Mixed Topics

ATLANTA – Methotrexate, in combination with prednisone, might be emerging as the go-to option for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis, according to investigators from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) is an inflammatory disease in which granulomas form in breast tissue. It strikes mostly young to middle-aged women with painful, firm breast masses, sometimes with redness and drainage. Diagnosis is by biopsy with rule-out of known causes.

IGM does not respond to antibiotics. Prednisone and surgery have been the traditional approaches, but masses can recur after surgery, and a year or more of prednisone, with the weight gain and side effects, is problematic. As a result, cases are increasingly being referred to rheumatologists for other options, said lead investigator Sarah Ringsted, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the university.

A study she presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology and previous work from others builds a case for methotrexate, which often seems to put the disease in remission and allows for shorter glucocorticoid courses. These days, “I offer this to patients as a great option. It’s really nice to have, instead of having women go on months and months of high-dose steroids, and I think we can save patients from unnecessary” surgery, Dr. Ringsted said.

Her usual regimen these days is methotrexate 15-20 mg/week for 12-18 months, with high-dose prednisone (greater than 20 mg/day) for the first 3 months, followed by a taper.

Dr. Ringsted and associates compared 23 women treated at the university during 2007-2018. Just 5 of the 12 women (42%) treated with high-dose prednisone alone went into remission and did not relapse over a mean follow-up of 27 months. Two out of three women who had both high-dose glucocorticoids and surgery achieved remission without relapse, as did all three women who received methotrexate and high-dose glucocorticoids (one also had surgery). Five other patients were treated with other options; just two had a durable remission.

The numbers are small, but they add to two previous reports. Among 19 women who had failed other treatments, 94% improved and 75% went into remission with 15 months of methotrexate in a review from Stanford (Calif.) University. An Iranian study of 17 patients treated with methotrexate, and also glucocorticoids in some, had a relapse rate of only 17.8%.

There were several cases of both inflammatory arthritis and erythema nodosum in the Oregon series, a higher incidence than what has been reported before for IGM. “It’s interesting because it makes me think of sarcoidosis. There have been cases of sarcoidosis causing mastitis, but mostly in patients with other features” of the disease. “It makes me wonder if any of these women will develop sarcoidosis later on; I think that’s an interesting question,” Dr. Ringsted said.

Women in the study were an average age of 32 years, and over half were Hispanic, which is associated with a higher risk for IGM. Almost all the women had been pregnant before and had breast fed in the previous 5 years. Cancer, tuberculosis, and fungal infections were among the things ruled out before mastitis was deemed idiopathic.

Women with IGM tend to be of childbearing age, and must be cautioned against the teratogenic effects of methotrexate, Dr. Ringsted noted.

There was no external funding, and the investigators didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ringsted S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 386.

ATLANTA – Methotrexate, in combination with prednisone, might be emerging as the go-to option for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis, according to investigators from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) is an inflammatory disease in which granulomas form in breast tissue. It strikes mostly young to middle-aged women with painful, firm breast masses, sometimes with redness and drainage. Diagnosis is by biopsy with rule-out of known causes.

IGM does not respond to antibiotics. Prednisone and surgery have been the traditional approaches, but masses can recur after surgery, and a year or more of prednisone, with the weight gain and side effects, is problematic. As a result, cases are increasingly being referred to rheumatologists for other options, said lead investigator Sarah Ringsted, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the university.

A study she presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology and previous work from others builds a case for methotrexate, which often seems to put the disease in remission and allows for shorter glucocorticoid courses. These days, “I offer this to patients as a great option. It’s really nice to have, instead of having women go on months and months of high-dose steroids, and I think we can save patients from unnecessary” surgery, Dr. Ringsted said.

Her usual regimen these days is methotrexate 15-20 mg/week for 12-18 months, with high-dose prednisone (greater than 20 mg/day) for the first 3 months, followed by a taper.

Dr. Ringsted and associates compared 23 women treated at the university during 2007-2018. Just 5 of the 12 women (42%) treated with high-dose prednisone alone went into remission and did not relapse over a mean follow-up of 27 months. Two out of three women who had both high-dose glucocorticoids and surgery achieved remission without relapse, as did all three women who received methotrexate and high-dose glucocorticoids (one also had surgery). Five other patients were treated with other options; just two had a durable remission.

The numbers are small, but they add to two previous reports. Among 19 women who had failed other treatments, 94% improved and 75% went into remission with 15 months of methotrexate in a review from Stanford (Calif.) University. An Iranian study of 17 patients treated with methotrexate, and also glucocorticoids in some, had a relapse rate of only 17.8%.

There were several cases of both inflammatory arthritis and erythema nodosum in the Oregon series, a higher incidence than what has been reported before for IGM. “It’s interesting because it makes me think of sarcoidosis. There have been cases of sarcoidosis causing mastitis, but mostly in patients with other features” of the disease. “It makes me wonder if any of these women will develop sarcoidosis later on; I think that’s an interesting question,” Dr. Ringsted said.

Women in the study were an average age of 32 years, and over half were Hispanic, which is associated with a higher risk for IGM. Almost all the women had been pregnant before and had breast fed in the previous 5 years. Cancer, tuberculosis, and fungal infections were among the things ruled out before mastitis was deemed idiopathic.

Women with IGM tend to be of childbearing age, and must be cautioned against the teratogenic effects of methotrexate, Dr. Ringsted noted.

There was no external funding, and the investigators didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ringsted S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 386.

ATLANTA – Methotrexate, in combination with prednisone, might be emerging as the go-to option for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis, according to investigators from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) is an inflammatory disease in which granulomas form in breast tissue. It strikes mostly young to middle-aged women with painful, firm breast masses, sometimes with redness and drainage. Diagnosis is by biopsy with rule-out of known causes.

IGM does not respond to antibiotics. Prednisone and surgery have been the traditional approaches, but masses can recur after surgery, and a year or more of prednisone, with the weight gain and side effects, is problematic. As a result, cases are increasingly being referred to rheumatologists for other options, said lead investigator Sarah Ringsted, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the university.

A study she presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology and previous work from others builds a case for methotrexate, which often seems to put the disease in remission and allows for shorter glucocorticoid courses. These days, “I offer this to patients as a great option. It’s really nice to have, instead of having women go on months and months of high-dose steroids, and I think we can save patients from unnecessary” surgery, Dr. Ringsted said.

Her usual regimen these days is methotrexate 15-20 mg/week for 12-18 months, with high-dose prednisone (greater than 20 mg/day) for the first 3 months, followed by a taper.

Dr. Ringsted and associates compared 23 women treated at the university during 2007-2018. Just 5 of the 12 women (42%) treated with high-dose prednisone alone went into remission and did not relapse over a mean follow-up of 27 months. Two out of three women who had both high-dose glucocorticoids and surgery achieved remission without relapse, as did all three women who received methotrexate and high-dose glucocorticoids (one also had surgery). Five other patients were treated with other options; just two had a durable remission.

The numbers are small, but they add to two previous reports. Among 19 women who had failed other treatments, 94% improved and 75% went into remission with 15 months of methotrexate in a review from Stanford (Calif.) University. An Iranian study of 17 patients treated with methotrexate, and also glucocorticoids in some, had a relapse rate of only 17.8%.

There were several cases of both inflammatory arthritis and erythema nodosum in the Oregon series, a higher incidence than what has been reported before for IGM. “It’s interesting because it makes me think of sarcoidosis. There have been cases of sarcoidosis causing mastitis, but mostly in patients with other features” of the disease. “It makes me wonder if any of these women will develop sarcoidosis later on; I think that’s an interesting question,” Dr. Ringsted said.

Women in the study were an average age of 32 years, and over half were Hispanic, which is associated with a higher risk for IGM. Almost all the women had been pregnant before and had breast fed in the previous 5 years. Cancer, tuberculosis, and fungal infections were among the things ruled out before mastitis was deemed idiopathic.

Women with IGM tend to be of childbearing age, and must be cautioned against the teratogenic effects of methotrexate, Dr. Ringsted noted.

There was no external funding, and the investigators didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ringsted S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 386.

 

AGA’s flagship research grant goes to ...

The AGA Research Scholar Award, funded by the AGA Research Foundation, is our premier funding mechanism, providing $100,000 per year for 3 years to early-career faculty working toward independent careers in digestive disease research. Our AGA Research Scholar Award recipients have a proven track record of receiving substantial funding and leadership roles in GI following the receipt of their AGA award. Read about our most recent class of RSA recipients – we’re confident they are future leaders in our field. Learn more about the AGA Research Foundation at www.gastro.org/foundation.



Parambir Dulai, MD
University of California, San Diego

Project title: Development and validation of machine learning optimized predictive models for response to different biologic agents in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Dulai is using his grant to build and refine a decision-support platform to help providers and patients navigate the complex landscape of choosing between available biologics for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
 

Amy Hemperly, DO
University of California, San Diego
AGA-Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine Research Scholar Award in Pediatric Genomics

Project title: Integration of pharmacogenomics and pharmacometabolomics with pharmacokinetics for biomarker discovery in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

Dr. Hemperly’s research assesses the influence of genetic variations and metabolic and microbial changes on response to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in pediatric IBD patients. This work will ultimately elucidate factors that improve a patient’s response to therapy.
 

Rodney Infante, MD, PhD
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas

Project title: Regulation of gastrointestinal cancer cachexia by a tumor-adipose-hypothalamic axis

Dr. Infante and his lab will use the AGA grant to improve our understanding of the mechanism and clinical relevance of cachexia-associated anorexia and tissue wasting in order to identify effective therapeutic targets.
 

Suraj Patel, MD, PhD
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

Project title: Hepatic IRF3 is a transcriptional regulator of steatosis and insulin resistance in NAFLD

Dr. Patel’s research focuses on the role of innate immunity in cellular metabolism and insulin resistance. Specifically, he’s interested in determining how chronic inflammation fuels the genetic and epigenetic changes we see in overnutritional states such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
 

Jason Pitarresi, PhD
University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia
AGA-Bern Schwartz Family Fund Research Scholar Award in Pancreatic Cancer

Project title: PTHLH drives epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and metastasis in pancreatic cancer

With this funding, Dr. Pitarresi will continue on his quest to identify novel drivers of pancreatic cancer development and metastasis with use of genetically engineered mouse models and patient-derived 3D organoids. Dr. Pitarresi is hoping that anti-PTHLH may fill a treatment void and ultimately increase the quality of life in these patients.
 

 

Eric Shah, MD, MBA
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H.
AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders*

Project title: Office-based anorectal testing to diagnose evacuation disorders and predict outcomes with biofeedback therapy: The rectal expulsion device (RED)

Dr. Shah’s research aims to validate a diagnostic test to triage patients with chronic constipation to the most effective treatment in general GI practice. This work will ultimately help patients with motility and functional bowel conditions and their providers reach a confident diagnosis and understand their treatment options.

*Funded by Shire Plc, now part of Takeda

Shailja Shah, MD, MPH
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Project title: Defining host-specific genetic and non-genetic determinants of Helicobacter pylori eradication failure using a large prospective cohort and genomic biobank

Dr. Shah’s research is focused on personalizing the clinical management of H. pylori such that eradication efforts can be optimized and targeted to the less than 1-3% of the estimated 4.4 billion individuals infected with H. pylori who are most at risk for complications, such as gastric cancer, and avoided in those who are unlikely to benefit and may even experience harm from eradication therapy.
 

Xiao Tan, MD, PhD
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Project title: Paper-based diagnostics of microbial and host biomarkers to predict responsiveness to IBD therapy

Dr. Tan will develop low-cost, point-of-care microbiome diagnostics to ultimately help physicians’ make diagnoses, monitor, and select treatment for patients with IBD.
 

Michael Thompson, MD, PhD
Washington University, Saint Louis, Mo.
Project title: Mechanisms of altered bile acid homeostasis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in offspring exposed to maternal obesity

Dr. Thompson’s research is focused on how perinatal exposures impact risk for metabolic liver disease in offspring.

 

My day on Capitol Hill

By Richard K. Sterling, MD, MSC, AGAF

When initially asked to represent AGA on Capitol Hill for the Global Liver Institute (GLI) congressional briefing on liver cancer and the LIVER Act on Oct. 31, I felt both honored and somewhat frightened. Honored that AGA thought enough of me as a hepatologist to represent them and frightened, not because it was Halloween, but because I would be speaking to members of Congress and their staff on issues that may impact policy and thousands if not millions of Americans. Along with myself, were Donna Cryer, founder and CEO of the GLI; John Groopman, PhD, an epidemiologist from Johns Hopkins focusing on liver disease; and two patients with liver disease who had a compelling story to tell. In addition, our briefing and Capitol Hill advocacy day included patients with a history of liver cancer and members of the Hepatitis B Foundation.

In preparation, Andrew Scott from the GLI helped me in identifying the target audience and in developing slides to present to Congress members and their aides that would show those at risk for liver cancer, the increasing incidence of the disease, and the importance of diagnosis at an early stage when curative treatment options are readily available. Travel and hotel logistics were taken care of by Kathleen Teixeira and AGA staff, and it was comforting to see them in the audience.

The briefing took place in the Cannon office building and was standing room only. After a brief introduction by Andrew Scott, I was the first speaker followed by our patient advocates and Dr. Groopman. The LIVER Act (H.R. 3016) is sponsored by Congresswomen Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and would drive several public health initiatives that would help people of all ages, lifestyles, and ethnic backgrounds to reduce their risk for liver cancer and related illnesses by enhancing the federal government’s prevention, education, and disease surveillance capabilities while empowering local entities to promote treatment and raise awareness. It also supports increased funding to both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health for liver disease and liver cancer research.

We had plenty of time for questions from the audience and I saw a lot of nodding from many present acknowledging that they had friends or family who had liver disease. Although our briefing was happening at the same time as the vote on formalizing the impeachment inquiry (you can hear the buzzing going off and the red lights flashing that the vote was about to happen; see Facebook; HepBFoundation video), congressional staff did not leave.

After the meeting, the patient advocates along with members of the GLI, Hepatitis B Foundation, and others met one-on-one with additional members of congress and their staff. While on the train home, I had time to reflect on the day and hoped that our message would be advanced through congress.

