated by Congress.⁴ Even though some congressional critics expressed concern about the report’s lack of depth and detail,⁵ the report asserted that, “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations.”⁴

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not immune either. Natural disasters have already disrupted the delivery of health care at its many aging facilities. Climate change was called the “engine”⁶ driving Hurricane Maria, which in 2017 slammed into Puerto Rico, including its VA medical center, and resulted in shortages of supplies, staff, and basic utilities.⁷ The facility and the island are still trying to rebuild. In response to weather-exposed vulnerability in VA infrastructure, Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, sent a letter to VA leadership arguing that “Strengthening VA’s resilience to climate change is consistent with the agency’s mission to deliver timely, high-quality care and benefits to America’s veterans.”⁸

It has been reported that the current administration has countered initiatives to prepare for the challenges of providing health care to service members and veterans in a climate changed world.⁹ Sadly, but predictably, in the politicized federal health care arena, the safety of our service members and, in turn, the domestic and national security and peace that depend on them are caught in the partisan debate over global warming, though it is not likely Congress or federal agency leaders will abandon planning to safeguard service members who will see duty and combat in a radically altered ecology and veterans and who will need to have VA continue to be the reliable safety net despite an increasingly erratic environment.¹⁰

Climate change is a divisive political issue; there is a proud tradition of conservatism and self-reliance in military members, active duty and veteran alike. That was why I was surprised and impressed when I saw the results of a recent survey on climate change. In January 2019, 293 active-duty service members and veterans were surveyed.

Participants were selected to reflect the ethnic makeup, educational level, and political allegiance of the military population, which enhanced the validity of the findings.¹¹Participants were asked to indicate whether they believed that the earth was warming secondary to human or natural processes; not growing warmer at all; or whether they were unsure. Similar to the general population, 46% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic.¹¹ More than three-fourths believed it was likely climate change would adversely affect the places they worked, like military installations; 61% thought it likely that global warming could lead to armed conflict over resources. Seven in 10 respondents believed that climate is changing vs 46% who did not. Of respondents who believe climate change is real, 87% see it as a threat to military bases compared with 60% who do not accept the science that the earth is warming.¹¹

This survey, though, is only a small study, and the military and VA are big tents under which a wide range of political persuasions and diverse beliefs co-exist. There are many readers of Federal Practitioner who will no doubt reject nearly every word I have written, in what I know is a controversial column. But it matters that the military and veteran constituency are thinking and speaking about the issue of climate change.¹¹ Why? The answer takes us back to the disaster in Australia. When the fires and the devastation they wrought escalated beyond the powers of the civil authorities to handle, it was the military whose technical skill, coordinated readiness, and personal courage and dedication that was called on to rescue thousands of civilians from the inferno.¹² So it will be in our country and around the world when disasters—manmade, natural, or both—threaten to engulf life in all its wondrous variety. Those who battle extreme weather will have unique health needs, and their valiant sacrifices deserve to have health care systems ready and able to treat them.

Like me, some of you may have been following the agonizing news about the unprecedented brushfires in Australia that have devastated human, animal, and vegetative life in that country so culturally akin to our own.¹ For many people who believe the overwhelming majority of scientific reports on climate change, these apocalyptic fires are an empirical demonstration of the truth of the dire prophecies for the future of our planet. Scientists have demonstrated that although climate change may not have caused the worst fires in Australia’s history, they may have contributed to the conditions that enabled them to spread so far and wide and reach such a destructive intensity.²The heartbreaking pictures of singed koalas and displaced people and the helpless feeling that all I can do from here is donate money set me to thinking about the relationship between the military, health, and climate change, which is the subject of this column.

As I write this in mid-January of a new decade and glance at the weather headlines, I read about an earthquake in Puerto Rico and tornadoes in the southern US. This makes it quite plausible that our comfortable lifestyle and technological civilization could in the coming decades go the way of the dinosaurs, also victims of climate change.

Initially, my first thought about this relationship is a negative one—images of scorched earth policies that stretch back to ancient wars jump to mind. Reflection and research on the topic though suggest that the relationship may be more complicated and conflicted. Alas, I can only touch on a few of the themes in this brief format.

It may not be as obvious that climate change also threatens the military, which is the guardian of that civilization. In 2018, for example, Hurricane Michael caused nearly $5 billion in damages to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida.³ A year later, the US Department of Defense (DoD) released a report on the effects of climate change as mandated by Congress.⁴ Even though some congressional critics expressed concern about the report’s lack of depth and detail,⁵ the report asserted that, “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations.”⁴

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not immune either. Natural disasters have already disrupted the delivery of health care at its many aging facilities. Climate change was called the “engine”⁶ driving Hurricane Maria, which in 2017 slammed into Puerto Rico, including its VA medical center, and resulted in shortages of supplies, staff, and basic utilities.⁷ The facility and the island are still trying to rebuild. In response to weather-exposed vulnerability in VA infrastructure, Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, sent a letter to VA leadership arguing that “Strengthening VA’s resilience to climate change is consistent with the agency’s mission to deliver timely, high-quality care and benefits to America’s veterans.”⁸

It has been reported that the current administration has countered initiatives to prepare for the challenges of providing health care to service members and veterans in a climate changed world.⁹ Sadly, but predictably, in the politicized federal health care arena, the safety of our service members and, in turn, the domestic and national security and peace that depend on them are caught in the partisan debate over global warming, though it is not likely Congress or federal agency leaders will abandon planning to safeguard service members who will see duty and combat in a radically altered ecology and veterans and who will need to have VA continue to be the reliable safety net despite an increasingly erratic environment.¹⁰

Climate change is a divisive political issue; there is a proud tradition of conservatism and self-reliance in military members, active duty and veteran alike. That was why I was surprised and impressed when I saw the results of a recent survey on climate change. In January 2019, 293 active-duty service members and veterans were surveyed.

Participants were selected to reflect the ethnic makeup, educational level, and political allegiance of the military population, which enhanced the validity of the findings.¹¹Participants were asked to indicate whether they believed that the earth was warming secondary to human or natural processes; not growing warmer at all; or whether they were unsure. Similar to the general population, 46% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic.¹¹ More than three-fourths believed it was likely climate change would adversely affect the places they worked, like military installations; 61% thought it likely that global warming could lead to armed conflict over resources. Seven in 10 respondents believed that climate is changing vs 46% who did not. Of respondents who believe climate change is real, 87% see it as a threat to military bases compared with 60% who do not accept the science that the earth is warming.¹¹

This survey, though, is only a small study, and the military and VA are big tents under which a wide range of political persuasions and diverse beliefs co-exist. There are many readers of Federal Practitioner who will no doubt reject nearly every word I have written, in what I know is a controversial column. But it matters that the military and veteran constituency are thinking and speaking about the issue of climate change.¹¹ Why? The answer takes us back to the disaster in Australia. When the fires and the devastation they wrought escalated beyond the powers of the civil authorities to handle, it was the military whose technical skill, coordinated readiness, and personal courage and dedication that was called on to rescue thousands of civilians from the inferno.¹² So it will be in our country and around the world when disasters—manmade, natural, or both—threaten to engulf life in all its wondrous variety. Those who battle extreme weather will have unique health needs, and their valiant sacrifices deserve to have health care systems ready and able to treat them.

Like me, some of you may have been following the agonizing news about the unprecedented brushfires in Australia that have devastated human, animal, and vegetative life in that country so culturally akin to our own.¹ For many people who believe the overwhelming majority of scientific reports on climate change, these apocalyptic fires are an empirical demonstration of the truth of the dire prophecies for the future of our planet. Scientists have demonstrated that although climate change may not have caused the worst fires in Australia’s history, they may have contributed to the conditions that enabled them to spread so far and wide and reach such a destructive intensity.²The heartbreaking pictures of singed koalas and displaced people and the helpless feeling that all I can do from here is donate money set me to thinking about the relationship between the military, health, and climate change, which is the subject of this column.

As I write this in mid-January of a new decade and glance at the weather headlines, I read about an earthquake in Puerto Rico and tornadoes in the southern US. This makes it quite plausible that our comfortable lifestyle and technological civilization could in the coming decades go the way of the dinosaurs, also victims of climate change.

Initially, my first thought about this relationship is a negative one—images of scorched earth policies that stretch back to ancient wars jump to mind. Reflection and research on the topic though suggest that the relationship may be more complicated and conflicted. Alas, I can only touch on a few of the themes in this brief format.

It may not be as obvious that climate change also threatens the military, which is the guardian of that civilization. In 2018, for example, Hurricane Michael caused nearly $5 billion in damages to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida.³ A year later, the US Department of Defense (DoD) released a report on the effects of climate change as mandated by Congress.⁴ Even though some congressional critics expressed concern about the report’s lack of depth and detail,⁵ the report asserted that, “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations.”⁴

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not immune either. Natural disasters have already disrupted the delivery of health care at its many aging facilities. Climate change was called the “engine”⁶ driving Hurricane Maria, which in 2017 slammed into Puerto Rico, including its VA medical center, and resulted in shortages of supplies, staff, and basic utilities.⁷ The facility and the island are still trying to rebuild. In response to weather-exposed vulnerability in VA infrastructure, Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, sent a letter to VA leadership arguing that “Strengthening VA’s resilience to climate change is consistent with the agency’s mission to deliver timely, high-quality care and benefits to America’s veterans.”⁸

It has been reported that the current administration has countered initiatives to prepare for the challenges of providing health care to service members and veterans in a climate changed world.⁹ Sadly, but predictably, in the politicized federal health care arena, the safety of our service members and, in turn, the domestic and national security and peace that depend on them are caught in the partisan debate over global warming, though it is not likely Congress or federal agency leaders will abandon planning to safeguard service members who will see duty and combat in a radically altered ecology and veterans and who will need to have VA continue to be the reliable safety net despite an increasingly erratic environment.¹⁰

Climate change is a divisive political issue; there is a proud tradition of conservatism and self-reliance in military members, active duty and veteran alike. That was why I was surprised and impressed when I saw the results of a recent survey on climate change. In January 2019, 293 active-duty service members and veterans were surveyed.

Participants were selected to reflect the ethnic makeup, educational level, and political allegiance of the military population, which enhanced the validity of the findings.¹¹Participants were asked to indicate whether they believed that the earth was warming secondary to human or natural processes; not growing warmer at all; or whether they were unsure. Similar to the general population, 46% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic.¹¹ More than three-fourths believed it was likely climate change would adversely affect the places they worked, like military installations; 61% thought it likely that global warming could lead to armed conflict over resources. Seven in 10 respondents believed that climate is changing vs 46% who did not. Of respondents who believe climate change is real, 87% see it as a threat to military bases compared with 60% who do not accept the science that the earth is warming.¹¹

This survey, though, is only a small study, and the military and VA are big tents under which a wide range of political persuasions and diverse beliefs co-exist. There are many readers of Federal Practitioner who will no doubt reject nearly every word I have written, in what I know is a controversial column. But it matters that the military and veteran constituency are thinking and speaking about the issue of climate change.¹¹ Why? The answer takes us back to the disaster in Australia. When the fires and the devastation they wrought escalated beyond the powers of the civil authorities to handle, it was the military whose technical skill, coordinated readiness, and personal courage and dedication that was called on to rescue thousands of civilians from the inferno.¹² So it will be in our country and around the world when disasters—manmade, natural, or both—threaten to engulf life in all its wondrous variety. Those who battle extreme weather will have unique health needs, and their valiant sacrifices deserve to have health care systems ready and able to treat them.