AGA, along with our sister societies (American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and American College of Gastroenterology) are our voice and advocates for advancing legislation through congress. Days like today allow our members to get involved. It is an exciting way to help our congressional representatives take action on what matters most to us: improved patient care, supporting research, promoting education, and reducing the overall burden to accomplish these important goals.

While some say Virginia is for Lovers, I say Virginia is for Livers (#LoveYourLiver). For more on this and the Liver Biliary Council offerings at Digestive Disease Week, follow me on twitter (@RichSterlingMD).
 

Dr. Sterling is professor of medicine, chief of hepatology, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; vice-chair, AGA Liver Biliary Section, DDW Council.

 

New AGA guideline: Management of GIM

AGA released a new clinical practice guideline in Gastroenterology with recommendations for the management of patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) detected as part of routine upper endoscopy for reasons including work up of endoscopically identified gastropathy/presumed gastritis, dyspepsia, or exclusion of Helicobacter pylori.

Guideline recommendations

1. In patients with GIM, AGA recommends testing for H. pylori followed by eradication over no testing and eradication. (Strong recommendation: moderate-quality evidence)

2. In patients with GIM, AGA suggests against routine use of endoscopic surveillance. (Conditional recommendation: very-low-quality evidence)

Comment: Patients with GIM at higher risk for gastric cancer who put a high value on potential but uncertain reduction in gastric cancer mortality, and who put a low value on potential risks of surveillance endoscopies, may reasonably elect for surveillance.

Patients with GIM specifically at higher risk of gastric cancer include those with the following:

• Incomplete versus complete GIM.
• Extensive versus limited GIM.
• Family history of gastric cancer.

Patients at overall increased risk for gastric cancer include the following:

• Racial/ethnic minorities.
• Immigrants from high incidence regions.

3. In patients with GIM, AGA suggests against routine repeat short-interval endoscopy with biopsies for the purpose of risk stratification. (Conditional recommendation: very-low-quality evidence)

Comment: Based on shared decision making, patients with GIM and high-risk stigmata, those with concerns about completeness of baseline endoscopy, and/or those who are at overall increased risk for gastric cancer (racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants from regions with high gastric cancer incidence, or individuals with family history of first-degree relative with gastric cancer) may reasonably elect for repeat endoscopy within 1 year for risk stratification.

This guideline will be published in the February print issue of Gastroenterology with additional resources to help you implement in your practice.
 

A GI society update on MOC reform

Our work was suspended when American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) announced the creation of a new longitudinal assessment option for maintenance of certification across all specialties.

GI society leaders are in touch with ABIM. Here’s an update on what we know: The ABIM board of directors committed to evolve its program to provide a longitudinal assessment option for Maintenance of Certification (MOC), offering a self-paced pathway for physicians to acquire and demonstrate ongoing knowledge. The traditional, long-form assessment will also remain an option because some physicians have expressed a preference for a point-in-time exam taken less frequently.

Our next steps include seeking clarity from ABIM including the following:

1. The milestones in the process to create the new pathway.

2. When the new pathway will be available to diplomates.

3. Consideration and integration of the GI societies’ principles in the development of the new pathway for recertification, including these considerations:

• MOC needs to be simpler, less intrusive, and less expensive.
• We continue to support alternatives to the high-stakes, every-10-year recertification exam.
• We do not support single source or time-limited assessments because they do not represent the current realities of medicine in the digital age.
• We support the concept that, for the many diplomates who specialize within certain areas of gastroenterology and hepatology, MOC should not include high-stakes assessments of areas in which the diplomate may not practice.
• We support the principles of lifelong learning, as evidenced by ongoing CME activities, rather than lifelong testing.

4. The role the GI societies, as representatives for thousands of U.S. members who are ABIM diplomates, play in the creation and implementation of the new pathway.

AASLD, ACG, AGA, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy want to be fully informed and fully respected partners in an endeavor that touches upon one of the toughest challenges facing our members and the single issue we hear about most often requesting our help.

We will continue to update our members as we learn the answers to these questions from ABIM.

Together, our first priority on the MOC issue remains ensuring that GI diplomates have a pathway for recertification that meets your needs.

 

Watch your step (therapy) – understanding ‘fail first’

Sometimes known as “fail first,” step therapy is a tool used by insurance companies that requires patients to fail medications before agreeing to cover a health care provider’s initial treatment recommendation.

Often affecting patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), step therapy focuses on the use of insurer-preferred treatments rather than effective, patient-centric therapies. In addition to causing many patient hardships, this protocol allows insurance companies to come between the provider-patient relationship and dictate a patient’s course of treatment.

To help clinicians navigate this challenging landscape, AGA is pleased to offer a new step therapy webpage that details the step therapy protocol and opportunities to advocate for patient protections.

Additional education modules – including videos, podcasts and other resources – are also available for several states that have implemented safe step therapy laws, including Illinois, New York, and Texas.

Visit the Navigating State Step Therapy Laws program page to learn more about the following:

• What is the step therapy protocol?
• How does step therapy impact a health care provider’s ability to provide patient care?
• Which states have implemented step therapy laws?
• How do state step therapy laws provide physician rights and patient protection?
• Tips to share with your patients.
• What are AGA’s advocacy efforts – and how can I help?

Education modules for additional states will be available in early 2020.

AGA’s Navigating State Step Therapy Laws program is funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Takeda and Pfizer.

 

AGA’s flagship research grant goes to ...

The AGA Research Scholar Award, funded by the AGA Research Foundation, is our premier funding mechanism, providing $100,000 per year for 3 years to early-career faculty working toward independent careers in digestive disease research. Our AGA Research Scholar Award recipients have a proven track record of receiving substantial funding and leadership roles in GI following the receipt of their AGA award. Read about our most recent class of RSA recipients – we’re confident they are future leaders in our field. Learn more about the AGA Research Foundation at www.gastro.org/foundation.



Parambir Dulai, MD
University of California, San Diego

Project title: Development and validation of machine learning optimized predictive models for response to different biologic agents in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Dulai is using his grant to build and refine a decision-support platform to help providers and patients navigate the complex landscape of choosing between available biologics for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
 

Amy Hemperly, DO
University of California, San Diego
AGA-Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine Research Scholar Award in Pediatric Genomics

Project title: Integration of pharmacogenomics and pharmacometabolomics with pharmacokinetics for biomarker discovery in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

Dr. Hemperly’s research assesses the influence of genetic variations and metabolic and microbial changes on response to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in pediatric IBD patients. This work will ultimately elucidate factors that improve a patient’s response to therapy.
 

Rodney Infante, MD, PhD
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas

Project title: Regulation of gastrointestinal cancer cachexia by a tumor-adipose-hypothalamic axis

Dr. Infante and his lab will use the AGA grant to improve our understanding of the mechanism and clinical relevance of cachexia-associated anorexia and tissue wasting in order to identify effective therapeutic targets.
 

Suraj Patel, MD, PhD
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

Project title: Hepatic IRF3 is a transcriptional regulator of steatosis and insulin resistance in NAFLD

Dr. Patel’s research focuses on the role of innate immunity in cellular metabolism and insulin resistance. Specifically, he’s interested in determining how chronic inflammation fuels the genetic and epigenetic changes we see in overnutritional states such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
 

Jason Pitarresi, PhD
University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia
AGA-Bern Schwartz Family Fund Research Scholar Award in Pancreatic Cancer

Project title: PTHLH drives epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and metastasis in pancreatic cancer

With this funding, Dr. Pitarresi will continue on his quest to identify novel drivers of pancreatic cancer development and metastasis with use of genetically engineered mouse models and patient-derived 3D organoids. Dr. Pitarresi is hoping that anti-PTHLH may fill a treatment void and ultimately increase the quality of life in these patients.
 

 

Eric Shah, MD, MBA
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H.
AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders*

Project title: Office-based anorectal testing to diagnose evacuation disorders and predict outcomes with biofeedback therapy: The rectal expulsion device (RED)

Dr. Shah’s research aims to validate a diagnostic test to triage patients with chronic constipation to the most effective treatment in general GI practice. This work will ultimately help patients with motility and functional bowel conditions and their providers reach a confident diagnosis and understand their treatment options.

*Funded by Shire Plc, now part of Takeda

Shailja Shah, MD, MPH
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Project title: Defining host-specific genetic and non-genetic determinants of Helicobacter pylori eradication failure using a large prospective cohort and genomic biobank

Dr. Shah’s research is focused on personalizing the clinical management of H. pylori such that eradication efforts can be optimized and targeted to the less than 1-3% of the estimated 4.4 billion individuals infected with H. pylori who are most at risk for complications, such as gastric cancer, and avoided in those who are unlikely to benefit and may even experience harm from eradication therapy.
 

Xiao Tan, MD, PhD
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Project title: Paper-based diagnostics of microbial and host biomarkers to predict responsiveness to IBD therapy

Dr. Tan will develop low-cost, point-of-care microbiome diagnostics to ultimately help physicians’ make diagnoses, monitor, and select treatment for patients with IBD.
 

Michael Thompson, MD, PhD
Washington University, Saint Louis, Mo.
Project title: Mechanisms of altered bile acid homeostasis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in offspring exposed to maternal obesity

Dr. Thompson’s research is focused on how perinatal exposures impact risk for metabolic liver disease in offspring.

 

My day on Capitol Hill

By Richard K. Sterling, MD, MSC, AGAF

When initially asked to represent AGA on Capitol Hill for the Global Liver Institute (GLI) congressional briefing on liver cancer and the LIVER Act on Oct. 31, I felt both honored and somewhat frightened. Honored that AGA thought enough of me as a hepatologist to represent them and frightened, not because it was Halloween, but because I would be speaking to members of Congress and their staff on issues that may impact policy and thousands if not millions of Americans. Along with myself, were Donna Cryer, founder and CEO of the GLI; John Groopman, PhD, an epidemiologist from Johns Hopkins focusing on liver disease; and two patients with liver disease who had a compelling story to tell. In addition, our briefing and Capitol Hill advocacy day included patients with a history of liver cancer and members of the Hepatitis B Foundation.

In preparation, Andrew Scott from the GLI helped me in identifying the target audience and in developing slides to present to Congress members and their aides that would show those at risk for liver cancer, the increasing incidence of the disease, and the importance of diagnosis at an early stage when curative treatment options are readily available. Travel and hotel logistics were taken care of by Kathleen Teixeira and AGA staff, and it was comforting to see them in the audience.

The briefing took place in the Cannon office building and was standing room only. After a brief introduction by Andrew Scott, I was the first speaker followed by our patient advocates and Dr. Groopman. The LIVER Act (H.R. 3016) is sponsored by Congresswomen Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and would drive several public health initiatives that would help people of all ages, lifestyles, and ethnic backgrounds to reduce their risk for liver cancer and related illnesses by enhancing the federal government’s prevention, education, and disease surveillance capabilities while empowering local entities to promote treatment and raise awareness. It also supports increased funding to both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health for liver disease and liver cancer research.

We had plenty of time for questions from the audience and I saw a lot of nodding from many present acknowledging that they had friends or family who had liver disease. Although our briefing was happening at the same time as the vote on formalizing the impeachment inquiry (you can hear the buzzing going off and the red lights flashing that the vote was about to happen; see Facebook; HepBFoundation video), congressional staff did not leave.

After the meeting, the patient advocates along with members of the GLI, Hepatitis B Foundation, and others met one-on-one with additional members of congress and their staff. While on the train home, I had time to reflect on the day and hoped that our message would be advanced through congress.

AGA, along with our sister societies (American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and American College of Gastroenterology) are our voice and advocates for advancing legislation through congress. Days like today allow our members to get involved. It is an exciting way to help our congressional representatives take action on what matters most to us: improved patient care, supporting research, promoting education, and reducing the overall burden to accomplish these important goals.

While some say Virginia is for Lovers, I say Virginia is for Livers (#LoveYourLiver). For more on this and the Liver Biliary Council offerings at Digestive Disease Week, follow me on twitter (@RichSterlingMD).
 

Dr. Sterling is professor of medicine, chief of hepatology, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; vice-chair, AGA Liver Biliary Section, DDW Council.

 

New AGA guideline: Management of GIM

AGA released a new clinical practice guideline in Gastroenterology with recommendations for the management of patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) detected as part of routine upper endoscopy for reasons including work up of endoscopically identified gastropathy/presumed gastritis, dyspepsia, or exclusion of Helicobacter pylori.

Guideline recommendations

1. In patients with GIM, AGA recommends testing for H. pylori followed by eradication over no testing and eradication. (Strong recommendation: moderate-quality evidence)

2. In patients with GIM, AGA suggests against routine use of endoscopic surveillance. (Conditional recommendation: very-low-quality evidence)

Comment: Patients with GIM at higher risk for gastric cancer who put a high value on potential but uncertain reduction in gastric cancer mortality, and who put a low value on potential risks of surveillance endoscopies, may reasonably elect for surveillance.

Patients with GIM specifically at higher risk of gastric cancer include those with the following:

• Incomplete versus complete GIM.
• Extensive versus limited GIM.
• Family history of gastric cancer.

Patients at overall increased risk for gastric cancer include the following:

• Racial/ethnic minorities.
• Immigrants from high incidence regions.

3. In patients with GIM, AGA suggests against routine repeat short-interval endoscopy with biopsies for the purpose of risk stratification. (Conditional recommendation: very-low-quality evidence)

Comment: Based on shared decision making, patients with GIM and high-risk stigmata, those with concerns about completeness of baseline endoscopy, and/or those who are at overall increased risk for gastric cancer (racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants from regions with high gastric cancer incidence, or individuals with family history of first-degree relative with gastric cancer) may reasonably elect for repeat endoscopy within 1 year for risk stratification.

This guideline will be published in the February print issue of Gastroenterology with additional resources to help you implement in your practice.
 

A GI society update on MOC reform

Our work was suspended when American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) announced the creation of a new longitudinal assessment option for maintenance of certification across all specialties.

GI society leaders are in touch with ABIM. Here’s an update on what we know: The ABIM board of directors committed to evolve its program to provide a longitudinal assessment option for Maintenance of Certification (MOC), offering a self-paced pathway for physicians to acquire and demonstrate ongoing knowledge. The traditional, long-form assessment will also remain an option because some physicians have expressed a preference for a point-in-time exam taken less frequently.

Our next steps include seeking clarity from ABIM including the following:

1. The milestones in the process to create the new pathway.

2. When the new pathway will be available to diplomates.

3. Consideration and integration of the GI societies’ principles in the development of the new pathway for recertification, including these considerations:

• MOC needs to be simpler, less intrusive, and less expensive.
• We continue to support alternatives to the high-stakes, every-10-year recertification exam.
• We do not support single source or time-limited assessments because they do not represent the current realities of medicine in the digital age.
• We support the concept that, for the many diplomates who specialize within certain areas of gastroenterology and hepatology, MOC should not include high-stakes assessments of areas in which the diplomate may not practice.
• We support the principles of lifelong learning, as evidenced by ongoing CME activities, rather than lifelong testing.

4. The role the GI societies, as representatives for thousands of U.S. members who are ABIM diplomates, play in the creation and implementation of the new pathway.

AASLD, ACG, AGA, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy want to be fully informed and fully respected partners in an endeavor that touches upon one of the toughest challenges facing our members and the single issue we hear about most often requesting our help.

We will continue to update our members as we learn the answers to these questions from ABIM.

Together, our first priority on the MOC issue remains ensuring that GI diplomates have a pathway for recertification that meets your needs.

 

Watch your step (therapy) – understanding ‘fail first’

Sometimes known as “fail first,” step therapy is a tool used by insurance companies that requires patients to fail medications before agreeing to cover a health care provider’s initial treatment recommendation.

Often affecting patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), step therapy focuses on the use of insurer-preferred treatments rather than effective, patient-centric therapies. In addition to causing many patient hardships, this protocol allows insurance companies to come between the provider-patient relationship and dictate a patient’s course of treatment.

To help clinicians navigate this challenging landscape, AGA is pleased to offer a new step therapy webpage that details the step therapy protocol and opportunities to advocate for patient protections.

Additional education modules – including videos, podcasts and other resources – are also available for several states that have implemented safe step therapy laws, including Illinois, New York, and Texas.

Visit the Navigating State Step Therapy Laws program page to learn more about the following:

• What is the step therapy protocol?
• How does step therapy impact a health care provider’s ability to provide patient care?
• Which states have implemented step therapy laws?
• How do state step therapy laws provide physician rights and patient protection?
• Tips to share with your patients.
• What are AGA’s advocacy efforts – and how can I help?

Education modules for additional states will be available in early 2020.

AGA’s Navigating State Step Therapy Laws program is funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Takeda and Pfizer.

 

AGA’s flagship research grant goes to ...

The AGA Research Scholar Award, funded by the AGA Research Foundation, is our premier funding mechanism, providing $100,000 per year for 3 years to early-career faculty working toward independent careers in digestive disease research. Our AGA Research Scholar Award recipients have a proven track record of receiving substantial funding and leadership roles in GI following the receipt of their AGA award. Read about our most recent class of RSA recipients – we’re confident they are future leaders in our field. Learn more about the AGA Research Foundation at www.gastro.org/foundation.



Parambir Dulai, MD
University of California, San Diego

Project title: Development and validation of machine learning optimized predictive models for response to different biologic agents in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Dulai is using his grant to build and refine a decision-support platform to help providers and patients navigate the complex landscape of choosing between available biologics for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
 

Amy Hemperly, DO
University of California, San Diego
AGA-Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine Research Scholar Award in Pediatric Genomics

Project title: Integration of pharmacogenomics and pharmacometabolomics with pharmacokinetics for biomarker discovery in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

Dr. Hemperly’s research assesses the influence of genetic variations and metabolic and microbial changes on response to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in pediatric IBD patients. This work will ultimately elucidate factors that improve a patient’s response to therapy.
 

Rodney Infante, MD, PhD
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas

Project title: Regulation of gastrointestinal cancer cachexia by a tumor-adipose-hypothalamic axis

Dr. Infante and his lab will use the AGA grant to improve our understanding of the mechanism and clinical relevance of cachexia-associated anorexia and tissue wasting in order to identify effective therapeutic targets.
 

Suraj Patel, MD, PhD
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

Project title: Hepatic IRF3 is a transcriptional regulator of steatosis and insulin resistance in NAFLD

Dr. Patel’s research focuses on the role of innate immunity in cellular metabolism and insulin resistance. Specifically, he’s interested in determining how chronic inflammation fuels the genetic and epigenetic changes we see in overnutritional states such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
 

Jason Pitarresi, PhD
University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia
AGA-Bern Schwartz Family Fund Research Scholar Award in Pancreatic Cancer

Project title: PTHLH drives epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and metastasis in pancreatic cancer

With this funding, Dr. Pitarresi will continue on his quest to identify novel drivers of pancreatic cancer development and metastasis with use of genetically engineered mouse models and patient-derived 3D organoids. Dr. Pitarresi is hoping that anti-PTHLH may fill a treatment void and ultimately increase the quality of life in these patients.
 

 

Eric Shah, MD, MBA
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H.
AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders*

Project title: Office-based anorectal testing to diagnose evacuation disorders and predict outcomes with biofeedback therapy: The rectal expulsion device (RED)

Dr. Shah’s research aims to validate a diagnostic test to triage patients with chronic constipation to the most effective treatment in general GI practice. This work will ultimately help patients with motility and functional bowel conditions and their providers reach a confident diagnosis and understand their treatment options.

*Funded by Shire Plc, now part of Takeda

Shailja Shah, MD, MPH
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Project title: Defining host-specific genetic and non-genetic determinants of Helicobacter pylori eradication failure using a large prospective cohort and genomic biobank

Dr. Shah’s research is focused on personalizing the clinical management of H. pylori such that eradication efforts can be optimized and targeted to the less than 1-3% of the estimated 4.4 billion individuals infected with H. pylori who are most at risk for complications, such as gastric cancer, and avoided in those who are unlikely to benefit and may even experience harm from eradication therapy.
 

Xiao Tan, MD, PhD
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Project title: Paper-based diagnostics of microbial and host biomarkers to predict responsiveness to IBD therapy

Dr. Tan will develop low-cost, point-of-care microbiome diagnostics to ultimately help physicians’ make diagnoses, monitor, and select treatment for patients with IBD.
 

Michael Thompson, MD, PhD
Washington University, Saint Louis, Mo.
Project title: Mechanisms of altered bile acid homeostasis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in offspring exposed to maternal obesity

Dr. Thompson’s research is focused on how perinatal exposures impact risk for metabolic liver disease in offspring.

 

My day on Capitol Hill

By Richard K. Sterling, MD, MSC, AGAF

When initially asked to represent AGA on Capitol Hill for the Global Liver Institute (GLI) congressional briefing on liver cancer and the LIVER Act on Oct. 31, I felt both honored and somewhat frightened. Honored that AGA thought enough of me as a hepatologist to represent them and frightened, not because it was Halloween, but because I would be speaking to members of Congress and their staff on issues that may impact policy and thousands if not millions of Americans. Along with myself, were Donna Cryer, founder and CEO of the GLI; John Groopman, PhD, an epidemiologist from Johns Hopkins focusing on liver disease; and two patients with liver disease who had a compelling story to tell. In addition, our briefing and Capitol Hill advocacy day included patients with a history of liver cancer and members of the Hepatitis B Foundation.

In preparation, Andrew Scott from the GLI helped me in identifying the target audience and in developing slides to present to Congress members and their aides that would show those at risk for liver cancer, the increasing incidence of the disease, and the importance of diagnosis at an early stage when curative treatment options are readily available. Travel and hotel logistics were taken care of by Kathleen Teixeira and AGA staff, and it was comforting to see them in the audience.

The briefing took place in the Cannon office building and was standing room only. After a brief introduction by Andrew Scott, I was the first speaker followed by our patient advocates and Dr. Groopman. The LIVER Act (H.R. 3016) is sponsored by Congresswomen Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and would drive several public health initiatives that would help people of all ages, lifestyles, and ethnic backgrounds to reduce their risk for liver cancer and related illnesses by enhancing the federal government’s prevention, education, and disease surveillance capabilities while empowering local entities to promote treatment and raise awareness. It also supports increased funding to both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health for liver disease and liver cancer research.

We had plenty of time for questions from the audience and I saw a lot of nodding from many present acknowledging that they had friends or family who had liver disease. Although our briefing was happening at the same time as the vote on formalizing the impeachment inquiry (you can hear the buzzing going off and the red lights flashing that the vote was about to happen; see Facebook; HepBFoundation video), congressional staff did not leave.

After the meeting, the patient advocates along with members of the GLI, Hepatitis B Foundation, and others met one-on-one with additional members of congress and their staff. While on the train home, I had time to reflect on the day and hoped that our message would be advanced through congress.

AGA, along with our sister societies (American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and American College of Gastroenterology) are our voice and advocates for advancing legislation through congress. Days like today allow our members to get involved. It is an exciting way to help our congressional representatives take action on what matters most to us: improved patient care, supporting research, promoting education, and reducing the overall burden to accomplish these important goals.

While some say Virginia is for Lovers, I say Virginia is for Livers (#LoveYourLiver). For more on this and the Liver Biliary Council offerings at Digestive Disease Week, follow me on twitter (@RichSterlingMD).
 

Dr. Sterling is professor of medicine, chief of hepatology, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; vice-chair, AGA Liver Biliary Section, DDW Council.

 

New AGA guideline: Management of GIM

AGA released a new clinical practice guideline in Gastroenterology with recommendations for the management of patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) detected as part of routine upper endoscopy for reasons including work up of endoscopically identified gastropathy/presumed gastritis, dyspepsia, or exclusion of Helicobacter pylori.

Guideline recommendations

1. In patients with GIM, AGA recommends testing for H. pylori followed by eradication over no testing and eradication. (Strong recommendation: moderate-quality evidence)

2. In patients with GIM, AGA suggests against routine use of endoscopic surveillance. (Conditional recommendation: very-low-quality evidence)

Comment: Patients with GIM at higher risk for gastric cancer who put a high value on potential but uncertain reduction in gastric cancer mortality, and who put a low value on potential risks of surveillance endoscopies, may reasonably elect for surveillance.

Patients with GIM specifically at higher risk of gastric cancer include those with the following:

• Incomplete versus complete GIM.
• Extensive versus limited GIM.
• Family history of gastric cancer.

Patients at overall increased risk for gastric cancer include the following:

• Racial/ethnic minorities.
• Immigrants from high incidence regions.

3. In patients with GIM, AGA suggests against routine repeat short-interval endoscopy with biopsies for the purpose of risk stratification. (Conditional recommendation: very-low-quality evidence)

Comment: Based on shared decision making, patients with GIM and high-risk stigmata, those with concerns about completeness of baseline endoscopy, and/or those who are at overall increased risk for gastric cancer (racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants from regions with high gastric cancer incidence, or individuals with family history of first-degree relative with gastric cancer) may reasonably elect for repeat endoscopy within 1 year for risk stratification.

This guideline will be published in the February print issue of Gastroenterology with additional resources to help you implement in your practice.
 

A GI society update on MOC reform

Our work was suspended when American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) announced the creation of a new longitudinal assessment option for maintenance of certification across all specialties.

GI society leaders are in touch with ABIM. Here’s an update on what we know: The ABIM board of directors committed to evolve its program to provide a longitudinal assessment option for Maintenance of Certification (MOC), offering a self-paced pathway for physicians to acquire and demonstrate ongoing knowledge. The traditional, long-form assessment will also remain an option because some physicians have expressed a preference for a point-in-time exam taken less frequently.

Our next steps include seeking clarity from ABIM including the following:

1. The milestones in the process to create the new pathway.

2. When the new pathway will be available to diplomates.

3. Consideration and integration of the GI societies’ principles in the development of the new pathway for recertification, including these considerations:

• MOC needs to be simpler, less intrusive, and less expensive.
• We continue to support alternatives to the high-stakes, every-10-year recertification exam.
• We do not support single source or time-limited assessments because they do not represent the current realities of medicine in the digital age.
• We support the concept that, for the many diplomates who specialize within certain areas of gastroenterology and hepatology, MOC should not include high-stakes assessments of areas in which the diplomate may not practice.
• We support the principles of lifelong learning, as evidenced by ongoing CME activities, rather than lifelong testing.

4. The role the GI societies, as representatives for thousands of U.S. members who are ABIM diplomates, play in the creation and implementation of the new pathway.

AASLD, ACG, AGA, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy want to be fully informed and fully respected partners in an endeavor that touches upon one of the toughest challenges facing our members and the single issue we hear about most often requesting our help.

We will continue to update our members as we learn the answers to these questions from ABIM.

Together, our first priority on the MOC issue remains ensuring that GI diplomates have a pathway for recertification that meets your needs.

 

Watch your step (therapy) – understanding ‘fail first’

Sometimes known as “fail first,” step therapy is a tool used by insurance companies that requires patients to fail medications before agreeing to cover a health care provider’s initial treatment recommendation.

Often affecting patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), step therapy focuses on the use of insurer-preferred treatments rather than effective, patient-centric therapies. In addition to causing many patient hardships, this protocol allows insurance companies to come between the provider-patient relationship and dictate a patient’s course of treatment.

To help clinicians navigate this challenging landscape, AGA is pleased to offer a new step therapy webpage that details the step therapy protocol and opportunities to advocate for patient protections.

Additional education modules – including videos, podcasts and other resources – are also available for several states that have implemented safe step therapy laws, including Illinois, New York, and Texas.

Visit the Navigating State Step Therapy Laws program page to learn more about the following:

• What is the step therapy protocol?
• How does step therapy impact a health care provider’s ability to provide patient care?
• Which states have implemented step therapy laws?
• How do state step therapy laws provide physician rights and patient protection?
• Tips to share with your patients.
• What are AGA’s advocacy efforts – and how can I help?

Education modules for additional states will be available in early 2020.