Dispensing of prescription stimulant medications, such as methylphenidate or amphetamine salts, has been expanding at a rapid rate over the past 2 decades. An astounding 58 million stimulant medications were prescribed in 2014.^1,2 Adults now exceed youths in the proportion of prescribed stimulant medications.^1,3

Off-label use of prescription stimulant medications, such as for performance enhancement, fatigue management, weight loss, medication-assisted therapy for stimulant use disorders, and adjunctive treatment for certain depressive disorders, is reported to be ≥ 40% of total stimulant use and is much more common in adults.¹ A 2017 study assessing risk of amphetamine use disorder and mortality among veterans prescribed stimulant medications within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) reported off-label use in nearly 3 of every 5 incident users in 2012.⁴ Off-label use also is significantly more common when prescribed by nonpsychiatric physicians compared with that of psychiatrists.¹

One study assessing stimulant prescribing from 2006 to 2009 found that nearly 60% of adults were prescribed stimulant medications by nonpsychiatrist physicians, and only 34% of those adults prescribed a stimulant by a nonpsychiatrist physician had a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).⁵ Findings from managed care plans covering years from 2000 to 2004 were similar, concluding that 30% of the adult patients who were prescribed methylphenidate had at least 1 medical claim with a diagnosis of ADHD.⁶ Of the approximately 16 million adults prescribed stimulant medications in 2017, > 5 million of them reported stimulant misuse.³ Much attention has been focused on misuse of stimulant medications by youths and young adults, but new information suggests that increased monitoring is needed among the US adult population. Per the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Academic Detailing Stimulant Dashboard, as of October 2018 the national average of veterans with a documented substance use disorder (SUD) who are also prescribed stimulant medications through the VHA exceeds 20%, < 50% have an annual urine drug screen (UDS), and > 10% are coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines.The percentage of veterans prescribed stimulant medications in the presence of a SUD has increased over the past decade, with a reported 8.7% incidence in 2002 increasing to 14.3% in 2012.⁴

There are currently no protocols, prescribing restrictions, or required monitoring parameters in place for prescription stimulant use within the Lexington VA Health Care System (LVAHCS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prescribing practices at LVAHCS of stimulant medications and identify opportunities for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of this drug class.

Methods

This study was a single-center quality improvement project evaluating the prescribing practices of stimulant medications within LVAHCS and exempt from institutional review board approval. Veterans were included in the study if they were prescribed amphetamine salts, dextroamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, or methylphenidate between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018; however, the veterans’ entire stimulant use history was assessed. Exclusion criteria included duration of use of < 2 months or < 2 prescriptions filled during the study period. Data for veterans who met the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria were collected via chart review and Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio.

Collected data included age, gender, stimulant regimen (drug name, dose, frequency), indication and duration of use, prescriber name and specialty, prescribing origin of initial stimulant medication, and whether stimulant use predated military service. Monitoring of stimulant medications was assessed via UDS at least annually, query of the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) at least quarterly, and average time between follow-up appointments with stimulant prescriber.

Monitoring parameters were assessed from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, as it was felt that the 6-month study period would be too narrow to accurately assess monitoring trends. Mental health diagnoses, ADHD diagnostic testing if applicable, documented SUD or stimulant misuse past or present, and concomitant central nervous system (CNS) depressant use also were collected. CNS depressants evaluated were those that have abuse potential or significant psychotropic effects and included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, opioids, gabapentin/pregabalin, Z-hypnotics, and muscle relaxants.

Results

The majority of participants were male (168/200) with an average age of 43.3 years. Dextroamphetamine/amphetamine was the most used stimulant (48.5%), followed by methylphenidate (40%), and dextroamphetamine (10%). Lisdexamphetamine was the least used stimulant, likely due to its formulary-restricted status within this facility. An extended release (ER) formulation was utilized in 1 of 4 participants, with 1 of 20 participants prescribed a combination of immediate release (IR) and ER formulations. Duration of use ranged from 3 months to 14 years, with an average duration of 4 years (Table 1).

Nearly 40% of participants reported an origin of stimulant initiation outside of LVAHCS. Fourteen percent of participants were started on prescription stimulant medications while active-duty service members. Stimulant medications were initiated at another VA facility in 10.5% of instances, and 15% of participants reported being prescribed stimulant medications by a civilian prescriber prior to receiving them at LVAHCS. Seventy-four of 79 (93.6%) participants with an origin of stimulant prescription outside of LVAHCS reported a US Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indication for use. The majority (87%) of stimulant medications were prescribed by the mental health service, and 25% of initial stimulant prescriptions were written by a single mental health prescriber. Eleven percent of participants were prescribed stimulant medications by multiple specialties, and nearly all participants had > 1 stimulant prescriber over the course of their treatment. More than 10% of veterans had their stimulant medication discontinued by one prescriber and then restarted by another prescriber.

Stimulant medications were used for FDA-approved indications (ADHD and narcolepsy) in 69.5% of participants. Note, this included patients who maintained an ADHD diagnosis in their medical record even if it was not substantiated with diagnostic testing. Of the participants reporting ADHD as an indication for stimulant use, diagnostic testing was conducted at LVAHCS to confirm an ADHD diagnosis in 58.6% (78/133) participants; 20.5% (16/78) of these diagnostic tests did not support the diagnosis of ADHD. All documented indications for use can be found in Table 2.

Discussion

The source of the initial stimulant prescription was assessed. The majority of veterans had received medical care prior to receiving care at LVAHCS, whether on active duty, from another VA facility throughout the country, or by a private civilian prescriber. The origin of initial stimulant medication and indication for stimulant medication use were patient reported. Requiring medical records from civilian providers prior to continuing stimulant medication is prescriber-dependent and was not available for all participants.

As expected, the majority of participants (87%) received their first stimulant prescription via a prescriber in the mental health specialty, 20 were prescribed stimulant medications from primary care, 4 from the emergency department (ED), and 2 from neurology. Three of the 4 stimulant prescriptions written in the ED were for continuity of care until the veteran could have an appointment with a mental health or primary care provider, and the other was prescribed by a mental health nurse practitioner for a veteran who presented to the ED with complaints of ADHD-like symptoms. More than 10% of veterans had their stimulant medication discontinued by one prescriber and then restarted by another prescriber.

The reasons for discontinuation included a positive UDS result for cocaine, psychosis, broken narcotic contract, ADHD diagnosis not supported by psychological testing, chronic bipolar disorder secondary to stimulant use, diversion, stimulant misuse, and lack of indication for use. There also were a handful of veterans whose VA prescribers declined to initiate prescription stimulant medications for various reasons, so the veteran sought care from a civilian prescriber who prescribed stimulant medications, then returned to the VA for medication management, and stimulant medications were continued. Fourteen percent (28/200) of participants had multiple indications for use at some point during stimulant medication therapy. Eight of those were a reasonable change from ADHD to ADHD-like symptoms when diagnosis was not substantiated by testing. The cause of other changes in indication for use was not well documented and often unclear. One veteran had 4 different indications for use documented in the medical record, often changing with each change in prescriber. It appeared that the most recent prescriber was uncertain of the actual indication for use but did not want to discontinue the medication. This prescriber documented that the stimulant medication should continue for presumed ADHD/mood/fatigue/cognitive dysfunction, which were all of the indications documented by the veteran’s previous prescribers.

Reasons for Discontinuation

ADHD was the most prominent indication for use, although the indication was changed to ADHD-like symptoms in several veterans for whom diagnostic testing did not support the ADHD diagnosis. Seventy-eight of 133 veterans prescribed stimulant medications for ADHD received diagnostic testing via a psychologist at LVAHCS. For the 11 veterans who had testing after stimulant initiation, a stimulant-free period was required prior to testing to ensure an accurate diagnosis. For 21% of veterans, the ADHD diagnosis was unsubstantiated by formal testing; however, all of these veterans continued stimulant medication use. For 1 veteran, the psychologist performing the testing documented new diagnoses, including moderate to severe stimulant use disorder and malingering both for PTSD and ADHD. The rate of stimulant prescribing inconsistency, “prescriber-hopping,” and unsupported ADHD diagnosis results warrant a conversation about expectations for transitions of care regarding stimulant medications, not only from outside to inside LVAHCS, but from prescriber to prescriber within the facility.

In some cases, stimulant medications were discontinued by a prescriber secondary to a worsening of another mental health condition. More than half of the participants in this study had an anxiety disorder diagnosis. Whether or not anxiety predated stimulant use or whether the use of stimulant medications contributed to the diagnosis and thus the addition of an additional CNS depressant to treat anxiety may be an area of research for future consideration. Although bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, psychosis, and SUD are not contraindications for use of stimulant medications, caution must be used in patients with these diagnoses. Prescribers must weigh risks vs benefits as well as perform close monitoring during use. Similarly, one might look further into stimulant medications prescribed for fatigue and assess the role of any simultaneously prescribed CNS depressants. Is the stimulant being used to treat the adverse effect (AE) of another medication? In 2 documented instances in this study, a psychologist conducted diagnostic testing who reported that the veteran did not meet the criteria for ADHD but that a stimulant may help counteract the iatrogenic effect of anticonvulsants. In both instances stimulant use continued.

Prescription Monitoring

Polysubstance use disorder (5%) was the third most common SUD recorded among study participants. The majority of those with polysubstance use disorder reported abuse/misuse of illicit or prescribed stimulants. Stimulant abuse/misuse was documented in 25 of 200 (12.5%) study participants. In several instances, abuse/misuse was detected by the LVAHCS delivery coordination pharmacist who tracks patterns of early fill requests and prescriptions reported lost/stolen. This pharmacist may request that the prescriber obtain PDMP query, UDS, or pill count if concerning patterns are noted. Lisdexamphetamine is a formulary-restricted medication at LVAHCS, but it was noted to be approved for use when prescribers requested an abuse-deterrent formulation. Investigators noticed a trend in veterans whose prescriptions exceeded the recommended maximum dosage also having stimulant abuse/misuse documented in their medical record. The highest documented total daily dose in this study was 120-mg amphetamine salts IR for ADHD, compared with the normal recommended dosing range of 5 to 40 mg/d for the same indication.

Various modalities were used to monitor participants but less than half of veterans had an annual UDS, quarterly PDMP query, and quarterly prescriber follow-up. PDMP queries and prescriber follow-up was assessed quarterly as would be reasonable given that private sector practitioners may issue multiple prescriptions authorizing the patient to receive up to a 90-day supply.⁷ Prescriber follow-up ranged from 1 to 15 months. A longer time to follow-up was seen more frequently in stimulant medications prescribed by primary care as compared with that of mental health.

Clinical Practice Protocol

Data from this study were collected with the intent to identify opportunities for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. From the above results investigators concluded that this facility may benefit from implementation of a facility-specific clinical practice protocol (CPP) for stimulant prescribing. It may also be beneficial to formulate a chronic stimulant management agreement between patient and prescriber to provide informed consent and clear expectations prior to stimulant medication initiation.

A CPP could be used to establish stimulant prescribing rules within a facility, which may limit who can prescribe stimulant medications or include a review process and/or required documentation in the medical record when being prescribed outside of specified dosing range and indications for use designated in the CPP or other evidence-based guidelines. Transition of care was found to be an area of opportunity in this study, which could be mitigated with the requirement of a baseline assessment prior to stimulant initiation with the expectation that it be completed regardless of prior prescription stimulant medication use. There was a lack of consistent monitoring for participants in this study, which may be improved if required monitoring parameters and frequency were provided for prescribers. For example, monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure was not assessed in this study, but a CPP may include monitoring vital signs before and after each dose change and every 6 months, per recommendation from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ADHD Diagnosis and Management guideline published in 2018.⁸The CPP may list the responsibilities of all those involved in the prescribing of stimulant medications, such as mental health service leadership, prescribers, nursing staff, pharmacists, social workers, psychologists, and other mental health staff. For prescribers this may include a thorough baseline assessment and criteria for use that must be met prior to stimulant initiation, documentation that must be included in the medical record and required monitoring during stimulant treatment, and expectations for increased monitoring and/or termination of treatment with nonadherence, diversion, or abuse/misuse.

The responsibilities of pharmacists may include establishing criteria for use of nonformulary and restricted agents as well as completion of nonformulary/restricted requests, reviewing dosages that exceed the recommended FDA daily maximum, reviewing uncommon off-label uses of stimulant medications, review and document early fill requests, potential nonadherence, potential drug-seeking behavior, and communication of the following information to the primary prescriber. For other mental health staff this may include documenting any reported AEs of the medication, referring the patient to their prescriber or pharmacist for any medication questions or concerns, and assessment of effectiveness and/or worsening behavior during patient contact.

Limitations

One limitation of this study was the way that data were pulled from patient charts. For example, only 3/200 participants in this study had insomnia per diagnosis codes, whereas that number was substantially higher when chart review was used to assess active prescriptions for sleep aids or documented complaints of insomnia in prescriber progress notes. For this same reason, rates of SUDs must be interpreted with caution as well. SUD diagnosis, both current and in remission were taken into account during data collection. Per diagnosis codes, 36 (18%) veterans in this study had a history of SUD, but this number was higher (31.5%) during chart review. The majority of discrepancies were found when participants reported a history of SUD to the prescriber, but this information was not captured via the problem list or encounter codes. What some may consider a minor omission in documentation can have a large impact on patient care as it is unlikely that prescribers have adequate administrative time to complete a chart review in order to find a complete past medical history as was required of investigators in this study. For this reason, incomplete provider documentation and human error that can occur as a result of a retrospective chart review were also identified as study limitations.

Conclusion

Our data show that there is still substantial room for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. The rate of stimulant prescribing inconsistency, prescriber-hopping, and unsupported ADHD diagnosis resulting from formal diagnostic testing warrant a review in the processes for transition of care regarding stimulant medications, both within and outside of this facility. A lack of consistent monitoring was also identified in this study. One of the most appreciable areas of opportunity resulting from this study is the need for consistency in both the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. From the above results investigators concluded that this facility may benefit from implementation of a CPP for stimulant prescribing as well as a chronic stimulant management agreement to provide clear expectations for patients and prescribers prior to and during prescription stimulant use.

Acknowledgments 

We thank Tori Wilhoit, PharmD candidate, and Dana Fischer, PharmD candidate, for their participation in data collection and Courtney Eatmon, PharmD, BCPP, for her general administrative support throughout this study.

Dispensing of prescription stimulant medications, such as methylphenidate or amphetamine salts, has been expanding at a rapid rate over the past 2 decades. An astounding 58 million stimulant medications were prescribed in 2014.^1,2 Adults now exceed youths in the proportion of prescribed stimulant medications.^1,3

Off-label use of prescription stimulant medications, such as for performance enhancement, fatigue management, weight loss, medication-assisted therapy for stimulant use disorders, and adjunctive treatment for certain depressive disorders, is reported to be ≥ 40% of total stimulant use and is much more common in adults.¹ A 2017 study assessing risk of amphetamine use disorder and mortality among veterans prescribed stimulant medications within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) reported off-label use in nearly 3 of every 5 incident users in 2012.⁴ Off-label use also is significantly more common when prescribed by nonpsychiatric physicians compared with that of psychiatrists.¹

One study assessing stimulant prescribing from 2006 to 2009 found that nearly 60% of adults were prescribed stimulant medications by nonpsychiatrist physicians, and only 34% of those adults prescribed a stimulant by a nonpsychiatrist physician had a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).⁵ Findings from managed care plans covering years from 2000 to 2004 were similar, concluding that 30% of the adult patients who were prescribed methylphenidate had at least 1 medical claim with a diagnosis of ADHD.⁶ Of the approximately 16 million adults prescribed stimulant medications in 2017, > 5 million of them reported stimulant misuse.³ Much attention has been focused on misuse of stimulant medications by youths and young adults, but new information suggests that increased monitoring is needed among the US adult population. Per the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Academic Detailing Stimulant Dashboard, as of October 2018 the national average of veterans with a documented substance use disorder (SUD) who are also prescribed stimulant medications through the VHA exceeds 20%, < 50% have an annual urine drug screen (UDS), and > 10% are coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines.The percentage of veterans prescribed stimulant medications in the presence of a SUD has increased over the past decade, with a reported 8.7% incidence in 2002 increasing to 14.3% in 2012.⁴

There are currently no protocols, prescribing restrictions, or required monitoring parameters in place for prescription stimulant use within the Lexington VA Health Care System (LVAHCS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prescribing practices at LVAHCS of stimulant medications and identify opportunities for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of this drug class.

Methods

This study was a single-center quality improvement project evaluating the prescribing practices of stimulant medications within LVAHCS and exempt from institutional review board approval. Veterans were included in the study if they were prescribed amphetamine salts, dextroamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, or methylphenidate between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018; however, the veterans’ entire stimulant use history was assessed. Exclusion criteria included duration of use of < 2 months or < 2 prescriptions filled during the study period. Data for veterans who met the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria were collected via chart review and Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio.

Collected data included age, gender, stimulant regimen (drug name, dose, frequency), indication and duration of use, prescriber name and specialty, prescribing origin of initial stimulant medication, and whether stimulant use predated military service. Monitoring of stimulant medications was assessed via UDS at least annually, query of the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) at least quarterly, and average time between follow-up appointments with stimulant prescriber.

Monitoring parameters were assessed from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, as it was felt that the 6-month study period would be too narrow to accurately assess monitoring trends. Mental health diagnoses, ADHD diagnostic testing if applicable, documented SUD or stimulant misuse past or present, and concomitant central nervous system (CNS) depressant use also were collected. CNS depressants evaluated were those that have abuse potential or significant psychotropic effects and included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, opioids, gabapentin/pregabalin, Z-hypnotics, and muscle relaxants.

Results

The majority of participants were male (168/200) with an average age of 43.3 years. Dextroamphetamine/amphetamine was the most used stimulant (48.5%), followed by methylphenidate (40%), and dextroamphetamine (10%). Lisdexamphetamine was the least used stimulant, likely due to its formulary-restricted status within this facility. An extended release (ER) formulation was utilized in 1 of 4 participants, with 1 of 20 participants prescribed a combination of immediate release (IR) and ER formulations. Duration of use ranged from 3 months to 14 years, with an average duration of 4 years (Table 1).

Nearly 40% of participants reported an origin of stimulant initiation outside of LVAHCS. Fourteen percent of participants were started on prescription stimulant medications while active-duty service members. Stimulant medications were initiated at another VA facility in 10.5% of instances, and 15% of participants reported being prescribed stimulant medications by a civilian prescriber prior to receiving them at LVAHCS. Seventy-four of 79 (93.6%) participants with an origin of stimulant prescription outside of LVAHCS reported a US Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indication for use. The majority (87%) of stimulant medications were prescribed by the mental health service, and 25% of initial stimulant prescriptions were written by a single mental health prescriber. Eleven percent of participants were prescribed stimulant medications by multiple specialties, and nearly all participants had > 1 stimulant prescriber over the course of their treatment. More than 10% of veterans had their stimulant medication discontinued by one prescriber and then restarted by another prescriber.

Stimulant medications were used for FDA-approved indications (ADHD and narcolepsy) in 69.5% of participants. Note, this included patients who maintained an ADHD diagnosis in their medical record even if it was not substantiated with diagnostic testing. Of the participants reporting ADHD as an indication for stimulant use, diagnostic testing was conducted at LVAHCS to confirm an ADHD diagnosis in 58.6% (78/133) participants; 20.5% (16/78) of these diagnostic tests did not support the diagnosis of ADHD. All documented indications for use can be found in Table 2.

Discussion

The source of the initial stimulant prescription was assessed. The majority of veterans had received medical care prior to receiving care at LVAHCS, whether on active duty, from another VA facility throughout the country, or by a private civilian prescriber. The origin of initial stimulant medication and indication for stimulant medication use were patient reported. Requiring medical records from civilian providers prior to continuing stimulant medication is prescriber-dependent and was not available for all participants.

As expected, the majority of participants (87%) received their first stimulant prescription via a prescriber in the mental health specialty, 20 were prescribed stimulant medications from primary care, 4 from the emergency department (ED), and 2 from neurology. Three of the 4 stimulant prescriptions written in the ED were for continuity of care until the veteran could have an appointment with a mental health or primary care provider, and the other was prescribed by a mental health nurse practitioner for a veteran who presented to the ED with complaints of ADHD-like symptoms. More than 10% of veterans had their stimulant medication discontinued by one prescriber and then restarted by another prescriber.

The reasons for discontinuation included a positive UDS result for cocaine, psychosis, broken narcotic contract, ADHD diagnosis not supported by psychological testing, chronic bipolar disorder secondary to stimulant use, diversion, stimulant misuse, and lack of indication for use. There also were a handful of veterans whose VA prescribers declined to initiate prescription stimulant medications for various reasons, so the veteran sought care from a civilian prescriber who prescribed stimulant medications, then returned to the VA for medication management, and stimulant medications were continued. Fourteen percent (28/200) of participants had multiple indications for use at some point during stimulant medication therapy. Eight of those were a reasonable change from ADHD to ADHD-like symptoms when diagnosis was not substantiated by testing. The cause of other changes in indication for use was not well documented and often unclear. One veteran had 4 different indications for use documented in the medical record, often changing with each change in prescriber. It appeared that the most recent prescriber was uncertain of the actual indication for use but did not want to discontinue the medication. This prescriber documented that the stimulant medication should continue for presumed ADHD/mood/fatigue/cognitive dysfunction, which were all of the indications documented by the veteran’s previous prescribers.

Reasons for Discontinuation

ADHD was the most prominent indication for use, although the indication was changed to ADHD-like symptoms in several veterans for whom diagnostic testing did not support the ADHD diagnosis. Seventy-eight of 133 veterans prescribed stimulant medications for ADHD received diagnostic testing via a psychologist at LVAHCS. For the 11 veterans who had testing after stimulant initiation, a stimulant-free period was required prior to testing to ensure an accurate diagnosis. For 21% of veterans, the ADHD diagnosis was unsubstantiated by formal testing; however, all of these veterans continued stimulant medication use. For 1 veteran, the psychologist performing the testing documented new diagnoses, including moderate to severe stimulant use disorder and malingering both for PTSD and ADHD. The rate of stimulant prescribing inconsistency, “prescriber-hopping,” and unsupported ADHD diagnosis results warrant a conversation about expectations for transitions of care regarding stimulant medications, not only from outside to inside LVAHCS, but from prescriber to prescriber within the facility.

In some cases, stimulant medications were discontinued by a prescriber secondary to a worsening of another mental health condition. More than half of the participants in this study had an anxiety disorder diagnosis. Whether or not anxiety predated stimulant use or whether the use of stimulant medications contributed to the diagnosis and thus the addition of an additional CNS depressant to treat anxiety may be an area of research for future consideration. Although bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, psychosis, and SUD are not contraindications for use of stimulant medications, caution must be used in patients with these diagnoses. Prescribers must weigh risks vs benefits as well as perform close monitoring during use. Similarly, one might look further into stimulant medications prescribed for fatigue and assess the role of any simultaneously prescribed CNS depressants. Is the stimulant being used to treat the adverse effect (AE) of another medication? In 2 documented instances in this study, a psychologist conducted diagnostic testing who reported that the veteran did not meet the criteria for ADHD but that a stimulant may help counteract the iatrogenic effect of anticonvulsants. In both instances stimulant use continued.

Prescription Monitoring

Polysubstance use disorder (5%) was the third most common SUD recorded among study participants. The majority of those with polysubstance use disorder reported abuse/misuse of illicit or prescribed stimulants. Stimulant abuse/misuse was documented in 25 of 200 (12.5%) study participants. In several instances, abuse/misuse was detected by the LVAHCS delivery coordination pharmacist who tracks patterns of early fill requests and prescriptions reported lost/stolen. This pharmacist may request that the prescriber obtain PDMP query, UDS, or pill count if concerning patterns are noted. Lisdexamphetamine is a formulary-restricted medication at LVAHCS, but it was noted to be approved for use when prescribers requested an abuse-deterrent formulation. Investigators noticed a trend in veterans whose prescriptions exceeded the recommended maximum dosage also having stimulant abuse/misuse documented in their medical record. The highest documented total daily dose in this study was 120-mg amphetamine salts IR for ADHD, compared with the normal recommended dosing range of 5 to 40 mg/d for the same indication.