AGA’s Navigating State Step Therapy Laws program is funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Takeda and Pfizer.

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Feb 20; Mar. 24, 2020
Coding and Reimbursement Solutions by McVey Associates, Inc.
Improve the efficiency and performance of your practice by staying current on the latest reimbursement, coding, and compliance changes.
Knoxville, Tenn. (2/20); Birmingham, Ala. (3/24)

Mar. 7-8, 2020
Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit 2020
The focus of the 2020 program will include dietary and nondietary factors shaping the gut microbiome, the microbiome as orchestrator for the immune system, and drug interactions and the microbiome. The summit is sponsored by the European Society for Neurogastroenterology & Motility and the American Gastroenterological Association.
Madrid, Spain

Mar. 10-11; 11-12; 25-26; Apr. 15-16; May 13-14, 2020
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc.
Become a certified GI coder with a two-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Orlando, Fla. (3/10-11); Novi, Mich. (3/11-12); Charlotte, N.C. (3/25-26); Columbus, Ohio (4/15-16); Chicago, Ill. (5/13-14)

Mar. 21; Apr. 15, 2020
Regional Practice Skills Workshop
AGA Regional Practice Skills workshops are free in-person, half-day courses that provide trainees and early-career gastroenterologists with practical insights about GI business issues that will shape their professional development. Faculty will discuss employment models, reimbursement strategies, health economics and policy, billing issues, contract negotiations, and other subjects to help attendees navigate the rapidly shifting GI business environment. All workshops are open to both members and nonmembers.
Ann Arbor, Mich. (3/21); Philadelphia, Penn. (4/15)

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW)
Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students, and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery, and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education, or administration, the DDW program offers something for you.
Chicago, Ill.

May 2-3, 2020
2020 AGA Postgraduate Course
The AGA Postgraduate Course is a comprehensive 1.5-day program highlighting groundbreaking advances in the delivery of high-quality, patient-centered GI care. Offering general and breakout sessions, learning lunches, and case-based and panel discussions, attendees will gain a deeper understanding of how to diagnose and treat a variety of disease states and digestive disorders.

June 3-6, 2020
2020 AGA Tech Summit
Visit https://techsummit.gastro.org/ for more details.
San Francisco, Calif.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single-Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
The 2020 Freston Conference will focus on GI organoids and engineered organ systems.
Chicago, Ill.

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
Principles of GI is designed by leading advanced practice providers, GI experts, and physicians to mirror real-life settings for nurse practitioners and physician assistants that lead to GI clinical success.
Denver, Colo.

AWARDS DEADLINES

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top-scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year and receive a $1,000 award.
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

AGA Student Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year three) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This $750 travel award supports recipients who are young (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of DDW) basic, translational, or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Feb 20; Mar. 24, 2020
Coding and Reimbursement Solutions by McVey Associates, Inc.
Improve the efficiency and performance of your practice by staying current on the latest reimbursement, coding, and compliance changes.
Knoxville, Tenn. (2/20); Birmingham, Ala. (3/24)

Mar. 7-8, 2020
Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit 2020
The focus of the 2020 program will include dietary and nondietary factors shaping the gut microbiome, the microbiome as orchestrator for the immune system, and drug interactions and the microbiome. The summit is sponsored by the European Society for Neurogastroenterology & Motility and the American Gastroenterological Association.
Madrid, Spain

Mar. 10-11; 11-12; 25-26; Apr. 15-16; May 13-14, 2020
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc.
Become a certified GI coder with a two-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Orlando, Fla. (3/10-11); Novi, Mich. (3/11-12); Charlotte, N.C. (3/25-26); Columbus, Ohio (4/15-16); Chicago, Ill. (5/13-14)

Mar. 21; Apr. 15, 2020
Regional Practice Skills Workshop
AGA Regional Practice Skills workshops are free in-person, half-day courses that provide trainees and early-career gastroenterologists with practical insights about GI business issues that will shape their professional development. Faculty will discuss employment models, reimbursement strategies, health economics and policy, billing issues, contract negotiations, and other subjects to help attendees navigate the rapidly shifting GI business environment. All workshops are open to both members and nonmembers.
Ann Arbor, Mich. (3/21); Philadelphia, Penn. (4/15)

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW)
Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students, and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery, and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education, or administration, the DDW program offers something for you.
Chicago, Ill.

May 2-3, 2020
2020 AGA Postgraduate Course
The AGA Postgraduate Course is a comprehensive 1.5-day program highlighting groundbreaking advances in the delivery of high-quality, patient-centered GI care. Offering general and breakout sessions, learning lunches, and case-based and panel discussions, attendees will gain a deeper understanding of how to diagnose and treat a variety of disease states and digestive disorders.

June 3-6, 2020
2020 AGA Tech Summit
Visit https://techsummit.gastro.org/ for more details.
San Francisco, Calif.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single-Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
The 2020 Freston Conference will focus on GI organoids and engineered organ systems.
Chicago, Ill.

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
Principles of GI is designed by leading advanced practice providers, GI experts, and physicians to mirror real-life settings for nurse practitioners and physician assistants that lead to GI clinical success.
Denver, Colo.

AWARDS DEADLINES

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top-scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year and receive a $1,000 award.
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

AGA Student Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year three) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This $750 travel award supports recipients who are young (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of DDW) basic, translational, or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Feb 20; Mar. 24, 2020
Coding and Reimbursement Solutions by McVey Associates, Inc.
Improve the efficiency and performance of your practice by staying current on the latest reimbursement, coding, and compliance changes.
Knoxville, Tenn. (2/20); Birmingham, Ala. (3/24)

Mar. 7-8, 2020
Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit 2020
The focus of the 2020 program will include dietary and nondietary factors shaping the gut microbiome, the microbiome as orchestrator for the immune system, and drug interactions and the microbiome. The summit is sponsored by the European Society for Neurogastroenterology & Motility and the American Gastroenterological Association.
Madrid, Spain

Mar. 10-11; 11-12; 25-26; Apr. 15-16; May 13-14, 2020
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc.
Become a certified GI coder with a two-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Orlando, Fla. (3/10-11); Novi, Mich. (3/11-12); Charlotte, N.C. (3/25-26); Columbus, Ohio (4/15-16); Chicago, Ill. (5/13-14)

Mar. 21; Apr. 15, 2020
Regional Practice Skills Workshop
AGA Regional Practice Skills workshops are free in-person, half-day courses that provide trainees and early-career gastroenterologists with practical insights about GI business issues that will shape their professional development. Faculty will discuss employment models, reimbursement strategies, health economics and policy, billing issues, contract negotiations, and other subjects to help attendees navigate the rapidly shifting GI business environment. All workshops are open to both members and nonmembers.
Ann Arbor, Mich. (3/21); Philadelphia, Penn. (4/15)

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW)
Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students, and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery, and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education, or administration, the DDW program offers something for you.
Chicago, Ill.

May 2-3, 2020
2020 AGA Postgraduate Course
The AGA Postgraduate Course is a comprehensive 1.5-day program highlighting groundbreaking advances in the delivery of high-quality, patient-centered GI care. Offering general and breakout sessions, learning lunches, and case-based and panel discussions, attendees will gain a deeper understanding of how to diagnose and treat a variety of disease states and digestive disorders.

June 3-6, 2020
2020 AGA Tech Summit
Visit https://techsummit.gastro.org/ for more details.
San Francisco, Calif.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single-Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
The 2020 Freston Conference will focus on GI organoids and engineered organ systems.
Chicago, Ill.

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
Principles of GI is designed by leading advanced practice providers, GI experts, and physicians to mirror real-life settings for nurse practitioners and physician assistants that lead to GI clinical success.
Denver, Colo.

AWARDS DEADLINES

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top-scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year and receive a $1,000 award.
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

AGA Student Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year three) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This $750 travel award supports recipients who are young (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of DDW) basic, translational, or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020

 

When it comes to what future hospitalists should be doing to accelerate their careers, is there such a thing as a “no-brainer” opportunity? Aram Namavar, MD, MS, thinks so.

Dr. Namavar is a first-year internal medicine resident at UC San Diego pursuing a career as an academic hospitalist. He is passionate about building interdisciplinary platforms for patient care enhancement and serving disadvantaged and underserved communities.

Membership in the Society of Hospital Medicine is free for medical students and offers a diverse array of resources specifically curated for the ever-expanding needs of the specialty and its aspiring leaders. An active member of SHM since 2015, Dr. Namavar has looked to the organization for leading career-enhancing opportunities and resources in hospital medicine to help him achieve his altruistic career goals.

For Dr. Namavar, a few of these professional development–focused opportunities include becoming an active member of the Physicians-in-Training Committee, a founding member of the Resident and Student Special Interest Group, and a recipient of the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant.

“I applied for the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant to have a dedicated summer of learning quality improvement through being in meetings with hospital medicine leaders and leading my research initiatives alongside my team,” Dr. Namavar said. He described the experience as pivotal to his growth within hospital medicine and as a medical student.

The key component to SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant opportunity is the ability for first- and second-year medical students to work alongside leading hospital medicine professionals in scholarly projects to help interested students gain perspective on working within the specialty.

“As a young, interested trainee in hospital medicine, working with a mentor who is established in the field allows one to learn what steps to take in the future to become a leader,” he said. “[It allowed me to] gain insight into leadership style and develop a strong network for the future.”

In addition to the program’s mentorship benefits, grant recipients also receive complimentary registration to SHM’s Annual Conference with the added perks of funding and research support, accommodation expenses, and acceptance into SHM’s RIV Poster Competition.

“I attended the SHM Annual Conference previously,” Dr. Namavar said. “However, as a grant recipient, you have the chance to connect with faculty who will come to your poster presentation and want to learn about your project. This platform allows you to meet individuals from across the nation and connect with those interested in helping trainees thrive within hospital medicine.”

With the grant funding, Dr. Namavar completed his project, “Evaluation of Decisional Conflict as a Simple Tool to Assess Risk of Readmission.” He described this endeavor as a multidimensional project that took on a holistic view of patient-centered readmissions. “We evaluated patient conflict in posthospitalization resources as a marker of readmission, social determinants of health, and health literacy as risk factors for hospital readmission.”

Described by Dr. Namavar as a “no-brainer” opportunity, SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant “offers some of the best benefits overall – funding for your project, automatic acceptance at the Annual Conference, the chance to have your work highlighted in blog posts, networking opportunities with faculty across the nation, and travel reimbursement for the conference.”

Building your networks or establishing your professional career path does not stop at individual networking events or scholarship programs, Dr. Namavar said. It’s about piecing together the building blocks to set yourself up for success.

“My long-term involvement in SHM through working on a committee, leading a special interest group, attending annual meetings, and receiving the grant from SHM has helped me to build new, long-lasting connections in the field,” he said. “Because of this, I plan to continue to serve within SHM in multiple capacities throughout my career in hospital medicine.”

Are you a first- or second-year medical student interested in taking the next step in your hospital medicine career? Apply to SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant program through late January 2020 at hospitalmedicine.org/scholargrant.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

 

When it comes to what future hospitalists should be doing to accelerate their careers, is there such a thing as a “no-brainer” opportunity? Aram Namavar, MD, MS, thinks so.

Dr. Namavar is a first-year internal medicine resident at UC San Diego pursuing a career as an academic hospitalist. He is passionate about building interdisciplinary platforms for patient care enhancement and serving disadvantaged and underserved communities.

Membership in the Society of Hospital Medicine is free for medical students and offers a diverse array of resources specifically curated for the ever-expanding needs of the specialty and its aspiring leaders. An active member of SHM since 2015, Dr. Namavar has looked to the organization for leading career-enhancing opportunities and resources in hospital medicine to help him achieve his altruistic career goals.

For Dr. Namavar, a few of these professional development–focused opportunities include becoming an active member of the Physicians-in-Training Committee, a founding member of the Resident and Student Special Interest Group, and a recipient of the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant.

“I applied for the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant to have a dedicated summer of learning quality improvement through being in meetings with hospital medicine leaders and leading my research initiatives alongside my team,” Dr. Namavar said. He described the experience as pivotal to his growth within hospital medicine and as a medical student.

The key component to SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant opportunity is the ability for first- and second-year medical students to work alongside leading hospital medicine professionals in scholarly projects to help interested students gain perspective on working within the specialty.

“As a young, interested trainee in hospital medicine, working with a mentor who is established in the field allows one to learn what steps to take in the future to become a leader,” he said. “[It allowed me to] gain insight into leadership style and develop a strong network for the future.”

In addition to the program’s mentorship benefits, grant recipients also receive complimentary registration to SHM’s Annual Conference with the added perks of funding and research support, accommodation expenses, and acceptance into SHM’s RIV Poster Competition.

“I attended the SHM Annual Conference previously,” Dr. Namavar said. “However, as a grant recipient, you have the chance to connect with faculty who will come to your poster presentation and want to learn about your project. This platform allows you to meet individuals from across the nation and connect with those interested in helping trainees thrive within hospital medicine.”

With the grant funding, Dr. Namavar completed his project, “Evaluation of Decisional Conflict as a Simple Tool to Assess Risk of Readmission.” He described this endeavor as a multidimensional project that took on a holistic view of patient-centered readmissions. “We evaluated patient conflict in posthospitalization resources as a marker of readmission, social determinants of health, and health literacy as risk factors for hospital readmission.”

Described by Dr. Namavar as a “no-brainer” opportunity, SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant “offers some of the best benefits overall – funding for your project, automatic acceptance at the Annual Conference, the chance to have your work highlighted in blog posts, networking opportunities with faculty across the nation, and travel reimbursement for the conference.”

Building your networks or establishing your professional career path does not stop at individual networking events or scholarship programs, Dr. Namavar said. It’s about piecing together the building blocks to set yourself up for success.

“My long-term involvement in SHM through working on a committee, leading a special interest group, attending annual meetings, and receiving the grant from SHM has helped me to build new, long-lasting connections in the field,” he said. “Because of this, I plan to continue to serve within SHM in multiple capacities throughout my career in hospital medicine.”