Various modalities were used to monitor participants but less than half of veterans had an annual UDS, quarterly PDMP query, and quarterly prescriber follow-up. PDMP queries and prescriber follow-up was assessed quarterly as would be reasonable given that private sector practitioners may issue multiple prescriptions authorizing the patient to receive up to a 90-day supply.⁷ Prescriber follow-up ranged from 1 to 15 months. A longer time to follow-up was seen more frequently in stimulant medications prescribed by primary care as compared with that of mental health.

Clinical Practice Protocol

Data from this study were collected with the intent to identify opportunities for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. From the above results investigators concluded that this facility may benefit from implementation of a facility-specific clinical practice protocol (CPP) for stimulant prescribing. It may also be beneficial to formulate a chronic stimulant management agreement between patient and prescriber to provide informed consent and clear expectations prior to stimulant medication initiation.

A CPP could be used to establish stimulant prescribing rules within a facility, which may limit who can prescribe stimulant medications or include a review process and/or required documentation in the medical record when being prescribed outside of specified dosing range and indications for use designated in the CPP or other evidence-based guidelines. Transition of care was found to be an area of opportunity in this study, which could be mitigated with the requirement of a baseline assessment prior to stimulant initiation with the expectation that it be completed regardless of prior prescription stimulant medication use. There was a lack of consistent monitoring for participants in this study, which may be improved if required monitoring parameters and frequency were provided for prescribers. For example, monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure was not assessed in this study, but a CPP may include monitoring vital signs before and after each dose change and every 6 months, per recommendation from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ADHD Diagnosis and Management guideline published in 2018.⁸The CPP may list the responsibilities of all those involved in the prescribing of stimulant medications, such as mental health service leadership, prescribers, nursing staff, pharmacists, social workers, psychologists, and other mental health staff. For prescribers this may include a thorough baseline assessment and criteria for use that must be met prior to stimulant initiation, documentation that must be included in the medical record and required monitoring during stimulant treatment, and expectations for increased monitoring and/or termination of treatment with nonadherence, diversion, or abuse/misuse.

The responsibilities of pharmacists may include establishing criteria for use of nonformulary and restricted agents as well as completion of nonformulary/restricted requests, reviewing dosages that exceed the recommended FDA daily maximum, reviewing uncommon off-label uses of stimulant medications, review and document early fill requests, potential nonadherence, potential drug-seeking behavior, and communication of the following information to the primary prescriber. For other mental health staff this may include documenting any reported AEs of the medication, referring the patient to their prescriber or pharmacist for any medication questions or concerns, and assessment of effectiveness and/or worsening behavior during patient contact.

Limitations

One limitation of this study was the way that data were pulled from patient charts. For example, only 3/200 participants in this study had insomnia per diagnosis codes, whereas that number was substantially higher when chart review was used to assess active prescriptions for sleep aids or documented complaints of insomnia in prescriber progress notes. For this same reason, rates of SUDs must be interpreted with caution as well. SUD diagnosis, both current and in remission were taken into account during data collection. Per diagnosis codes, 36 (18%) veterans in this study had a history of SUD, but this number was higher (31.5%) during chart review. The majority of discrepancies were found when participants reported a history of SUD to the prescriber, but this information was not captured via the problem list or encounter codes. What some may consider a minor omission in documentation can have a large impact on patient care as it is unlikely that prescribers have adequate administrative time to complete a chart review in order to find a complete past medical history as was required of investigators in this study. For this reason, incomplete provider documentation and human error that can occur as a result of a retrospective chart review were also identified as study limitations.

Conclusion

Our data show that there is still substantial room for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. The rate of stimulant prescribing inconsistency, prescriber-hopping, and unsupported ADHD diagnosis resulting from formal diagnostic testing warrant a review in the processes for transition of care regarding stimulant medications, both within and outside of this facility. A lack of consistent monitoring was also identified in this study. One of the most appreciable areas of opportunity resulting from this study is the need for consistency in both the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. From the above results investigators concluded that this facility may benefit from implementation of a CPP for stimulant prescribing as well as a chronic stimulant management agreement to provide clear expectations for patients and prescribers prior to and during prescription stimulant use.

Acknowledgments 

We thank Tori Wilhoit, PharmD candidate, and Dana Fischer, PharmD candidate, for their participation in data collection and Courtney Eatmon, PharmD, BCPP, for her general administrative support throughout this study.

Dispensing of prescription stimulant medications, such as methylphenidate or amphetamine salts, has been expanding at a rapid rate over the past 2 decades. An astounding 58 million stimulant medications were prescribed in 2014.^1,2 Adults now exceed youths in the proportion of prescribed stimulant medications.^1,3

Off-label use of prescription stimulant medications, such as for performance enhancement, fatigue management, weight loss, medication-assisted therapy for stimulant use disorders, and adjunctive treatment for certain depressive disorders, is reported to be ≥ 40% of total stimulant use and is much more common in adults.¹ A 2017 study assessing risk of amphetamine use disorder and mortality among veterans prescribed stimulant medications within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) reported off-label use in nearly 3 of every 5 incident users in 2012.⁴ Off-label use also is significantly more common when prescribed by nonpsychiatric physicians compared with that of psychiatrists.¹

One study assessing stimulant prescribing from 2006 to 2009 found that nearly 60% of adults were prescribed stimulant medications by nonpsychiatrist physicians, and only 34% of those adults prescribed a stimulant by a nonpsychiatrist physician had a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).⁵ Findings from managed care plans covering years from 2000 to 2004 were similar, concluding that 30% of the adult patients who were prescribed methylphenidate had at least 1 medical claim with a diagnosis of ADHD.⁶ Of the approximately 16 million adults prescribed stimulant medications in 2017, > 5 million of them reported stimulant misuse.³ Much attention has been focused on misuse of stimulant medications by youths and young adults, but new information suggests that increased monitoring is needed among the US adult population. Per the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Academic Detailing Stimulant Dashboard, as of October 2018 the national average of veterans with a documented substance use disorder (SUD) who are also prescribed stimulant medications through the VHA exceeds 20%, < 50% have an annual urine drug screen (UDS), and > 10% are coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines.The percentage of veterans prescribed stimulant medications in the presence of a SUD has increased over the past decade, with a reported 8.7% incidence in 2002 increasing to 14.3% in 2012.⁴

There are currently no protocols, prescribing restrictions, or required monitoring parameters in place for prescription stimulant use within the Lexington VA Health Care System (LVAHCS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prescribing practices at LVAHCS of stimulant medications and identify opportunities for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of this drug class.

Methods

This study was a single-center quality improvement project evaluating the prescribing practices of stimulant medications within LVAHCS and exempt from institutional review board approval. Veterans were included in the study if they were prescribed amphetamine salts, dextroamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, or methylphenidate between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018; however, the veterans’ entire stimulant use history was assessed. Exclusion criteria included duration of use of < 2 months or < 2 prescriptions filled during the study period. Data for veterans who met the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria were collected via chart review and Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio.

Collected data included age, gender, stimulant regimen (drug name, dose, frequency), indication and duration of use, prescriber name and specialty, prescribing origin of initial stimulant medication, and whether stimulant use predated military service. Monitoring of stimulant medications was assessed via UDS at least annually, query of the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) at least quarterly, and average time between follow-up appointments with stimulant prescriber.

Monitoring parameters were assessed from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, as it was felt that the 6-month study period would be too narrow to accurately assess monitoring trends. Mental health diagnoses, ADHD diagnostic testing if applicable, documented SUD or stimulant misuse past or present, and concomitant central nervous system (CNS) depressant use also were collected. CNS depressants evaluated were those that have abuse potential or significant psychotropic effects and included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, opioids, gabapentin/pregabalin, Z-hypnotics, and muscle relaxants.

Results

The majority of participants were male (168/200) with an average age of 43.3 years. Dextroamphetamine/amphetamine was the most used stimulant (48.5%), followed by methylphenidate (40%), and dextroamphetamine (10%). Lisdexamphetamine was the least used stimulant, likely due to its formulary-restricted status within this facility. An extended release (ER) formulation was utilized in 1 of 4 participants, with 1 of 20 participants prescribed a combination of immediate release (IR) and ER formulations. Duration of use ranged from 3 months to 14 years, with an average duration of 4 years (Table 1).

Nearly 40% of participants reported an origin of stimulant initiation outside of LVAHCS. Fourteen percent of participants were started on prescription stimulant medications while active-duty service members. Stimulant medications were initiated at another VA facility in 10.5% of instances, and 15% of participants reported being prescribed stimulant medications by a civilian prescriber prior to receiving them at LVAHCS. Seventy-four of 79 (93.6%) participants with an origin of stimulant prescription outside of LVAHCS reported a US Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indication for use. The majority (87%) of stimulant medications were prescribed by the mental health service, and 25% of initial stimulant prescriptions were written by a single mental health prescriber. Eleven percent of participants were prescribed stimulant medications by multiple specialties, and nearly all participants had > 1 stimulant prescriber over the course of their treatment. More than 10% of veterans had their stimulant medication discontinued by one prescriber and then restarted by another prescriber.

Stimulant medications were used for FDA-approved indications (ADHD and narcolepsy) in 69.5% of participants. Note, this included patients who maintained an ADHD diagnosis in their medical record even if it was not substantiated with diagnostic testing. Of the participants reporting ADHD as an indication for stimulant use, diagnostic testing was conducted at LVAHCS to confirm an ADHD diagnosis in 58.6% (78/133) participants; 20.5% (16/78) of these diagnostic tests did not support the diagnosis of ADHD. All documented indications for use can be found in Table 2.

Discussion

The source of the initial stimulant prescription was assessed. The majority of veterans had received medical care prior to receiving care at LVAHCS, whether on active duty, from another VA facility throughout the country, or by a private civilian prescriber. The origin of initial stimulant medication and indication for stimulant medication use were patient reported. Requiring medical records from civilian providers prior to continuing stimulant medication is prescriber-dependent and was not available for all participants.

As expected, the majority of participants (87%) received their first stimulant prescription via a prescriber in the mental health specialty, 20 were prescribed stimulant medications from primary care, 4 from the emergency department (ED), and 2 from neurology. Three of the 4 stimulant prescriptions written in the ED were for continuity of care until the veteran could have an appointment with a mental health or primary care provider, and the other was prescribed by a mental health nurse practitioner for a veteran who presented to the ED with complaints of ADHD-like symptoms. More than 10% of veterans had their stimulant medication discontinued by one prescriber and then restarted by another prescriber.

The reasons for discontinuation included a positive UDS result for cocaine, psychosis, broken narcotic contract, ADHD diagnosis not supported by psychological testing, chronic bipolar disorder secondary to stimulant use, diversion, stimulant misuse, and lack of indication for use. There also were a handful of veterans whose VA prescribers declined to initiate prescription stimulant medications for various reasons, so the veteran sought care from a civilian prescriber who prescribed stimulant medications, then returned to the VA for medication management, and stimulant medications were continued. Fourteen percent (28/200) of participants had multiple indications for use at some point during stimulant medication therapy. Eight of those were a reasonable change from ADHD to ADHD-like symptoms when diagnosis was not substantiated by testing. The cause of other changes in indication for use was not well documented and often unclear. One veteran had 4 different indications for use documented in the medical record, often changing with each change in prescriber. It appeared that the most recent prescriber was uncertain of the actual indication for use but did not want to discontinue the medication. This prescriber documented that the stimulant medication should continue for presumed ADHD/mood/fatigue/cognitive dysfunction, which were all of the indications documented by the veteran’s previous prescribers.

Reasons for Discontinuation

ADHD was the most prominent indication for use, although the indication was changed to ADHD-like symptoms in several veterans for whom diagnostic testing did not support the ADHD diagnosis. Seventy-eight of 133 veterans prescribed stimulant medications for ADHD received diagnostic testing via a psychologist at LVAHCS. For the 11 veterans who had testing after stimulant initiation, a stimulant-free period was required prior to testing to ensure an accurate diagnosis. For 21% of veterans, the ADHD diagnosis was unsubstantiated by formal testing; however, all of these veterans continued stimulant medication use. For 1 veteran, the psychologist performing the testing documented new diagnoses, including moderate to severe stimulant use disorder and malingering both for PTSD and ADHD. The rate of stimulant prescribing inconsistency, “prescriber-hopping,” and unsupported ADHD diagnosis results warrant a conversation about expectations for transitions of care regarding stimulant medications, not only from outside to inside LVAHCS, but from prescriber to prescriber within the facility.

In some cases, stimulant medications were discontinued by a prescriber secondary to a worsening of another mental health condition. More than half of the participants in this study had an anxiety disorder diagnosis. Whether or not anxiety predated stimulant use or whether the use of stimulant medications contributed to the diagnosis and thus the addition of an additional CNS depressant to treat anxiety may be an area of research for future consideration. Although bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, psychosis, and SUD are not contraindications for use of stimulant medications, caution must be used in patients with these diagnoses. Prescribers must weigh risks vs benefits as well as perform close monitoring during use. Similarly, one might look further into stimulant medications prescribed for fatigue and assess the role of any simultaneously prescribed CNS depressants. Is the stimulant being used to treat the adverse effect (AE) of another medication? In 2 documented instances in this study, a psychologist conducted diagnostic testing who reported that the veteran did not meet the criteria for ADHD but that a stimulant may help counteract the iatrogenic effect of anticonvulsants. In both instances stimulant use continued.

Prescription Monitoring

Polysubstance use disorder (5%) was the third most common SUD recorded among study participants. The majority of those with polysubstance use disorder reported abuse/misuse of illicit or prescribed stimulants. Stimulant abuse/misuse was documented in 25 of 200 (12.5%) study participants. In several instances, abuse/misuse was detected by the LVAHCS delivery coordination pharmacist who tracks patterns of early fill requests and prescriptions reported lost/stolen. This pharmacist may request that the prescriber obtain PDMP query, UDS, or pill count if concerning patterns are noted. Lisdexamphetamine is a formulary-restricted medication at LVAHCS, but it was noted to be approved for use when prescribers requested an abuse-deterrent formulation. Investigators noticed a trend in veterans whose prescriptions exceeded the recommended maximum dosage also having stimulant abuse/misuse documented in their medical record. The highest documented total daily dose in this study was 120-mg amphetamine salts IR for ADHD, compared with the normal recommended dosing range of 5 to 40 mg/d for the same indication.

Various modalities were used to monitor participants but less than half of veterans had an annual UDS, quarterly PDMP query, and quarterly prescriber follow-up. PDMP queries and prescriber follow-up was assessed quarterly as would be reasonable given that private sector practitioners may issue multiple prescriptions authorizing the patient to receive up to a 90-day supply.⁷ Prescriber follow-up ranged from 1 to 15 months. A longer time to follow-up was seen more frequently in stimulant medications prescribed by primary care as compared with that of mental health.

Clinical Practice Protocol

Data from this study were collected with the intent to identify opportunities for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. From the above results investigators concluded that this facility may benefit from implementation of a facility-specific clinical practice protocol (CPP) for stimulant prescribing. It may also be beneficial to formulate a chronic stimulant management agreement between patient and prescriber to provide informed consent and clear expectations prior to stimulant medication initiation.

A CPP could be used to establish stimulant prescribing rules within a facility, which may limit who can prescribe stimulant medications or include a review process and/or required documentation in the medical record when being prescribed outside of specified dosing range and indications for use designated in the CPP or other evidence-based guidelines. Transition of care was found to be an area of opportunity in this study, which could be mitigated with the requirement of a baseline assessment prior to stimulant initiation with the expectation that it be completed regardless of prior prescription stimulant medication use. There was a lack of consistent monitoring for participants in this study, which may be improved if required monitoring parameters and frequency were provided for prescribers. For example, monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure was not assessed in this study, but a CPP may include monitoring vital signs before and after each dose change and every 6 months, per recommendation from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ADHD Diagnosis and Management guideline published in 2018.⁸The CPP may list the responsibilities of all those involved in the prescribing of stimulant medications, such as mental health service leadership, prescribers, nursing staff, pharmacists, social workers, psychologists, and other mental health staff. For prescribers this may include a thorough baseline assessment and criteria for use that must be met prior to stimulant initiation, documentation that must be included in the medical record and required monitoring during stimulant treatment, and expectations for increased monitoring and/or termination of treatment with nonadherence, diversion, or abuse/misuse.

The responsibilities of pharmacists may include establishing criteria for use of nonformulary and restricted agents as well as completion of nonformulary/restricted requests, reviewing dosages that exceed the recommended FDA daily maximum, reviewing uncommon off-label uses of stimulant medications, review and document early fill requests, potential nonadherence, potential drug-seeking behavior, and communication of the following information to the primary prescriber. For other mental health staff this may include documenting any reported AEs of the medication, referring the patient to their prescriber or pharmacist for any medication questions or concerns, and assessment of effectiveness and/or worsening behavior during patient contact.

Limitations

One limitation of this study was the way that data were pulled from patient charts. For example, only 3/200 participants in this study had insomnia per diagnosis codes, whereas that number was substantially higher when chart review was used to assess active prescriptions for sleep aids or documented complaints of insomnia in prescriber progress notes. For this same reason, rates of SUDs must be interpreted with caution as well. SUD diagnosis, both current and in remission were taken into account during data collection. Per diagnosis codes, 36 (18%) veterans in this study had a history of SUD, but this number was higher (31.5%) during chart review. The majority of discrepancies were found when participants reported a history of SUD to the prescriber, but this information was not captured via the problem list or encounter codes. What some may consider a minor omission in documentation can have a large impact on patient care as it is unlikely that prescribers have adequate administrative time to complete a chart review in order to find a complete past medical history as was required of investigators in this study. For this reason, incomplete provider documentation and human error that can occur as a result of a retrospective chart review were also identified as study limitations.

Conclusion

Our data show that there is still substantial room for improvement in the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. The rate of stimulant prescribing inconsistency, prescriber-hopping, and unsupported ADHD diagnosis resulting from formal diagnostic testing warrant a review in the processes for transition of care regarding stimulant medications, both within and outside of this facility. A lack of consistent monitoring was also identified in this study. One of the most appreciable areas of opportunity resulting from this study is the need for consistency in both the prescribing and monitoring of stimulant medications. From the above results investigators concluded that this facility may benefit from implementation of a CPP for stimulant prescribing as well as a chronic stimulant management agreement to provide clear expectations for patients and prescribers prior to and during prescription stimulant use.

Acknowledgments 

We thank Tori Wilhoit, PharmD candidate, and Dana Fischer, PharmD candidate, for their participation in data collection and Courtney Eatmon, PharmD, BCPP, for her general administrative support throughout this study.

Q1. Correct Answer: B

Rationale

The leading cause of death in patients with NASH is cardiovascular disease. Death from liver-related causes is much more common in NASH than in the general population, but is not the leading cause of death. Cancer-related death is among the top three causes of death in patients with NASH, but is not the most common.

References

1. Adams LA, Lymp JF, St Sauver J, et al. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology 2005;129:113-21.

2. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Practice Guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease. Hepatology 2018;67:328-57.

Q1. Correct Answer: B

Rationale

The leading cause of death in patients with NASH is cardiovascular disease. Death from liver-related causes is much more common in NASH than in the general population, but is not the leading cause of death. Cancer-related death is among the top three causes of death in patients with NASH, but is not the most common.

References

1. Adams LA, Lymp JF, St Sauver J, et al. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology 2005;129:113-21.

2. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Practice Guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease. Hepatology 2018;67:328-57.

Q1. Correct Answer: B

Rationale

The leading cause of death in patients with NASH is cardiovascular disease. Death from liver-related causes is much more common in NASH than in the general population, but is not the leading cause of death. Cancer-related death is among the top three causes of death in patients with NASH, but is not the most common.

References

1. Adams LA, Lymp JF, St Sauver J, et al. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology 2005;129:113-21.

2. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Practice Guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease. Hepatology 2018;67:328-57.

Traditionally, U.S. health care has operated under a fee-for-service payment model, in which health care providers (such as physicians, hospitals, and health care systems) receive a fee for services such as office visits, hospital stays, procedures, and tests. However, reimbursement discussions are increasingly moving from fee-for-service to value-based, in which payments are tied to managing population health and total cost of care.

Because these changes will impact the entire system all the way down to individual providers, in the upcoming Population Management article series in The Hospitalist, we will discuss the nuances and implications that physicians, executives, and hospitals should be aware of. In this first article, we will examine the impetus for the shift toward population management and introduce common terminology to lay the foundation for the future content.
 

The traditional model: Fee for service

Under the traditional fee-for-service payment system, health care providers are paid per unit of service. For example, hospitals receive diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments for inpatient stays, and physicians are paid per patient visit. The more services that hospitals or physicians provide, the more money both get paid, without financial consequences for quality outcomes or total cost of care. Total cost of care includes clinic visits, outpatient procedures and tests, hospital and ED visits, home health, skilled nursing facilities, durable medical equipment, and sometimes drugs during an episode of care (for example, a hospital stay plus 90 days after discharge) or over a period of time (for example, a month or a year).

As a result of the fee-for-service payment system, the United States spends more money on health care than other wealthy countries, yet it lags behind other countries on many quality measures, such as disease burden, overall mortality, premature death, and preventable death.^1,2

In 2007, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) developed the Triple Aim framework that focused on the following:

• Improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction).
• Improving the health of populations.
• Reducing per capita cost of care.

Both public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as private payers, embraced the Triple Aim to reform how health care is delivered and paid for. As such, health care delivery focus and financial incentives are shifting from managing discrete patient encounters for acute illness to managing population health and total cost of care.
 

A new approach: Population management

Before diving into population management, it is important to first understand the terms “population” and “population health.” A population can be defined geographically or may include employees of an organization, members of a health plan, or patients receiving care from a specific physician group or health care system. David A. Kindig, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, defined population health as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.”³ Dr. Kindig noted that population health outcomes have many determinants, such as the following:⁴

• Health care (access, cost, quantity, and quality of health care services).
• Individual behavior (including diet, exercise, and substance abuse).
• Genetics.
• The social environment (education, income, occupation, class, and social support).
• Physical environment (air and water quality, lead exposure, and the design of neighborhoods).

IHI operationally defines population health by measures such as life expectancy, mortality rates, health and functional status, the incidence and/or prevalence of chronic disease, and behavioral and physiological factors such as smoking, physical activity, diet, blood pressure, body mass index, and cholesterol.⁵

On the other hand, population management is primarily concerned with health care determinants of health and, according to IHI, should be clearly distinguished from population health, which focuses on the broader determinants of health.⁵

According to Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, one of the founding members and a past-president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, population management is a “global approach of caring for an entire patient population to deliver safe and equitable care and to more intelligently allocate resources to keep people well.”

Population management requires understanding the patient population, which includes risk stratification and redesigning and delivering services that are guided by integrated clinical and administrative data and enabled by information technology.
 

Cost-sharing payment models

The cornerstone of population management is provider accountability for the cost of care, which can be accomplished through shared-risk models or population-based payments. Let’s take a closer look at each.

Under shared-risk models, providers receive payment based on their performance against cost targets. The goal is to generate cost savings by improving care coordination, engaging patients in shared decision making based on their health goals, and reducing utilization of care that provides little to no value for patients (for example, preventable hospital admissions or unnecessary imaging or procedures).

Cost targets and actual spending are reconciled retrospectively. If providers beat cost targets, they are eligible to keep a share of generated savings based on their performance on selected quality measures. However, if providers’ actual spending exceeds cost targets, they will compensate payers for a portion of the losses. Under one-sided risk models, providers are eligible for shared savings but not financially responsible for losses. Under two-sided risk models, providers are accountable for both savings and losses.

With prospective population-based payments, also known as capitation, providers receive in advance a fixed amount of money per patient per unit of time (for example, per month) that creates a budget to cover the cost of agreed-upon health care services. The prospective payments are risk adjusted and typically tied to performance on selected quality, effectiveness, and patient experience measures.