Are you a first- or second-year medical student interested in taking the next step in your hospital medicine career? Apply to SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant program through late January 2020 at hospitalmedicine.org/scholargrant.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

 

When it comes to what future hospitalists should be doing to accelerate their careers, is there such a thing as a “no-brainer” opportunity? Aram Namavar, MD, MS, thinks so.

Dr. Namavar is a first-year internal medicine resident at UC San Diego pursuing a career as an academic hospitalist. He is passionate about building interdisciplinary platforms for patient care enhancement and serving disadvantaged and underserved communities.

Membership in the Society of Hospital Medicine is free for medical students and offers a diverse array of resources specifically curated for the ever-expanding needs of the specialty and its aspiring leaders. An active member of SHM since 2015, Dr. Namavar has looked to the organization for leading career-enhancing opportunities and resources in hospital medicine to help him achieve his altruistic career goals.

For Dr. Namavar, a few of these professional development–focused opportunities include becoming an active member of the Physicians-in-Training Committee, a founding member of the Resident and Student Special Interest Group, and a recipient of the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant.

“I applied for the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant to have a dedicated summer of learning quality improvement through being in meetings with hospital medicine leaders and leading my research initiatives alongside my team,” Dr. Namavar said. He described the experience as pivotal to his growth within hospital medicine and as a medical student.

The key component to SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant opportunity is the ability for first- and second-year medical students to work alongside leading hospital medicine professionals in scholarly projects to help interested students gain perspective on working within the specialty.

“As a young, interested trainee in hospital medicine, working with a mentor who is established in the field allows one to learn what steps to take in the future to become a leader,” he said. “[It allowed me to] gain insight into leadership style and develop a strong network for the future.”

In addition to the program’s mentorship benefits, grant recipients also receive complimentary registration to SHM’s Annual Conference with the added perks of funding and research support, accommodation expenses, and acceptance into SHM’s RIV Poster Competition.

“I attended the SHM Annual Conference previously,” Dr. Namavar said. “However, as a grant recipient, you have the chance to connect with faculty who will come to your poster presentation and want to learn about your project. This platform allows you to meet individuals from across the nation and connect with those interested in helping trainees thrive within hospital medicine.”

With the grant funding, Dr. Namavar completed his project, “Evaluation of Decisional Conflict as a Simple Tool to Assess Risk of Readmission.” He described this endeavor as a multidimensional project that took on a holistic view of patient-centered readmissions. “We evaluated patient conflict in posthospitalization resources as a marker of readmission, social determinants of health, and health literacy as risk factors for hospital readmission.”

Described by Dr. Namavar as a “no-brainer” opportunity, SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant “offers some of the best benefits overall – funding for your project, automatic acceptance at the Annual Conference, the chance to have your work highlighted in blog posts, networking opportunities with faculty across the nation, and travel reimbursement for the conference.”

Building your networks or establishing your professional career path does not stop at individual networking events or scholarship programs, Dr. Namavar said. It’s about piecing together the building blocks to set yourself up for success.

“My long-term involvement in SHM through working on a committee, leading a special interest group, attending annual meetings, and receiving the grant from SHM has helped me to build new, long-lasting connections in the field,” he said. “Because of this, I plan to continue to serve within SHM in multiple capacities throughout my career in hospital medicine.”

Are you a first- or second-year medical student interested in taking the next step in your hospital medicine career? Apply to SHM’s Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant program through late January 2020 at hospitalmedicine.org/scholargrant.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president, Hospital & Emergency Medicine, at Atrium Health Medical Group in Charlotte, N.C., to discuss his participation in the State of Hospital Medicine Survey, which is distributed every other year, and how he uses the resulting report to guide important operational decisions.
 

Please describe your current role.

At Carolinas Hospitalist Group, we have approximately 250 providers at nearly 20 care locations across North Carolina. Along with my specialty medical director, I am responsible for the strategic growth, program development, and financial performance for our practice.

How did you first become involved with the Society of Hospital Medicine?

When I first entered the hospital medicine world in 2008, I was looking for an organization that supported our specialty. My physician leaders at the time pointed me to SHM. Since the beginning of my time as a member, I have attended the Annual Conference each year, the SHM Leadership Academy, served on an SHM committee, and participate in SHM’s multisite Leaders group. Additionally, I have served as faculty at SHM’s annual conference for 3 years – and will be presenting for the third time at HM20.

Why is it important that people participate in the State of Hospital Medicine Survey?

Participation in the survey is key for establishing benchmarks for our specialty. The more people participate (from various arenas like private groups, health system employees, and vendors), the more accurate the data. Over the past 4 years, SHM has improved the submission process of survey data – especially for practices with multiple locations.

How has the data in the report impacted important business decisions for your group?

We rely heavily on the investment/provider benchmark within the survey data. Over the years, as the investment/provider was decreasing nationally, our own investment/provider was increasing. Based on the survey, we were able to closely evaluate our staffing models at each location and determine the appropriate skill mix-to-volume ratio. Through turnover and growth, we have strategically hired advanced practice providers to align our investment more closely with the benchmark. Over the past 2 years, our investment/provider metric has decreased significantly. We were able to accomplish this while continuing to provide appropriate care to our patients. We also utilize the Report to monitor performance incentive metrics, staffing model trends, and encounter/provider ratios.

What would you tell people who are on the fence about participating in the survey – and ultimately, purchasing the finished product?

Do it! Our practice would never skip a submission year. The data produced from the survey helps us improve our clinical operations and maximize our financial affordability. The data also assists in defending staffing decisions and clinical operations change with senior leadership within the organization.

Don’t miss your chance to submit data that will build the latest snapshot of the hospital medicine specialty. The State of Hospital Medicine Survey is open now and runs through February 16, 2020. Learn more and register to participate at hospitalmedicine.org/survey.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president, Hospital & Emergency Medicine, at Atrium Health Medical Group in Charlotte, N.C., to discuss his participation in the State of Hospital Medicine Survey, which is distributed every other year, and how he uses the resulting report to guide important operational decisions.
 

Please describe your current role.

At Carolinas Hospitalist Group, we have approximately 250 providers at nearly 20 care locations across North Carolina. Along with my specialty medical director, I am responsible for the strategic growth, program development, and financial performance for our practice.

How did you first become involved with the Society of Hospital Medicine?

When I first entered the hospital medicine world in 2008, I was looking for an organization that supported our specialty. My physician leaders at the time pointed me to SHM. Since the beginning of my time as a member, I have attended the Annual Conference each year, the SHM Leadership Academy, served on an SHM committee, and participate in SHM’s multisite Leaders group. Additionally, I have served as faculty at SHM’s annual conference for 3 years – and will be presenting for the third time at HM20.

Why is it important that people participate in the State of Hospital Medicine Survey?

Participation in the survey is key for establishing benchmarks for our specialty. The more people participate (from various arenas like private groups, health system employees, and vendors), the more accurate the data. Over the past 4 years, SHM has improved the submission process of survey data – especially for practices with multiple locations.

How has the data in the report impacted important business decisions for your group?

We rely heavily on the investment/provider benchmark within the survey data. Over the years, as the investment/provider was decreasing nationally, our own investment/provider was increasing. Based on the survey, we were able to closely evaluate our staffing models at each location and determine the appropriate skill mix-to-volume ratio. Through turnover and growth, we have strategically hired advanced practice providers to align our investment more closely with the benchmark. Over the past 2 years, our investment/provider metric has decreased significantly. We were able to accomplish this while continuing to provide appropriate care to our patients. We also utilize the Report to monitor performance incentive metrics, staffing model trends, and encounter/provider ratios.

What would you tell people who are on the fence about participating in the survey – and ultimately, purchasing the finished product?

Do it! Our practice would never skip a submission year. The data produced from the survey helps us improve our clinical operations and maximize our financial affordability. The data also assists in defending staffing decisions and clinical operations change with senior leadership within the organization.

Don’t miss your chance to submit data that will build the latest snapshot of the hospital medicine specialty. The State of Hospital Medicine Survey is open now and runs through February 16, 2020. Learn more and register to participate at hospitalmedicine.org/survey.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president, Hospital & Emergency Medicine, at Atrium Health Medical Group in Charlotte, N.C., to discuss his participation in the State of Hospital Medicine Survey, which is distributed every other year, and how he uses the resulting report to guide important operational decisions.
 

Please describe your current role.

At Carolinas Hospitalist Group, we have approximately 250 providers at nearly 20 care locations across North Carolina. Along with my specialty medical director, I am responsible for the strategic growth, program development, and financial performance for our practice.

How did you first become involved with the Society of Hospital Medicine?

When I first entered the hospital medicine world in 2008, I was looking for an organization that supported our specialty. My physician leaders at the time pointed me to SHM. Since the beginning of my time as a member, I have attended the Annual Conference each year, the SHM Leadership Academy, served on an SHM committee, and participate in SHM’s multisite Leaders group. Additionally, I have served as faculty at SHM’s annual conference for 3 years – and will be presenting for the third time at HM20.

Why is it important that people participate in the State of Hospital Medicine Survey?

Participation in the survey is key for establishing benchmarks for our specialty. The more people participate (from various arenas like private groups, health system employees, and vendors), the more accurate the data. Over the past 4 years, SHM has improved the submission process of survey data – especially for practices with multiple locations.

How has the data in the report impacted important business decisions for your group?

We rely heavily on the investment/provider benchmark within the survey data. Over the years, as the investment/provider was decreasing nationally, our own investment/provider was increasing. Based on the survey, we were able to closely evaluate our staffing models at each location and determine the appropriate skill mix-to-volume ratio. Through turnover and growth, we have strategically hired advanced practice providers to align our investment more closely with the benchmark. Over the past 2 years, our investment/provider metric has decreased significantly. We were able to accomplish this while continuing to provide appropriate care to our patients. We also utilize the Report to monitor performance incentive metrics, staffing model trends, and encounter/provider ratios.

What would you tell people who are on the fence about participating in the survey – and ultimately, purchasing the finished product?

Do it! Our practice would never skip a submission year. The data produced from the survey helps us improve our clinical operations and maximize our financial affordability. The data also assists in defending staffing decisions and clinical operations change with senior leadership within the organization.

Don’t miss your chance to submit data that will build the latest snapshot of the hospital medicine specialty. The State of Hospital Medicine Survey is open now and runs through February 16, 2020. Learn more and register to participate at hospitalmedicine.org/survey.

In the fall of 2016, Hyma Polimera, MD, a hospitalist at Penn State Health in Hershey, Pa., approached the bedside of a patient with dementia and several other chronic conditions, and introduced herself to him and his family.

The patient’s daughter, who had power of attorney, took one look at Dr. Polimera and told her, “I’d like to see an American doctor.” Dr. Polimera is originally from India, but moved to Europe in 2005 and did her residency in Pennsylvania. She stayed calm and confident – she understood that she had done nothing wrong – but didn’t really know what to do next. All of the other hospitalists on the ward at the time were nonwhite and were also rejected by the patient’s daughter.

“I was wondering what was going to happen and who would provide care to this patient?” she said.

Dr. Polimera is far from alone. Nonwhite physicians, nurses, and other health care providers say they increasingly encounter patients who demand that only “white” health professionals take care of them. The number of these reassignment requests has ticked upward in the last few years, they say, coinciding with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and the subsequent election of Donald Trump.

The requests often come at medical centers with no policy in place for how to deal with them. And the unpleasant encounters find providers unprepared for how to respond, not knowing whether or how to resolve the situation with patients and their families. Clinicians sometimes wonder whether they are allowed to care for a patient even if they are willing to do so, and how to go about reassigning a patient to another clinician if that is the choice that the family makes.

To many hospitalists working in the field, it seems obvious that such situations are encouraged by a political environment in which discriminatory beliefs – once considered shameful to express publicly – are now deemed acceptable, even in health care encounters. Indeed, the health care encounter is perhaps the only time some patients will find themselves in intimate interactions with people of other ethnicities.
 

Responding to discrimination

A workshop at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference offered hospitalists an opportunity to discuss encounters with patients who expressed discriminatory attitudes. One physician, of South Asian descent, said that she had encountered no reassignment requests rooted in racial intolerance over more than a decade of work, but has encountered several in the last year or two.

Sabrina Chaklos, MD, a hospitalist at Burlington, Mass.–based Lahey Hospital & Medical Center and clinical assistant professor at Tufts University, said she has had a similar experience.

“It was blatantly bad behavior for 2018,” she said. Dr. Chaklos said she and other clinicians of color have been told, “I want an American doctor,” and that some patients see her darker complexion and conclude, “You must not be an American.”

Given the charged political environment since 2016, some medical facilities have been adapting how they respond to these comments and requests.

“The policy of the organization prior to 2016 was to give patients a new doctor,” Dr. Chaklos said. “Within the past year or so, they’re finally allowing people to say, ‘Look, you cannot just pick and choose your doctor,’ based on arbitrary reasons that are discriminatory in nature.”

Emily Whitgob, MD, MEd, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said that, several years ago, a scenario unfolded that led her to study the issue. An intern she was overseeing told her that the father of a pediatric patient had scrutinized the intern’s name tag and said, “Is that a Jewish last name? I don’t want a Jewish doctor.”

“I didn’t know what to do,” Dr. Whitgob said. Later, she brought up the situation at a meeting of 30 staff members. It led to an outpouring of sharing about similar incidents that other clinicians had experienced but had never talked about with colleagues.

“Half the room, by the end, was in tears talking about their experiences,” Dr. Whitgob said.

Since then, she has led research into how physicians typically handle such situations, performing semistructured interviews to survey pediatricians about their experiences with patients who discriminate on racial and ethnic grounds.

One important step, she said, is assessing the acuity of the illness involved to help determine whether the transfer of a patient from one provider to another should even be considered. In a dire situation, or when the physician involved is the foremost expert on a given condition, it might not be realistic.

Dr. Whitgob said some clinicians advocated cultivating a kind of alliance with the parents of pediatric patients, informing them that they’re part of a team that interacts with many types of providers, and redirecting them to focus on their child’s care.

“This takes time, and in a busy setting, that might not happen,” she acknowledged.

Physicians surveyed also said they try to depersonalize the uncomfortable encounter, remembering that discrimination is often motivated by a patient’s fears and a lack of control.