Professional services capitation arrangements between physician groups and payers cover the cost of physician services including primary care, specialty care, and related laboratory and radiology services. Under global capitation or global payment arrangements, health care systems receive payments that cover the total cost of care for the patient population for a defined period.

Population-based payments create incentives to provide high-quality and efficient care within a set budget.⁶ If actual cost of delivering services to the defined patient population comes under the budget, the providers will realize savings, but otherwise will encounter losses.
 

What is next?

Now that we have explained the impetus for population management and the terminology, in the next article in this series we will discuss the current state of population management. We will also delve into a hospitalist’s role and participation so you can be aware of impending changes and ensure you are set up for success, no matter how the payment models evolve.
 

Dr. Farah is a hospitalist, physician adviser, and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt. She is a performance improvement consultant based in Corvallis, Ore., and a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.

References

1. Source: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start

2. Source: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/on-several-indicators-of-healthcare-quality the-u-s-falls-short/

3. Kindig D, Asada Y, Booske B. (2008). A Population Health Framework for Setting National and State Health Goals. JAMA, 299, 2081-2083.

4. Source: https://improvingpopulationhealth.typepad.com/blog/what-are-health-factorsdeterminants.html

5. Source: http://www.ihi.org/communities/blogs/population-health-population-management-terminology-in-us-health-care

6. Source: http://hcp-lan.org/workproducts/apm-refresh-whitepaper-final.pdf

Traditionally, U.S. health care has operated under a fee-for-service payment model, in which health care providers (such as physicians, hospitals, and health care systems) receive a fee for services such as office visits, hospital stays, procedures, and tests. However, reimbursement discussions are increasingly moving from fee-for-service to value-based, in which payments are tied to managing population health and total cost of care.

Because these changes will impact the entire system all the way down to individual providers, in the upcoming Population Management article series in The Hospitalist, we will discuss the nuances and implications that physicians, executives, and hospitals should be aware of. In this first article, we will examine the impetus for the shift toward population management and introduce common terminology to lay the foundation for the future content.
 

The traditional model: Fee for service

Under the traditional fee-for-service payment system, health care providers are paid per unit of service. For example, hospitals receive diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments for inpatient stays, and physicians are paid per patient visit. The more services that hospitals or physicians provide, the more money both get paid, without financial consequences for quality outcomes or total cost of care. Total cost of care includes clinic visits, outpatient procedures and tests, hospital and ED visits, home health, skilled nursing facilities, durable medical equipment, and sometimes drugs during an episode of care (for example, a hospital stay plus 90 days after discharge) or over a period of time (for example, a month or a year).

As a result of the fee-for-service payment system, the United States spends more money on health care than other wealthy countries, yet it lags behind other countries on many quality measures, such as disease burden, overall mortality, premature death, and preventable death.^1,2

In 2007, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) developed the Triple Aim framework that focused on the following:

• Improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction).
• Improving the health of populations.
• Reducing per capita cost of care.

Both public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as private payers, embraced the Triple Aim to reform how health care is delivered and paid for. As such, health care delivery focus and financial incentives are shifting from managing discrete patient encounters for acute illness to managing population health and total cost of care.
 

A new approach: Population management

Before diving into population management, it is important to first understand the terms “population” and “population health.” A population can be defined geographically or may include employees of an organization, members of a health plan, or patients receiving care from a specific physician group or health care system. David A. Kindig, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, defined population health as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.”³ Dr. Kindig noted that population health outcomes have many determinants, such as the following:⁴

• Health care (access, cost, quantity, and quality of health care services).
• Individual behavior (including diet, exercise, and substance abuse).
• Genetics.
• The social environment (education, income, occupation, class, and social support).
• Physical environment (air and water quality, lead exposure, and the design of neighborhoods).

IHI operationally defines population health by measures such as life expectancy, mortality rates, health and functional status, the incidence and/or prevalence of chronic disease, and behavioral and physiological factors such as smoking, physical activity, diet, blood pressure, body mass index, and cholesterol.⁵

On the other hand, population management is primarily concerned with health care determinants of health and, according to IHI, should be clearly distinguished from population health, which focuses on the broader determinants of health.⁵

According to Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, one of the founding members and a past-president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, population management is a “global approach of caring for an entire patient population to deliver safe and equitable care and to more intelligently allocate resources to keep people well.”

Population management requires understanding the patient population, which includes risk stratification and redesigning and delivering services that are guided by integrated clinical and administrative data and enabled by information technology.
 

Cost-sharing payment models

The cornerstone of population management is provider accountability for the cost of care, which can be accomplished through shared-risk models or population-based payments. Let’s take a closer look at each.

Under shared-risk models, providers receive payment based on their performance against cost targets. The goal is to generate cost savings by improving care coordination, engaging patients in shared decision making based on their health goals, and reducing utilization of care that provides little to no value for patients (for example, preventable hospital admissions or unnecessary imaging or procedures).

Cost targets and actual spending are reconciled retrospectively. If providers beat cost targets, they are eligible to keep a share of generated savings based on their performance on selected quality measures. However, if providers’ actual spending exceeds cost targets, they will compensate payers for a portion of the losses. Under one-sided risk models, providers are eligible for shared savings but not financially responsible for losses. Under two-sided risk models, providers are accountable for both savings and losses.

With prospective population-based payments, also known as capitation, providers receive in advance a fixed amount of money per patient per unit of time (for example, per month) that creates a budget to cover the cost of agreed-upon health care services. The prospective payments are risk adjusted and typically tied to performance on selected quality, effectiveness, and patient experience measures.

Professional services capitation arrangements between physician groups and payers cover the cost of physician services including primary care, specialty care, and related laboratory and radiology services. Under global capitation or global payment arrangements, health care systems receive payments that cover the total cost of care for the patient population for a defined period.

Population-based payments create incentives to provide high-quality and efficient care within a set budget.⁶ If actual cost of delivering services to the defined patient population comes under the budget, the providers will realize savings, but otherwise will encounter losses.
 

What is next?

Now that we have explained the impetus for population management and the terminology, in the next article in this series we will discuss the current state of population management. We will also delve into a hospitalist’s role and participation so you can be aware of impending changes and ensure you are set up for success, no matter how the payment models evolve.
 

Dr. Farah is a hospitalist, physician adviser, and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt. She is a performance improvement consultant based in Corvallis, Ore., and a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.

References

1. Source: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start

2. Source: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/on-several-indicators-of-healthcare-quality the-u-s-falls-short/

3. Kindig D, Asada Y, Booske B. (2008). A Population Health Framework for Setting National and State Health Goals. JAMA, 299, 2081-2083.

4. Source: https://improvingpopulationhealth.typepad.com/blog/what-are-health-factorsdeterminants.html

5. Source: http://www.ihi.org/communities/blogs/population-health-population-management-terminology-in-us-health-care

6. Source: http://hcp-lan.org/workproducts/apm-refresh-whitepaper-final.pdf

Traditionally, U.S. health care has operated under a fee-for-service payment model, in which health care providers (such as physicians, hospitals, and health care systems) receive a fee for services such as office visits, hospital stays, procedures, and tests. However, reimbursement discussions are increasingly moving from fee-for-service to value-based, in which payments are tied to managing population health and total cost of care.

Because these changes will impact the entire system all the way down to individual providers, in the upcoming Population Management article series in The Hospitalist, we will discuss the nuances and implications that physicians, executives, and hospitals should be aware of. In this first article, we will examine the impetus for the shift toward population management and introduce common terminology to lay the foundation for the future content.
 

The traditional model: Fee for service

Under the traditional fee-for-service payment system, health care providers are paid per unit of service. For example, hospitals receive diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments for inpatient stays, and physicians are paid per patient visit. The more services that hospitals or physicians provide, the more money both get paid, without financial consequences for quality outcomes or total cost of care. Total cost of care includes clinic visits, outpatient procedures and tests, hospital and ED visits, home health, skilled nursing facilities, durable medical equipment, and sometimes drugs during an episode of care (for example, a hospital stay plus 90 days after discharge) or over a period of time (for example, a month or a year).

As a result of the fee-for-service payment system, the United States spends more money on health care than other wealthy countries, yet it lags behind other countries on many quality measures, such as disease burden, overall mortality, premature death, and preventable death.^1,2

In 2007, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) developed the Triple Aim framework that focused on the following:

• Improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction).
• Improving the health of populations.
• Reducing per capita cost of care.

Both public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as private payers, embraced the Triple Aim to reform how health care is delivered and paid for. As such, health care delivery focus and financial incentives are shifting from managing discrete patient encounters for acute illness to managing population health and total cost of care.
 

A new approach: Population management

Before diving into population management, it is important to first understand the terms “population” and “population health.” A population can be defined geographically or may include employees of an organization, members of a health plan, or patients receiving care from a specific physician group or health care system. David A. Kindig, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, defined population health as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.”³ Dr. Kindig noted that population health outcomes have many determinants, such as the following:⁴

• Health care (access, cost, quantity, and quality of health care services).
• Individual behavior (including diet, exercise, and substance abuse).
• Genetics.
• The social environment (education, income, occupation, class, and social support).
• Physical environment (air and water quality, lead exposure, and the design of neighborhoods).

IHI operationally defines population health by measures such as life expectancy, mortality rates, health and functional status, the incidence and/or prevalence of chronic disease, and behavioral and physiological factors such as smoking, physical activity, diet, blood pressure, body mass index, and cholesterol.⁵

On the other hand, population management is primarily concerned with health care determinants of health and, according to IHI, should be clearly distinguished from population health, which focuses on the broader determinants of health.⁵

According to Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, one of the founding members and a past-president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, population management is a “global approach of caring for an entire patient population to deliver safe and equitable care and to more intelligently allocate resources to keep people well.”

Population management requires understanding the patient population, which includes risk stratification and redesigning and delivering services that are guided by integrated clinical and administrative data and enabled by information technology.
 

Cost-sharing payment models

The cornerstone of population management is provider accountability for the cost of care, which can be accomplished through shared-risk models or population-based payments. Let’s take a closer look at each.

Under shared-risk models, providers receive payment based on their performance against cost targets. The goal is to generate cost savings by improving care coordination, engaging patients in shared decision making based on their health goals, and reducing utilization of care that provides little to no value for patients (for example, preventable hospital admissions or unnecessary imaging or procedures).

Cost targets and actual spending are reconciled retrospectively. If providers beat cost targets, they are eligible to keep a share of generated savings based on their performance on selected quality measures. However, if providers’ actual spending exceeds cost targets, they will compensate payers for a portion of the losses. Under one-sided risk models, providers are eligible for shared savings but not financially responsible for losses. Under two-sided risk models, providers are accountable for both savings and losses.

With prospective population-based payments, also known as capitation, providers receive in advance a fixed amount of money per patient per unit of time (for example, per month) that creates a budget to cover the cost of agreed-upon health care services. The prospective payments are risk adjusted and typically tied to performance on selected quality, effectiveness, and patient experience measures.

Professional services capitation arrangements between physician groups and payers cover the cost of physician services including primary care, specialty care, and related laboratory and radiology services. Under global capitation or global payment arrangements, health care systems receive payments that cover the total cost of care for the patient population for a defined period.

Population-based payments create incentives to provide high-quality and efficient care within a set budget.⁶ If actual cost of delivering services to the defined patient population comes under the budget, the providers will realize savings, but otherwise will encounter losses.
 

What is next?

Now that we have explained the impetus for population management and the terminology, in the next article in this series we will discuss the current state of population management. We will also delve into a hospitalist’s role and participation so you can be aware of impending changes and ensure you are set up for success, no matter how the payment models evolve.
 

Dr. Farah is a hospitalist, physician adviser, and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt. She is a performance improvement consultant based in Corvallis, Ore., and a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.

References

1. Source: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start

2. Source: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/on-several-indicators-of-healthcare-quality the-u-s-falls-short/

3. Kindig D, Asada Y, Booske B. (2008). A Population Health Framework for Setting National and State Health Goals. JAMA, 299, 2081-2083.

4. Source: https://improvingpopulationhealth.typepad.com/blog/what-are-health-factorsdeterminants.html

5. Source: http://www.ihi.org/communities/blogs/population-health-population-management-terminology-in-us-health-care

6. Source: http://hcp-lan.org/workproducts/apm-refresh-whitepaper-final.pdf

ORLANDO – Dermatologists should be well versed in addressing common concerns that patients, family members, and the media have about photoprotection, Adam Friedman, MD, advised at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, & Surgical Conference.

“Know the controversies. Be armed and ready when these patients come to your office with questions,” Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview at the meeting, where he presented on issues related to photoprotection.

Which SPF to choose and the impact of sunscreen on vitamin D are among the issues patients may be asking about.

Sunscreen SPFs above 50 don’t technically provide a “meaningful” increase in ultraviolet protection, given that this value relates to filtering about 98% of UVB, but they still can provide some benefit, which has to do with real-world human error, Dr. Friedman said.

“Most people don’t use sunscreens the right way,” meaning they don’t apply enough to achieve the SPF listed, he added in the interview. “A higher SPF is meaningful, because if they apply less [sunscreen], they actually still are in that safety window,” with the higher SPF sunscreen. (The American Academy of Dermatology recommends an SPF of 30 or higher.) Several studies have shown that a SPF of 70 or 100 is superior to 50, likely because of this “dilutional” effect.

Patients may have concerns about the effects of sunscreen on vitamin D production, the environment, and hair loss, and whether they have endocrine disrupting effects, added Dr. Friedman, who is also the medical director of the meeting.

Inhibition of cutaneous vitamin D synthesis after using sunscreen can vary, based on whether a person has properly applied sunscreen, the season, latitude, and an individual’s age and obesity level. Patients with low vitamin D levels can use a vitamin D supplement to achieve sufficient levels, and patients concerned about the impact of sunscreen and vitamin D can be advised to take 600 IU of vitamin D3 a day, according to Dr. Friedman. Some studies have suggested that UVB exposure and risk of certain cancers are inversely correlated, implicating cutaneous vitamin D synthesis (J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2014 Oct 5;1[4]:179-86). But correlation does not equal causation, he pointed out.

Other concerns stem from the potential for oxybenzone, a UVA/UVB filter in more than 70% of sunscreens, to act as an endocrine disruptor in people and whether it is potentially damaging the environment. The data driving these concerns “stem from the bench, not the real world,” Dr. Friedman said. While topical application of oxybenzone can result in systemic absorption, and even though it’s been detected in waters that are heavily populated or where people go on vacation, there is no evidence demonstrating toxicity to humans or the coral reefs. “At least the information we have to date says they don’t,” he added.

In a randomized clinical trial recently published in JAMA, Food and Drug Administration investigators found that systemic skin absorption with geometric mean plasma concentrations greater than 0.5 ng/mL with six active ingredients in sunscreen that were tested, including oxybenzone (JAMA. 2020;323[3]:256-7). The study was part of an FDA proposed rule requesting additional information on sunscreen ingredients; the plasma concentrations exceeded the level at which further safety studies could potentially be waived.

The study, Dr. Friedman said, “only demonstrated the ability to detect these UV filters at very small concentrations in the blood. They have yet to show any meaningful biologic correlation to these findings.”

For those patients who prefer not to use chemical filters, Dr. Friedman suggests recommending mineral-based sunscreens, of which he said micro- and nanoparticulate formulations offer the best cosmesis by sitting more evenly on the skin, being more amenable to thinner and less-lipophilic vehicles, and limiting visible light scattering (thereby limiting the unsightly white appearance) – while maintaining UV scattering efficacy. However, controversy has emerged as there are past studies that posit the theoretical danger of nanoparticles in sunscreens, given their potential to penetrate the skin and enter cells.

But continually emerging evidence has shown that commercially available nanosunscreens are safe, with no toxicity even at the cellular level when applied to the skin in sunscreen or in cosmetics. “All evidence to date suggests they do not do this,” Dr. Friedman said, noting that, in Europe, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has stated that nanoparticles below a concentration of 25% in sunscreens is safe, “just don’t put them in aerosolized forms.”

Lastly, while some recent studies have detected titanium dioxide on the hair shafts of patients with and without frontal fibrosing alopecia, Dr. Friedman noted more evidence is needed before recommending that these patients avoid using sunscreen (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jul;181[1]:216-7). “Correlation does not mean causation, and the current dogma is that there’s no connection between these two,” he commented.

Dr. Friedman reported consulting and advisory board relationships with numerous companies; he also reported speaking for Regeneron, Abbvie, and Dermira, and receiving grants with Pfizer and DF Pharma.

ORLANDO – Dermatologists should be well versed in addressing common concerns that patients, family members, and the media have about photoprotection, Adam Friedman, MD, advised at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, & Surgical Conference.

“Know the controversies. Be armed and ready when these patients come to your office with questions,” Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview at the meeting, where he presented on issues related to photoprotection.

Which SPF to choose and the impact of sunscreen on vitamin D are among the issues patients may be asking about.

Sunscreen SPFs above 50 don’t technically provide a “meaningful” increase in ultraviolet protection, given that this value relates to filtering about 98% of UVB, but they still can provide some benefit, which has to do with real-world human error, Dr. Friedman said.

“Most people don’t use sunscreens the right way,” meaning they don’t apply enough to achieve the SPF listed, he added in the interview. “A higher SPF is meaningful, because if they apply less [sunscreen], they actually still are in that safety window,” with the higher SPF sunscreen. (The American Academy of Dermatology recommends an SPF of 30 or higher.) Several studies have shown that a SPF of 70 or 100 is superior to 50, likely because of this “dilutional” effect.

Patients may have concerns about the effects of sunscreen on vitamin D production, the environment, and hair loss, and whether they have endocrine disrupting effects, added Dr. Friedman, who is also the medical director of the meeting.

Inhibition of cutaneous vitamin D synthesis after using sunscreen can vary, based on whether a person has properly applied sunscreen, the season, latitude, and an individual’s age and obesity level. Patients with low vitamin D levels can use a vitamin D supplement to achieve sufficient levels, and patients concerned about the impact of sunscreen and vitamin D can be advised to take 600 IU of vitamin D3 a day, according to Dr. Friedman. Some studies have suggested that UVB exposure and risk of certain cancers are inversely correlated, implicating cutaneous vitamin D synthesis (J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2014 Oct 5;1[4]:179-86). But correlation does not equal causation, he pointed out.

Other concerns stem from the potential for oxybenzone, a UVA/UVB filter in more than 70% of sunscreens, to act as an endocrine disruptor in people and whether it is potentially damaging the environment. The data driving these concerns “stem from the bench, not the real world,” Dr. Friedman said. While topical application of oxybenzone can result in systemic absorption, and even though it’s been detected in waters that are heavily populated or where people go on vacation, there is no evidence demonstrating toxicity to humans or the coral reefs. “At least the information we have to date says they don’t,” he added.

In a randomized clinical trial recently published in JAMA, Food and Drug Administration investigators found that systemic skin absorption with geometric mean plasma concentrations greater than 0.5 ng/mL with six active ingredients in sunscreen that were tested, including oxybenzone (JAMA. 2020;323[3]:256-7). The study was part of an FDA proposed rule requesting additional information on sunscreen ingredients; the plasma concentrations exceeded the level at which further safety studies could potentially be waived.

The study, Dr. Friedman said, “only demonstrated the ability to detect these UV filters at very small concentrations in the blood. They have yet to show any meaningful biologic correlation to these findings.”

For those patients who prefer not to use chemical filters, Dr. Friedman suggests recommending mineral-based sunscreens, of which he said micro- and nanoparticulate formulations offer the best cosmesis by sitting more evenly on the skin, being more amenable to thinner and less-lipophilic vehicles, and limiting visible light scattering (thereby limiting the unsightly white appearance) – while maintaining UV scattering efficacy. However, controversy has emerged as there are past studies that posit the theoretical danger of nanoparticles in sunscreens, given their potential to penetrate the skin and enter cells.

But continually emerging evidence has shown that commercially available nanosunscreens are safe, with no toxicity even at the cellular level when applied to the skin in sunscreen or in cosmetics. “All evidence to date suggests they do not do this,” Dr. Friedman said, noting that, in Europe, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has stated that nanoparticles below a concentration of 25% in sunscreens is safe, “just don’t put them in aerosolized forms.”

Lastly, while some recent studies have detected titanium dioxide on the hair shafts of patients with and without frontal fibrosing alopecia, Dr. Friedman noted more evidence is needed before recommending that these patients avoid using sunscreen (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jul;181[1]:216-7). “Correlation does not mean causation, and the current dogma is that there’s no connection between these two,” he commented.

Dr. Friedman reported consulting and advisory board relationships with numerous companies; he also reported speaking for Regeneron, Abbvie, and Dermira, and receiving grants with Pfizer and DF Pharma.

ORLANDO – Dermatologists should be well versed in addressing common concerns that patients, family members, and the media have about photoprotection, Adam Friedman, MD, advised at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, & Surgical Conference.

“Know the controversies. Be armed and ready when these patients come to your office with questions,” Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview at the meeting, where he presented on issues related to photoprotection.

Which SPF to choose and the impact of sunscreen on vitamin D are among the issues patients may be asking about.

Sunscreen SPFs above 50 don’t technically provide a “meaningful” increase in ultraviolet protection, given that this value relates to filtering about 98% of UVB, but they still can provide some benefit, which has to do with real-world human error, Dr. Friedman said.

“Most people don’t use sunscreens the right way,” meaning they don’t apply enough to achieve the SPF listed, he added in the interview. “A higher SPF is meaningful, because if they apply less [sunscreen], they actually still are in that safety window,” with the higher SPF sunscreen. (The American Academy of Dermatology recommends an SPF of 30 or higher.) Several studies have shown that a SPF of 70 or 100 is superior to 50, likely because of this “dilutional” effect.

Patients may have concerns about the effects of sunscreen on vitamin D production, the environment, and hair loss, and whether they have endocrine disrupting effects, added Dr. Friedman, who is also the medical director of the meeting.

Inhibition of cutaneous vitamin D synthesis after using sunscreen can vary, based on whether a person has properly applied sunscreen, the season, latitude, and an individual’s age and obesity level. Patients with low vitamin D levels can use a vitamin D supplement to achieve sufficient levels, and patients concerned about the impact of sunscreen and vitamin D can be advised to take 600 IU of vitamin D3 a day, according to Dr. Friedman. Some studies have suggested that UVB exposure and risk of certain cancers are inversely correlated, implicating cutaneous vitamin D synthesis (J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2014 Oct 5;1[4]:179-86). But correlation does not equal causation, he pointed out.

Other concerns stem from the potential for oxybenzone, a UVA/UVB filter in more than 70% of sunscreens, to act as an endocrine disruptor in people and whether it is potentially damaging the environment. The data driving these concerns “stem from the bench, not the real world,” Dr. Friedman said. While topical application of oxybenzone can result in systemic absorption, and even though it’s been detected in waters that are heavily populated or where people go on vacation, there is no evidence demonstrating toxicity to humans or the coral reefs. “At least the information we have to date says they don’t,” he added.

In a randomized clinical trial recently published in JAMA, Food and Drug Administration investigators found that systemic skin absorption with geometric mean plasma concentrations greater than 0.5 ng/mL with six active ingredients in sunscreen that were tested, including oxybenzone (JAMA. 2020;323[3]:256-7). The study was part of an FDA proposed rule requesting additional information on sunscreen ingredients; the plasma concentrations exceeded the level at which further safety studies could potentially be waived.

The study, Dr. Friedman said, “only demonstrated the ability to detect these UV filters at very small concentrations in the blood. They have yet to show any meaningful biologic correlation to these findings.”

For those patients who prefer not to use chemical filters, Dr. Friedman suggests recommending mineral-based sunscreens, of which he said micro- and nanoparticulate formulations offer the best cosmesis by sitting more evenly on the skin, being more amenable to thinner and less-lipophilic vehicles, and limiting visible light scattering (thereby limiting the unsightly white appearance) – while maintaining UV scattering efficacy. However, controversy has emerged as there are past studies that posit the theoretical danger of nanoparticles in sunscreens, given their potential to penetrate the skin and enter cells.