An important consideration, researchers found, was ensuring a safe learning environment for trainees, telling patients they would trust the physician with the care of their own children, escalating a complaint to hospital administration when appropriate, and empowering trainees to choose the next step in a situation.

Dr. Whitgob said that handling a reassignment request based on discriminatory sentiments is not as easy as “calling out ‘Code Bigotry.’ ”

“It’s not that simple,” Dr. Whitgob said. “There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all or even a one-size-fits-most solution. Each case is an individual case.”
 

 

Taking action

Penn State Health is based in Hershey, Pa., a city that tends to vote Democratic in local and national elections but is encircled by Republican-leaning counties. Dr. Polimera’s encounter with her patient’s daughter led to changes in the way the health system handles encounters like hers.

When Dr. Polimera explained the situation to physician leadership, she was asked whether she was still comfortable taking care of the patient, and she said yes. The physician leaders informed the family that they could not change providers simply because of ethnicity. But that was just the first step.

Ultimately, the health system undertook a survey of all its health care providers, to determine whether others had similar experiences with patients or families, and had to deal with rude comments or were rejected as caregivers based on their race, gender, or religion.

“The feedback we received was massive and detailed,” Dr. Polimera said.

Brian McGillen, MD, section chief of hospital medicine and associate professor in the department of medicine at Penn State Health, said physician leaders took the survey results to the dean’s executive council, a who’s-who of medical leadership at the health system.

“I read aloud to the executive council what our folks were facing out on the floors,” Dr. McGillen said. “And I was halfway through my third story when the dean threw his hands up in the air and said, ‘We have to do something.’ ”

As a result, the health system’s policy on patient responsibility was changed to protect all health care providers from threats, violence, disrespectful communication, or harassment by patients, families, and other visitors. Before the change, the policy covered only discriminatory acts by patients themselves.

Penn State Health is now embarking on a training program for faculty, residents, and students that uses simulations of common hospital encounters. The health system also is engaging its patient relations staff to help mediate patient reassignment requests, and is trying to increase real-time debriefing of these events to further improve awareness and training.

Dr. McGillen noted that researchers at the University of North Texas, using data from the Anti-Defamation League, found that counties in which President Trump held campaign rallies – such as Dauphin County, Pa., where Hershey is located – had a 226% increase in hate crimes in the months after the rallies.

“This isn’t to say that every county and every person in these counties that voted for Mr. Trump is racist, but we surely know that his campaign unlocked an undercurrent of political incorrectness that has existed for ages,” he said. “We had to do something as an organization.”
 

Adapting to change

While some health systems are acting to limit the harm caused by discrimination, there is still much awareness to be raised and work to be done on this issue nationally. Some hospitalists at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference said they suspect that discriminatory incidents involving patients are still so underreported that the C-suite leaders at their hospitals do not recognize how serious a problem it is. Attendees at the HM19 workshop said discriminatory behavior by patients could affect hospitalist turnover and lead to burnout.

 

Multiple hospitalists at the workshop said that if a transfer of a patient is going to take place – if the patient requests a “white” doctor and there is not one available where the patient is admitted – they are unsure whether it is their responsibility to make the necessary phone calls. Some hospitalists say that if that job does fall to them, it interrupts work flow.

Susan Hakes, MHA, director of hospital administration at the Guthrie Clinic in Ithaca, N.Y., said that when a patient recently asked for a “white” doctor and there was not one available at the time of the request, the patient changed her mind when costs were considered.

“I was willing to have this patient transferred to another one of our hospitals that did have a white doctor, but it would have been at her expense since insurance wouldn’t cover the ambulance ride,” Ms. Hakes said. “She had second thoughts after learning that.”

Ms. Hakes said that the broader community in her region – which is predominantly white – needs to adapt to a changing health care scene.

“We’re recruiting international nurses now, due to the nursing shortage,” she said. “It will serve our community well to be receptive and welcome this additional resource.”

Kunal P. Bhagat, MD, chief of hospital medicine at Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Del., said that medical centers should set parameters for action when a patient discriminates, but that clinicians should not expect to fundamentally change a patient’s mindset.

“I think it is important to set limits,” Dr. Bhagat said. “It’s like with your kids. Your children may behave in certain ways, at certain times, that you don’t like. You can tell them, ‘You know, you may not like behaving the way I want you to behave, but the way you’re behaving now is not acceptable.’ If our goal is to try to completely change their world-view at that moment, I think we’re going to be set up for failure. That’s more of a long-term issue for society to address.”

In the fall of 2016, Hyma Polimera, MD, a hospitalist at Penn State Health in Hershey, Pa., approached the bedside of a patient with dementia and several other chronic conditions, and introduced herself to him and his family.

The patient’s daughter, who had power of attorney, took one look at Dr. Polimera and told her, “I’d like to see an American doctor.” Dr. Polimera is originally from India, but moved to Europe in 2005 and did her residency in Pennsylvania. She stayed calm and confident – she understood that she had done nothing wrong – but didn’t really know what to do next. All of the other hospitalists on the ward at the time were nonwhite and were also rejected by the patient’s daughter.

“I was wondering what was going to happen and who would provide care to this patient?” she said.

Dr. Polimera is far from alone. Nonwhite physicians, nurses, and other health care providers say they increasingly encounter patients who demand that only “white” health professionals take care of them. The number of these reassignment requests has ticked upward in the last few years, they say, coinciding with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and the subsequent election of Donald Trump.

The requests often come at medical centers with no policy in place for how to deal with them. And the unpleasant encounters find providers unprepared for how to respond, not knowing whether or how to resolve the situation with patients and their families. Clinicians sometimes wonder whether they are allowed to care for a patient even if they are willing to do so, and how to go about reassigning a patient to another clinician if that is the choice that the family makes.

To many hospitalists working in the field, it seems obvious that such situations are encouraged by a political environment in which discriminatory beliefs – once considered shameful to express publicly – are now deemed acceptable, even in health care encounters. Indeed, the health care encounter is perhaps the only time some patients will find themselves in intimate interactions with people of other ethnicities.
 

Responding to discrimination

A workshop at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference offered hospitalists an opportunity to discuss encounters with patients who expressed discriminatory attitudes. One physician, of South Asian descent, said that she had encountered no reassignment requests rooted in racial intolerance over more than a decade of work, but has encountered several in the last year or two.

Sabrina Chaklos, MD, a hospitalist at Burlington, Mass.–based Lahey Hospital & Medical Center and clinical assistant professor at Tufts University, said she has had a similar experience.

“It was blatantly bad behavior for 2018,” she said. Dr. Chaklos said she and other clinicians of color have been told, “I want an American doctor,” and that some patients see her darker complexion and conclude, “You must not be an American.”

Given the charged political environment since 2016, some medical facilities have been adapting how they respond to these comments and requests.

“The policy of the organization prior to 2016 was to give patients a new doctor,” Dr. Chaklos said. “Within the past year or so, they’re finally allowing people to say, ‘Look, you cannot just pick and choose your doctor,’ based on arbitrary reasons that are discriminatory in nature.”

Emily Whitgob, MD, MEd, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said that, several years ago, a scenario unfolded that led her to study the issue. An intern she was overseeing told her that the father of a pediatric patient had scrutinized the intern’s name tag and said, “Is that a Jewish last name? I don’t want a Jewish doctor.”

“I didn’t know what to do,” Dr. Whitgob said. Later, she brought up the situation at a meeting of 30 staff members. It led to an outpouring of sharing about similar incidents that other clinicians had experienced but had never talked about with colleagues.

“Half the room, by the end, was in tears talking about their experiences,” Dr. Whitgob said.

Since then, she has led research into how physicians typically handle such situations, performing semistructured interviews to survey pediatricians about their experiences with patients who discriminate on racial and ethnic grounds.

One important step, she said, is assessing the acuity of the illness involved to help determine whether the transfer of a patient from one provider to another should even be considered. In a dire situation, or when the physician involved is the foremost expert on a given condition, it might not be realistic.

Dr. Whitgob said some clinicians advocated cultivating a kind of alliance with the parents of pediatric patients, informing them that they’re part of a team that interacts with many types of providers, and redirecting them to focus on their child’s care.

“This takes time, and in a busy setting, that might not happen,” she acknowledged.

Physicians surveyed also said they try to depersonalize the uncomfortable encounter, remembering that discrimination is often motivated by a patient’s fears and a lack of control.

An important consideration, researchers found, was ensuring a safe learning environment for trainees, telling patients they would trust the physician with the care of their own children, escalating a complaint to hospital administration when appropriate, and empowering trainees to choose the next step in a situation.

Dr. Whitgob said that handling a reassignment request based on discriminatory sentiments is not as easy as “calling out ‘Code Bigotry.’ ”

“It’s not that simple,” Dr. Whitgob said. “There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all or even a one-size-fits-most solution. Each case is an individual case.”
 

 

Taking action

Penn State Health is based in Hershey, Pa., a city that tends to vote Democratic in local and national elections but is encircled by Republican-leaning counties. Dr. Polimera’s encounter with her patient’s daughter led to changes in the way the health system handles encounters like hers.

When Dr. Polimera explained the situation to physician leadership, she was asked whether she was still comfortable taking care of the patient, and she said yes. The physician leaders informed the family that they could not change providers simply because of ethnicity. But that was just the first step.

Ultimately, the health system undertook a survey of all its health care providers, to determine whether others had similar experiences with patients or families, and had to deal with rude comments or were rejected as caregivers based on their race, gender, or religion.

“The feedback we received was massive and detailed,” Dr. Polimera said.

Brian McGillen, MD, section chief of hospital medicine and associate professor in the department of medicine at Penn State Health, said physician leaders took the survey results to the dean’s executive council, a who’s-who of medical leadership at the health system.

“I read aloud to the executive council what our folks were facing out on the floors,” Dr. McGillen said. “And I was halfway through my third story when the dean threw his hands up in the air and said, ‘We have to do something.’ ”

As a result, the health system’s policy on patient responsibility was changed to protect all health care providers from threats, violence, disrespectful communication, or harassment by patients, families, and other visitors. Before the change, the policy covered only discriminatory acts by patients themselves.

Penn State Health is now embarking on a training program for faculty, residents, and students that uses simulations of common hospital encounters. The health system also is engaging its patient relations staff to help mediate patient reassignment requests, and is trying to increase real-time debriefing of these events to further improve awareness and training.

Dr. McGillen noted that researchers at the University of North Texas, using data from the Anti-Defamation League, found that counties in which President Trump held campaign rallies – such as Dauphin County, Pa., where Hershey is located – had a 226% increase in hate crimes in the months after the rallies.

“This isn’t to say that every county and every person in these counties that voted for Mr. Trump is racist, but we surely know that his campaign unlocked an undercurrent of political incorrectness that has existed for ages,” he said. “We had to do something as an organization.”
 

Adapting to change

While some health systems are acting to limit the harm caused by discrimination, there is still much awareness to be raised and work to be done on this issue nationally. Some hospitalists at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference said they suspect that discriminatory incidents involving patients are still so underreported that the C-suite leaders at their hospitals do not recognize how serious a problem it is. Attendees at the HM19 workshop said discriminatory behavior by patients could affect hospitalist turnover and lead to burnout.

 

Multiple hospitalists at the workshop said that if a transfer of a patient is going to take place – if the patient requests a “white” doctor and there is not one available where the patient is admitted – they are unsure whether it is their responsibility to make the necessary phone calls. Some hospitalists say that if that job does fall to them, it interrupts work flow.

Susan Hakes, MHA, director of hospital administration at the Guthrie Clinic in Ithaca, N.Y., said that when a patient recently asked for a “white” doctor and there was not one available at the time of the request, the patient changed her mind when costs were considered.

“I was willing to have this patient transferred to another one of our hospitals that did have a white doctor, but it would have been at her expense since insurance wouldn’t cover the ambulance ride,” Ms. Hakes said. “She had second thoughts after learning that.”

Ms. Hakes said that the broader community in her region – which is predominantly white – needs to adapt to a changing health care scene.

“We’re recruiting international nurses now, due to the nursing shortage,” she said. “It will serve our community well to be receptive and welcome this additional resource.”

Kunal P. Bhagat, MD, chief of hospital medicine at Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Del., said that medical centers should set parameters for action when a patient discriminates, but that clinicians should not expect to fundamentally change a patient’s mindset.

“I think it is important to set limits,” Dr. Bhagat said. “It’s like with your kids. Your children may behave in certain ways, at certain times, that you don’t like. You can tell them, ‘You know, you may not like behaving the way I want you to behave, but the way you’re behaving now is not acceptable.’ If our goal is to try to completely change their world-view at that moment, I think we’re going to be set up for failure. That’s more of a long-term issue for society to address.”

In the fall of 2016, Hyma Polimera, MD, a hospitalist at Penn State Health in Hershey, Pa., approached the bedside of a patient with dementia and several other chronic conditions, and introduced herself to him and his family.

The patient’s daughter, who had power of attorney, took one look at Dr. Polimera and told her, “I’d like to see an American doctor.” Dr. Polimera is originally from India, but moved to Europe in 2005 and did her residency in Pennsylvania. She stayed calm and confident – she understood that she had done nothing wrong – but didn’t really know what to do next. All of the other hospitalists on the ward at the time were nonwhite and were also rejected by the patient’s daughter.

“I was wondering what was going to happen and who would provide care to this patient?” she said.

Dr. Polimera is far from alone. Nonwhite physicians, nurses, and other health care providers say they increasingly encounter patients who demand that only “white” health professionals take care of them. The number of these reassignment requests has ticked upward in the last few years, they say, coinciding with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and the subsequent election of Donald Trump.

The requests often come at medical centers with no policy in place for how to deal with them. And the unpleasant encounters find providers unprepared for how to respond, not knowing whether or how to resolve the situation with patients and their families. Clinicians sometimes wonder whether they are allowed to care for a patient even if they are willing to do so, and how to go about reassigning a patient to another clinician if that is the choice that the family makes.

To many hospitalists working in the field, it seems obvious that such situations are encouraged by a political environment in which discriminatory beliefs – once considered shameful to express publicly – are now deemed acceptable, even in health care encounters. Indeed, the health care encounter is perhaps the only time some patients will find themselves in intimate interactions with people of other ethnicities.
 

Responding to discrimination

A workshop at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference offered hospitalists an opportunity to discuss encounters with patients who expressed discriminatory attitudes. One physician, of South Asian descent, said that she had encountered no reassignment requests rooted in racial intolerance over more than a decade of work, but has encountered several in the last year or two.

Sabrina Chaklos, MD, a hospitalist at Burlington, Mass.–based Lahey Hospital & Medical Center and clinical assistant professor at Tufts University, said she has had a similar experience.

“It was blatantly bad behavior for 2018,” she said. Dr. Chaklos said she and other clinicians of color have been told, “I want an American doctor,” and that some patients see her darker complexion and conclude, “You must not be an American.”

Given the charged political environment since 2016, some medical facilities have been adapting how they respond to these comments and requests.

“The policy of the organization prior to 2016 was to give patients a new doctor,” Dr. Chaklos said. “Within the past year or so, they’re finally allowing people to say, ‘Look, you cannot just pick and choose your doctor,’ based on arbitrary reasons that are discriminatory in nature.”

Emily Whitgob, MD, MEd, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said that, several years ago, a scenario unfolded that led her to study the issue. An intern she was overseeing told her that the father of a pediatric patient had scrutinized the intern’s name tag and said, “Is that a Jewish last name? I don’t want a Jewish doctor.”

“I didn’t know what to do,” Dr. Whitgob said. Later, she brought up the situation at a meeting of 30 staff members. It led to an outpouring of sharing about similar incidents that other clinicians had experienced but had never talked about with colleagues.

“Half the room, by the end, was in tears talking about their experiences,” Dr. Whitgob said.

Since then, she has led research into how physicians typically handle such situations, performing semistructured interviews to survey pediatricians about their experiences with patients who discriminate on racial and ethnic grounds.

One important step, she said, is assessing the acuity of the illness involved to help determine whether the transfer of a patient from one provider to another should even be considered. In a dire situation, or when the physician involved is the foremost expert on a given condition, it might not be realistic.

Dr. Whitgob said some clinicians advocated cultivating a kind of alliance with the parents of pediatric patients, informing them that they’re part of a team that interacts with many types of providers, and redirecting them to focus on their child’s care.

“This takes time, and in a busy setting, that might not happen,” she acknowledged.

Physicians surveyed also said they try to depersonalize the uncomfortable encounter, remembering that discrimination is often motivated by a patient’s fears and a lack of control.

An important consideration, researchers found, was ensuring a safe learning environment for trainees, telling patients they would trust the physician with the care of their own children, escalating a complaint to hospital administration when appropriate, and empowering trainees to choose the next step in a situation.

Dr. Whitgob said that handling a reassignment request based on discriminatory sentiments is not as easy as “calling out ‘Code Bigotry.’ ”

“It’s not that simple,” Dr. Whitgob said. “There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all or even a one-size-fits-most solution. Each case is an individual case.”
 

 

Taking action

Penn State Health is based in Hershey, Pa., a city that tends to vote Democratic in local and national elections but is encircled by Republican-leaning counties. Dr. Polimera’s encounter with her patient’s daughter led to changes in the way the health system handles encounters like hers.

When Dr. Polimera explained the situation to physician leadership, she was asked whether she was still comfortable taking care of the patient, and she said yes. The physician leaders informed the family that they could not change providers simply because of ethnicity. But that was just the first step.

Ultimately, the health system undertook a survey of all its health care providers, to determine whether others had similar experiences with patients or families, and had to deal with rude comments or were rejected as caregivers based on their race, gender, or religion.

“The feedback we received was massive and detailed,” Dr. Polimera said.

Brian McGillen, MD, section chief of hospital medicine and associate professor in the department of medicine at Penn State Health, said physician leaders took the survey results to the dean’s executive council, a who’s-who of medical leadership at the health system.

“I read aloud to the executive council what our folks were facing out on the floors,” Dr. McGillen said. “And I was halfway through my third story when the dean threw his hands up in the air and said, ‘We have to do something.’ ”

As a result, the health system’s policy on patient responsibility was changed to protect all health care providers from threats, violence, disrespectful communication, or harassment by patients, families, and other visitors. Before the change, the policy covered only discriminatory acts by patients themselves.

Penn State Health is now embarking on a training program for faculty, residents, and students that uses simulations of common hospital encounters. The health system also is engaging its patient relations staff to help mediate patient reassignment requests, and is trying to increase real-time debriefing of these events to further improve awareness and training.

Dr. McGillen noted that researchers at the University of North Texas, using data from the Anti-Defamation League, found that counties in which President Trump held campaign rallies – such as Dauphin County, Pa., where Hershey is located – had a 226% increase in hate crimes in the months after the rallies.

“This isn’t to say that every county and every person in these counties that voted for Mr. Trump is racist, but we surely know that his campaign unlocked an undercurrent of political incorrectness that has existed for ages,” he said. “We had to do something as an organization.”
 

Adapting to change

While some health systems are acting to limit the harm caused by discrimination, there is still much awareness to be raised and work to be done on this issue nationally. Some hospitalists at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference said they suspect that discriminatory incidents involving patients are still so underreported that the C-suite leaders at their hospitals do not recognize how serious a problem it is. Attendees at the HM19 workshop said discriminatory behavior by patients could affect hospitalist turnover and lead to burnout.

 

Multiple hospitalists at the workshop said that if a transfer of a patient is going to take place – if the patient requests a “white” doctor and there is not one available where the patient is admitted – they are unsure whether it is their responsibility to make the necessary phone calls. Some hospitalists say that if that job does fall to them, it interrupts work flow.

Susan Hakes, MHA, director of hospital administration at the Guthrie Clinic in Ithaca, N.Y., said that when a patient recently asked for a “white” doctor and there was not one available at the time of the request, the patient changed her mind when costs were considered.

“I was willing to have this patient transferred to another one of our hospitals that did have a white doctor, but it would have been at her expense since insurance wouldn’t cover the ambulance ride,” Ms. Hakes said. “She had second thoughts after learning that.”

Ms. Hakes said that the broader community in her region – which is predominantly white – needs to adapt to a changing health care scene.

“We’re recruiting international nurses now, due to the nursing shortage,” she said. “It will serve our community well to be receptive and welcome this additional resource.”

Kunal P. Bhagat, MD, chief of hospital medicine at Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Del., said that medical centers should set parameters for action when a patient discriminates, but that clinicians should not expect to fundamentally change a patient’s mindset.

“I think it is important to set limits,” Dr. Bhagat said. “It’s like with your kids. Your children may behave in certain ways, at certain times, that you don’t like. You can tell them, ‘You know, you may not like behaving the way I want you to behave, but the way you’re behaving now is not acceptable.’ If our goal is to try to completely change their world-view at that moment, I think we’re going to be set up for failure. That’s more of a long-term issue for society to address.”

The ideal method of resident education is a subject of great interest within the medical community, and many dermatology residency programs utilize a traditional classroom model for didactic training consisting of required textbook reading completed at home and classroom lectures that often include presentations featuring text, dermatology images, and questions throughout the lecture. A second teaching model is known as the flipped, or inverted, classroom. This model moves the didactic material that typically is covered in the classroom into the realm of home study or homework and focuses on application and clarification of the new material in the classroom. ¹ There is an emphasis on completing and understanding course material prior to the classroom session. Students are expected to be prepared for the lesson, and the classroom session can include question review and deeper exploration of the topic with a focus on subject mastery. ²

In recent years, the flipped classroom model has been used in elementary education, due in part to the influence of teachers Bergmann and Sams,³ as described in their book Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. More recently, Prober and Khan⁴ argued for its use in medical education, and this model has been utilized in medical school curricula to teach specialty subjects, including medical dermatology.⁵

Given the increasing popularity and use of the flipped classroom, the primary objective of this study was to determine if a difference in knowledge acquisition and resident perception exists between the traditional and flipped classrooms. If differences do exist, the secondary aim was to quantify them. We hypothesized that the flipped classroom actively engages residents and would improve both knowledge acquisition and resident sentiment toward the residency program curriculum compared to the traditional model.

Methods

The Duke Health (Durham, North Carolina) institutional review board granted approval for this study. All of the dermatology residents from Duke University Medical Center for the 2014-2015 academic year participated in this study. Twelve individual lectures chosen by the dermatology residency program director were included: 6 traditional lectures and 6 flipped lectures. The lectures were paired for similar content.

Survey Administration
Each resident was assigned a unique 4-digit numeric code that was unknown to the investigators and recorded at the beginning of each survey. The residents expected flipped lectures for each session and were blinded as to when a traditional lecture and quiz would occur, with the exception of the resident providing the lecture. Classroom presentations were immediately followed by a voluntary survey administered through Qualtrics.⁶ Consent was given at the beginning of each survey, followed by 10 factual questions and 10 perception questions. The factual questions varied based on the lecture topic and were multiple-choice questions written by the program director, associate program director, and faculty. Each factual question was worth 10 points, and the scaled score for each quiz had a maximum value of 100. The perception questions were developed by the authors (J.H. and A.R.A.) in consultation with a survey methodology expert at the Duke Social Science Research Institute. These questions remained constant across each survey and were descriptive based on standard response scales. The data were extracted from Qualtrics for statistical analysis.

Statistical Analysis
The mean score with the standard deviation for each factual question quiz was calculated and plotted. A generalized linear mixed model was created to study the difference in quiz scores between the 2 classroom models after adjusting for other covariates, including resident, the interaction between resident and class type, quiz time, and the interaction between class type and quiz time. The variable resident was specified as a random variable, and a variance components covariance structure was used. For the perception questions, the frequency and percentage of each answer for a question was counted. Generalized linear mixed models with a Poisson distribution were created to study the difference in answers for each survey question between the 2 curriculum types after adjusting for other covariates, including scores for factual questions, quiz time, and the interaction between class type and quiz time. The variable resident was again specified as a random variable, and a diagonal covariance structure was used. All statistical analyses were carried out using SAS software package version 9.4 (SAS Institute) by the Duke University Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

All 9 of the department’s residents were included and participated in this study. Mean score with standard deviation for each factual quiz is plotted in the Figure. Across all residents, the mean factual quiz score was slightly higher but not statistically significant in the flipped vs traditional classrooms (67.5% vs 65.4%; P=.448)(data not shown). When comparing traditional and flipped factual quiz scores by individual resident, there was not a significant difference in quiz performance (P=.166)(data not shown). However, there was a significant difference in the factual quiz scores among residents for all quizzes (P=.005) as well as a significant difference in performance between each individual quiz over time (P<.001)(data not shown). In the traditional classroom, residents demonstrated a trend in variable performance with each factual quiz. In the flipped classroom, residents also had variable performance, with wide-ranging scores (P=.008)(data not shown).

 

Each resident also answered 10 perception questions (Table 1). When comparing the responses by quiz type (Table 2), there was a significant difference for several questions in favor of the flipped classroom: how actively residents thought their co-residents participated in the lecture (P<.001), how much each resident enjoyed the session (P=.038), and how much each resident believed their co-residents enjoyed the session (P=.026). Additionally, residents thought that the flipped classroom sessions were more efficient (P=.033), better prepared them for boards (P=.050), and better prepared them for clinical practice (P=.034). There was not a significant difference in the amount of reading and preparation residents did for class (P=.697), how actively the residents thought they participated in the lecture (P=.303), the effectiveness of the day’s curriculum structure (P=.178), or whether residents thought the lesson increased their knowledge on the topic (P=.084).

Comment

The traditional model in medical education has undergone changes in recent years, and researchers have been looking for new ways to convey more information in shorter periods of time, especially as the field of medicine continues to expand. Despite the growing popularity and adoption of the flipped classroom, studies in dermatology have been limited. In this study, we compared a traditional classroom model with the flipped model, assessing both knowledge acquisition and resident perception of the experience.

There was not a significant difference in mean objective quiz scores when comparing the 2 curricula. The flipped model was not better or worse than the traditional teaching model at relaying information and promoting learning. Rather, there was a significant difference in quiz scores based on the individual resident and on the individual quiz. Individual performance was not affected by the teaching model but rather by the individual resident and lecture topic.

These findings differ from a study of internal medicine residents, which revealed that trainees in a quality-improvement flipped classroom had greater increases in knowledge than a traditional cohort.⁷ It is difficult to make direct comparisons to this group, given the difference in specialty and subject content. In comparison, an emergency medicine program completed a cross-sectional cohort study of in-service examination scores in the setting of a traditional curriculum (2011-2012) vs a flipped curriculum (2015-2016) and found that there was no statistical difference in average in-service examination scores.⁸ The type of examination content in this study may be more similar to the quizzes that our residents experienced (ie, fact-based material based on traditional medical knowledge).

The dermatology residents favored the flipped curriculum for 6 of 10 perception questions, which included areas of co-resident participation, personal and co-resident enjoyment, efficiency, boards preparation, and preparation for clinical practice. They did not favor the flipped classroom for prelecture preparation, personal participation, lecture effectiveness, or knowledge acquisition. They perceived their peers as being more engaged and found the flipped classroom to be a more positive experience. The residents thought that the flipped lectures were more time efficient, which could have contributed to overall learner satisfaction. Additionally, they thought that the flipped model better prepared them for both the boards and clinical practice, which are markers of future performance.

These findings are consistent with other studies that revealed improved postcourse perception scores for a quality improvement emergency medicine–flipped classroom. Most of this group preferred the flipped classroom over the traditional after completion of the flipped curriculum.⁹ A neurosurgery residency program also reported increased resident engagement and resident preference for a newly designed flipped curriculum.¹⁰

Overall, our data indicate that there was no objective change in knowledge acquisition at the time of the quiz, but learner satisfaction was significantly greater in the flipped classroom model.

Limitations
This study was comprised of a small number of residents from a single institution and was based on a limited number of lectures given throughout the year. All lectures during the study year were flipped with the exception of the 6 traditional study lectures. Therefore, each resident who presented a traditional lecture was not blinded for her individual assigned lecture. In addition, because traditional lectures only occurred on study days, once the lectures started, all trainees could predict that a content quiz would occur at the end of the session, which could potentially introduce bias toward better quiz performance for the traditional lectures.