But continually emerging evidence has shown that commercially available nanosunscreens are safe, with no toxicity even at the cellular level when applied to the skin in sunscreen or in cosmetics. “All evidence to date suggests they do not do this,” Dr. Friedman said, noting that, in Europe, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has stated that nanoparticles below a concentration of 25% in sunscreens is safe, “just don’t put them in aerosolized forms.”

Lastly, while some recent studies have detected titanium dioxide on the hair shafts of patients with and without frontal fibrosing alopecia, Dr. Friedman noted more evidence is needed before recommending that these patients avoid using sunscreen (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jul;181[1]:216-7). “Correlation does not mean causation, and the current dogma is that there’s no connection between these two,” he commented.

Dr. Friedman reported consulting and advisory board relationships with numerous companies; he also reported speaking for Regeneron, Abbvie, and Dermira, and receiving grants with Pfizer and DF Pharma.

U.S. public health officials attempted to stymie concerns about the coronavirus during a press conference on Tuesday, emphasizing that most Americans are not in danger of contracting the illness and urging citizens not to take extreme measures in response to the low-risk virus.

“Right now, there is no spread of this virus in our communities here at home,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield, MD, said during the Jan. 28 press conference. “This is why our current assessment is that the immediate health risk of this new virus to the general public is low in our nation. The coming days and weeks are likely to bring more confirmed cases here and around the world, including the possibility of some person-to-person spreading, but our goal of the ongoing U.S. public health response is to contain this outbreak and prevent sustained spread of the virus in our country.”

During the press conference, Department Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II, reiterated there have been only five confirmed U.S. cases of the coronavirus thus far and all were associated with travel to Wuhan, China, where the virus first appeared. The number of confirmed cases in China, meanwhile, has risen to more than 4,500 with about 100 associated deaths.

U.S. health providers should be on the lookout for any patient who has traveled to China recently, particularly to Hubei province, and they should pay close attention to any relevant symptoms, Secretary Azar said during the press conference.

He defended the decision not to declare a public health emergency at this time, stressing that such a move is based on standards and requirements not yet met by the coronavirus.

“It’s important to remember where we are right now; we have five cases in the United States, each of those individuals with direct contact to Wuhan and no person-to-person transmission in the United States,” Secretary Azar said. “I won’t hesitate at all to invoke any authorities that I need to ensure that we’re taking all the steps to protect the American people, but I’ll do it when it’s appropriate under the standards that we have and the authorities that I need.”

In the meantime, a number of efforts are underway by U.S. agencies to assess the nation’s emergency preparedness stockpile, to assist American families in China with evacuation, and to pursue research into diagnostics and a potential vaccine for the virus, Secretary Azar said.

HHS.gov

U.S. public health officials attempted to stymie concerns about the coronavirus during a press conference on Tuesday, emphasizing that most Americans are not in danger of contracting the illness and urging citizens not to take extreme measures in response to the low-risk virus.

“Right now, there is no spread of this virus in our communities here at home,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield, MD, said during the Jan. 28 press conference. “This is why our current assessment is that the immediate health risk of this new virus to the general public is low in our nation. The coming days and weeks are likely to bring more confirmed cases here and around the world, including the possibility of some person-to-person spreading, but our goal of the ongoing U.S. public health response is to contain this outbreak and prevent sustained spread of the virus in our country.”

During the press conference, Department Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II, reiterated there have been only five confirmed U.S. cases of the coronavirus thus far and all were associated with travel to Wuhan, China, where the virus first appeared. The number of confirmed cases in China, meanwhile, has risen to more than 4,500 with about 100 associated deaths.

U.S. health providers should be on the lookout for any patient who has traveled to China recently, particularly to Hubei province, and they should pay close attention to any relevant symptoms, Secretary Azar said during the press conference.

He defended the decision not to declare a public health emergency at this time, stressing that such a move is based on standards and requirements not yet met by the coronavirus.

“It’s important to remember where we are right now; we have five cases in the United States, each of those individuals with direct contact to Wuhan and no person-to-person transmission in the United States,” Secretary Azar said. “I won’t hesitate at all to invoke any authorities that I need to ensure that we’re taking all the steps to protect the American people, but I’ll do it when it’s appropriate under the standards that we have and the authorities that I need.”

In the meantime, a number of efforts are underway by U.S. agencies to assess the nation’s emergency preparedness stockpile, to assist American families in China with evacuation, and to pursue research into diagnostics and a potential vaccine for the virus, Secretary Azar said.

HHS.gov

U.S. public health officials attempted to stymie concerns about the coronavirus during a press conference on Tuesday, emphasizing that most Americans are not in danger of contracting the illness and urging citizens not to take extreme measures in response to the low-risk virus.

“Right now, there is no spread of this virus in our communities here at home,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield, MD, said during the Jan. 28 press conference. “This is why our current assessment is that the immediate health risk of this new virus to the general public is low in our nation. The coming days and weeks are likely to bring more confirmed cases here and around the world, including the possibility of some person-to-person spreading, but our goal of the ongoing U.S. public health response is to contain this outbreak and prevent sustained spread of the virus in our country.”

During the press conference, Department Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II, reiterated there have been only five confirmed U.S. cases of the coronavirus thus far and all were associated with travel to Wuhan, China, where the virus first appeared. The number of confirmed cases in China, meanwhile, has risen to more than 4,500 with about 100 associated deaths.

U.S. health providers should be on the lookout for any patient who has traveled to China recently, particularly to Hubei province, and they should pay close attention to any relevant symptoms, Secretary Azar said during the press conference.

He defended the decision not to declare a public health emergency at this time, stressing that such a move is based on standards and requirements not yet met by the coronavirus.

“It’s important to remember where we are right now; we have five cases in the United States, each of those individuals with direct contact to Wuhan and no person-to-person transmission in the United States,” Secretary Azar said. “I won’t hesitate at all to invoke any authorities that I need to ensure that we’re taking all the steps to protect the American people, but I’ll do it when it’s appropriate under the standards that we have and the authorities that I need.”

In the meantime, a number of efforts are underway by U.S. agencies to assess the nation’s emergency preparedness stockpile, to assist American families in China with evacuation, and to pursue research into diagnostics and a potential vaccine for the virus, Secretary Azar said.

HHS.gov

Simulation is commonly used in the education and training of health care professionals, but more recently it’s entering the quality improvement world.

“Instead of just thinking about training individuals and teams, people are starting to use simulation to look at the physical layout of resuscitation bays, to map work flows of a patient journey through hospitals, to identify latent safety threats,” said Victoria Brazil, MD, MBA, lead author of a study on the subject in BMJ Quality & Safety. “These are great things to do, but many of the people doing it didn’t have quality improvement skills or knowledge – that’s why we wrote this article.”

Dr. Brazil, a specialist in health care simulation at Gold Coast (Australia) Hospital and Health Service, explained that, “in terms of the top takeaways, for quality improvement teams – and I’m including everyday clinicians in this: Think about simulation as one of the tools that can be utilized when looking at the questions of how we make our performance better, whether that’s a team performance, environmental, investigational impacts, or one of my key interests, whether that’s about exploring and shaping culture in hospitals, which we’ve done a lot of work on using simulation.”

Quality improvement has become a very specialized field, she added, so hospitalists may think it’s outside their purview. “As clinicians, we don’t think about ourselves as being engaged in quality improvement. I think that’s a shame, because many of the things that we can do bit by bit to make our patient outcomes better, we need to be thinking about finding better ways to do those things. I suggest simulation is one way, and that doesn’t need to be a massive simulation center. It can be simulating the kind of things that are important to you, your teams, and your patients and using those to both explore improved performance.”

Dr. Brazil said that Gold Coast Hospital has used simulation as a way of getting people from different departments and different professions together to shape culture through understanding shared knowledge and goals around patient journeys.

“That’s been pretty successful for us, and I think it’s really important that quality improvement has that understanding of context and culture as well as the idea of having specific interventions – maybe like a simulation – to try and improve an outcome,” she said.

Reference

1. Brazil V et al.. Connecting simulation and quality improvement: How can healthcare simulation really improve patient care? BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009767.

Simulation is commonly used in the education and training of health care professionals, but more recently it’s entering the quality improvement world.

“Instead of just thinking about training individuals and teams, people are starting to use simulation to look at the physical layout of resuscitation bays, to map work flows of a patient journey through hospitals, to identify latent safety threats,” said Victoria Brazil, MD, MBA, lead author of a study on the subject in BMJ Quality & Safety. “These are great things to do, but many of the people doing it didn’t have quality improvement skills or knowledge – that’s why we wrote this article.”

Dr. Brazil, a specialist in health care simulation at Gold Coast (Australia) Hospital and Health Service, explained that, “in terms of the top takeaways, for quality improvement teams – and I’m including everyday clinicians in this: Think about simulation as one of the tools that can be utilized when looking at the questions of how we make our performance better, whether that’s a team performance, environmental, investigational impacts, or one of my key interests, whether that’s about exploring and shaping culture in hospitals, which we’ve done a lot of work on using simulation.”

Quality improvement has become a very specialized field, she added, so hospitalists may think it’s outside their purview. “As clinicians, we don’t think about ourselves as being engaged in quality improvement. I think that’s a shame, because many of the things that we can do bit by bit to make our patient outcomes better, we need to be thinking about finding better ways to do those things. I suggest simulation is one way, and that doesn’t need to be a massive simulation center. It can be simulating the kind of things that are important to you, your teams, and your patients and using those to both explore improved performance.”

Dr. Brazil said that Gold Coast Hospital has used simulation as a way of getting people from different departments and different professions together to shape culture through understanding shared knowledge and goals around patient journeys.

“That’s been pretty successful for us, and I think it’s really important that quality improvement has that understanding of context and culture as well as the idea of having specific interventions – maybe like a simulation – to try and improve an outcome,” she said.

Reference

1. Brazil V et al.. Connecting simulation and quality improvement: How can healthcare simulation really improve patient care? BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009767.

Simulation is commonly used in the education and training of health care professionals, but more recently it’s entering the quality improvement world.

“Instead of just thinking about training individuals and teams, people are starting to use simulation to look at the physical layout of resuscitation bays, to map work flows of a patient journey through hospitals, to identify latent safety threats,” said Victoria Brazil, MD, MBA, lead author of a study on the subject in BMJ Quality & Safety. “These are great things to do, but many of the people doing it didn’t have quality improvement skills or knowledge – that’s why we wrote this article.”

Dr. Brazil, a specialist in health care simulation at Gold Coast (Australia) Hospital and Health Service, explained that, “in terms of the top takeaways, for quality improvement teams – and I’m including everyday clinicians in this: Think about simulation as one of the tools that can be utilized when looking at the questions of how we make our performance better, whether that’s a team performance, environmental, investigational impacts, or one of my key interests, whether that’s about exploring and shaping culture in hospitals, which we’ve done a lot of work on using simulation.”

Quality improvement has become a very specialized field, she added, so hospitalists may think it’s outside their purview. “As clinicians, we don’t think about ourselves as being engaged in quality improvement. I think that’s a shame, because many of the things that we can do bit by bit to make our patient outcomes better, we need to be thinking about finding better ways to do those things. I suggest simulation is one way, and that doesn’t need to be a massive simulation center. It can be simulating the kind of things that are important to you, your teams, and your patients and using those to both explore improved performance.”

Dr. Brazil said that Gold Coast Hospital has used simulation as a way of getting people from different departments and different professions together to shape culture through understanding shared knowledge and goals around patient journeys.

“That’s been pretty successful for us, and I think it’s really important that quality improvement has that understanding of context and culture as well as the idea of having specific interventions – maybe like a simulation – to try and improve an outcome,” she said.

Reference

1. Brazil V et al.. Connecting simulation and quality improvement: How can healthcare simulation really improve patient care? BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009767.