Conclusion

When comparing traditional and flipped classroom models, we found no difference in knowledge acquisition. Rather, the difference in quiz scores was among individual residents. There was a significant positive difference in how residents perceived these teaching models, including enjoyment and feeling prepared for the boards. The flipped classroom model provides another opportunity to better engage residents during teaching and should be considered as part of dermatology residency education.



Acknowledgments
Duke Social Sciences Institute postdoctoral fellow Scott Clifford, PhD, and Duke Dermatology residents Daniel Chang, MD; Sinae Kane, MD; Rebecca Bialas, MD; Jolene Jewell, MD; Elizabeth Ju, MD; Michael Raisch, MD; Reed Garza, MD; Joanna Hooten, MD; and E. Schell Bressler, MD (all Durham, North Carolina).

The ideal method of resident education is a subject of great interest within the medical community, and many dermatology residency programs utilize a traditional classroom model for didactic training consisting of required textbook reading completed at home and classroom lectures that often include presentations featuring text, dermatology images, and questions throughout the lecture. A second teaching model is known as the flipped, or inverted, classroom. This model moves the didactic material that typically is covered in the classroom into the realm of home study or homework and focuses on application and clarification of the new material in the classroom. ¹ There is an emphasis on completing and understanding course material prior to the classroom session. Students are expected to be prepared for the lesson, and the classroom session can include question review and deeper exploration of the topic with a focus on subject mastery. ²

In recent years, the flipped classroom model has been used in elementary education, due in part to the influence of teachers Bergmann and Sams,³ as described in their book Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. More recently, Prober and Khan⁴ argued for its use in medical education, and this model has been utilized in medical school curricula to teach specialty subjects, including medical dermatology.⁵

Given the increasing popularity and use of the flipped classroom, the primary objective of this study was to determine if a difference in knowledge acquisition and resident perception exists between the traditional and flipped classrooms. If differences do exist, the secondary aim was to quantify them. We hypothesized that the flipped classroom actively engages residents and would improve both knowledge acquisition and resident sentiment toward the residency program curriculum compared to the traditional model.

Methods

The Duke Health (Durham, North Carolina) institutional review board granted approval for this study. All of the dermatology residents from Duke University Medical Center for the 2014-2015 academic year participated in this study. Twelve individual lectures chosen by the dermatology residency program director were included: 6 traditional lectures and 6 flipped lectures. The lectures were paired for similar content.

Survey Administration
Each resident was assigned a unique 4-digit numeric code that was unknown to the investigators and recorded at the beginning of each survey. The residents expected flipped lectures for each session and were blinded as to when a traditional lecture and quiz would occur, with the exception of the resident providing the lecture. Classroom presentations were immediately followed by a voluntary survey administered through Qualtrics.⁶ Consent was given at the beginning of each survey, followed by 10 factual questions and 10 perception questions. The factual questions varied based on the lecture topic and were multiple-choice questions written by the program director, associate program director, and faculty. Each factual question was worth 10 points, and the scaled score for each quiz had a maximum value of 100. The perception questions were developed by the authors (J.H. and A.R.A.) in consultation with a survey methodology expert at the Duke Social Science Research Institute. These questions remained constant across each survey and were descriptive based on standard response scales. The data were extracted from Qualtrics for statistical analysis.

Statistical Analysis
The mean score with the standard deviation for each factual question quiz was calculated and plotted. A generalized linear mixed model was created to study the difference in quiz scores between the 2 classroom models after adjusting for other covariates, including resident, the interaction between resident and class type, quiz time, and the interaction between class type and quiz time. The variable resident was specified as a random variable, and a variance components covariance structure was used. For the perception questions, the frequency and percentage of each answer for a question was counted. Generalized linear mixed models with a Poisson distribution were created to study the difference in answers for each survey question between the 2 curriculum types after adjusting for other covariates, including scores for factual questions, quiz time, and the interaction between class type and quiz time. The variable resident was again specified as a random variable, and a diagonal covariance structure was used. All statistical analyses were carried out using SAS software package version 9.4 (SAS Institute) by the Duke University Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

All 9 of the department’s residents were included and participated in this study. Mean score with standard deviation for each factual quiz is plotted in the Figure. Across all residents, the mean factual quiz score was slightly higher but not statistically significant in the flipped vs traditional classrooms (67.5% vs 65.4%; P=.448)(data not shown). When comparing traditional and flipped factual quiz scores by individual resident, there was not a significant difference in quiz performance (P=.166)(data not shown). However, there was a significant difference in the factual quiz scores among residents for all quizzes (P=.005) as well as a significant difference in performance between each individual quiz over time (P<.001)(data not shown). In the traditional classroom, residents demonstrated a trend in variable performance with each factual quiz. In the flipped classroom, residents also had variable performance, with wide-ranging scores (P=.008)(data not shown).

 

Each resident also answered 10 perception questions (Table 1). When comparing the responses by quiz type (Table 2), there was a significant difference for several questions in favor of the flipped classroom: how actively residents thought their co-residents participated in the lecture (P<.001), how much each resident enjoyed the session (P=.038), and how much each resident believed their co-residents enjoyed the session (P=.026). Additionally, residents thought that the flipped classroom sessions were more efficient (P=.033), better prepared them for boards (P=.050), and better prepared them for clinical practice (P=.034). There was not a significant difference in the amount of reading and preparation residents did for class (P=.697), how actively the residents thought they participated in the lecture (P=.303), the effectiveness of the day’s curriculum structure (P=.178), or whether residents thought the lesson increased their knowledge on the topic (P=.084).

Comment

The traditional model in medical education has undergone changes in recent years, and researchers have been looking for new ways to convey more information in shorter periods of time, especially as the field of medicine continues to expand. Despite the growing popularity and adoption of the flipped classroom, studies in dermatology have been limited. In this study, we compared a traditional classroom model with the flipped model, assessing both knowledge acquisition and resident perception of the experience.

There was not a significant difference in mean objective quiz scores when comparing the 2 curricula. The flipped model was not better or worse than the traditional teaching model at relaying information and promoting learning. Rather, there was a significant difference in quiz scores based on the individual resident and on the individual quiz. Individual performance was not affected by the teaching model but rather by the individual resident and lecture topic.

These findings differ from a study of internal medicine residents, which revealed that trainees in a quality-improvement flipped classroom had greater increases in knowledge than a traditional cohort.⁷ It is difficult to make direct comparisons to this group, given the difference in specialty and subject content. In comparison, an emergency medicine program completed a cross-sectional cohort study of in-service examination scores in the setting of a traditional curriculum (2011-2012) vs a flipped curriculum (2015-2016) and found that there was no statistical difference in average in-service examination scores.⁸ The type of examination content in this study may be more similar to the quizzes that our residents experienced (ie, fact-based material based on traditional medical knowledge).

The dermatology residents favored the flipped curriculum for 6 of 10 perception questions, which included areas of co-resident participation, personal and co-resident enjoyment, efficiency, boards preparation, and preparation for clinical practice. They did not favor the flipped classroom for prelecture preparation, personal participation, lecture effectiveness, or knowledge acquisition. They perceived their peers as being more engaged and found the flipped classroom to be a more positive experience. The residents thought that the flipped lectures were more time efficient, which could have contributed to overall learner satisfaction. Additionally, they thought that the flipped model better prepared them for both the boards and clinical practice, which are markers of future performance.

These findings are consistent with other studies that revealed improved postcourse perception scores for a quality improvement emergency medicine–flipped classroom. Most of this group preferred the flipped classroom over the traditional after completion of the flipped curriculum.⁹ A neurosurgery residency program also reported increased resident engagement and resident preference for a newly designed flipped curriculum.¹⁰

Overall, our data indicate that there was no objective change in knowledge acquisition at the time of the quiz, but learner satisfaction was significantly greater in the flipped classroom model.

Limitations
This study was comprised of a small number of residents from a single institution and was based on a limited number of lectures given throughout the year. All lectures during the study year were flipped with the exception of the 6 traditional study lectures. Therefore, each resident who presented a traditional lecture was not blinded for her individual assigned lecture. In addition, because traditional lectures only occurred on study days, once the lectures started, all trainees could predict that a content quiz would occur at the end of the session, which could potentially introduce bias toward better quiz performance for the traditional lectures.

Conclusion

When comparing traditional and flipped classroom models, we found no difference in knowledge acquisition. Rather, the difference in quiz scores was among individual residents. There was a significant positive difference in how residents perceived these teaching models, including enjoyment and feeling prepared for the boards. The flipped classroom model provides another opportunity to better engage residents during teaching and should be considered as part of dermatology residency education.



Acknowledgments
Duke Social Sciences Institute postdoctoral fellow Scott Clifford, PhD, and Duke Dermatology residents Daniel Chang, MD; Sinae Kane, MD; Rebecca Bialas, MD; Jolene Jewell, MD; Elizabeth Ju, MD; Michael Raisch, MD; Reed Garza, MD; Joanna Hooten, MD; and E. Schell Bressler, MD (all Durham, North Carolina).

The ideal method of resident education is a subject of great interest within the medical community, and many dermatology residency programs utilize a traditional classroom model for didactic training consisting of required textbook reading completed at home and classroom lectures that often include presentations featuring text, dermatology images, and questions throughout the lecture. A second teaching model is known as the flipped, or inverted, classroom. This model moves the didactic material that typically is covered in the classroom into the realm of home study or homework and focuses on application and clarification of the new material in the classroom. ¹ There is an emphasis on completing and understanding course material prior to the classroom session. Students are expected to be prepared for the lesson, and the classroom session can include question review and deeper exploration of the topic with a focus on subject mastery. ²

In recent years, the flipped classroom model has been used in elementary education, due in part to the influence of teachers Bergmann and Sams,³ as described in their book Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. More recently, Prober and Khan⁴ argued for its use in medical education, and this model has been utilized in medical school curricula to teach specialty subjects, including medical dermatology.⁵

Given the increasing popularity and use of the flipped classroom, the primary objective of this study was to determine if a difference in knowledge acquisition and resident perception exists between the traditional and flipped classrooms. If differences do exist, the secondary aim was to quantify them. We hypothesized that the flipped classroom actively engages residents and would improve both knowledge acquisition and resident sentiment toward the residency program curriculum compared to the traditional model.

Methods

The Duke Health (Durham, North Carolina) institutional review board granted approval for this study. All of the dermatology residents from Duke University Medical Center for the 2014-2015 academic year participated in this study. Twelve individual lectures chosen by the dermatology residency program director were included: 6 traditional lectures and 6 flipped lectures. The lectures were paired for similar content.

Survey Administration
Each resident was assigned a unique 4-digit numeric code that was unknown to the investigators and recorded at the beginning of each survey. The residents expected flipped lectures for each session and were blinded as to when a traditional lecture and quiz would occur, with the exception of the resident providing the lecture. Classroom presentations were immediately followed by a voluntary survey administered through Qualtrics.⁶ Consent was given at the beginning of each survey, followed by 10 factual questions and 10 perception questions. The factual questions varied based on the lecture topic and were multiple-choice questions written by the program director, associate program director, and faculty. Each factual question was worth 10 points, and the scaled score for each quiz had a maximum value of 100. The perception questions were developed by the authors (J.H. and A.R.A.) in consultation with a survey methodology expert at the Duke Social Science Research Institute. These questions remained constant across each survey and were descriptive based on standard response scales. The data were extracted from Qualtrics for statistical analysis.

Statistical Analysis
The mean score with the standard deviation for each factual question quiz was calculated and plotted. A generalized linear mixed model was created to study the difference in quiz scores between the 2 classroom models after adjusting for other covariates, including resident, the interaction between resident and class type, quiz time, and the interaction between class type and quiz time. The variable resident was specified as a random variable, and a variance components covariance structure was used. For the perception questions, the frequency and percentage of each answer for a question was counted. Generalized linear mixed models with a Poisson distribution were created to study the difference in answers for each survey question between the 2 curriculum types after adjusting for other covariates, including scores for factual questions, quiz time, and the interaction between class type and quiz time. The variable resident was again specified as a random variable, and a diagonal covariance structure was used. All statistical analyses were carried out using SAS software package version 9.4 (SAS Institute) by the Duke University Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

All 9 of the department’s residents were included and participated in this study. Mean score with standard deviation for each factual quiz is plotted in the Figure. Across all residents, the mean factual quiz score was slightly higher but not statistically significant in the flipped vs traditional classrooms (67.5% vs 65.4%; P=.448)(data not shown). When comparing traditional and flipped factual quiz scores by individual resident, there was not a significant difference in quiz performance (P=.166)(data not shown). However, there was a significant difference in the factual quiz scores among residents for all quizzes (P=.005) as well as a significant difference in performance between each individual quiz over time (P<.001)(data not shown). In the traditional classroom, residents demonstrated a trend in variable performance with each factual quiz. In the flipped classroom, residents also had variable performance, with wide-ranging scores (P=.008)(data not shown).

 

Each resident also answered 10 perception questions (Table 1). When comparing the responses by quiz type (Table 2), there was a significant difference for several questions in favor of the flipped classroom: how actively residents thought their co-residents participated in the lecture (P<.001), how much each resident enjoyed the session (P=.038), and how much each resident believed their co-residents enjoyed the session (P=.026). Additionally, residents thought that the flipped classroom sessions were more efficient (P=.033), better prepared them for boards (P=.050), and better prepared them for clinical practice (P=.034). There was not a significant difference in the amount of reading and preparation residents did for class (P=.697), how actively the residents thought they participated in the lecture (P=.303), the effectiveness of the day’s curriculum structure (P=.178), or whether residents thought the lesson increased their knowledge on the topic (P=.084).

Comment

The traditional model in medical education has undergone changes in recent years, and researchers have been looking for new ways to convey more information in shorter periods of time, especially as the field of medicine continues to expand. Despite the growing popularity and adoption of the flipped classroom, studies in dermatology have been limited. In this study, we compared a traditional classroom model with the flipped model, assessing both knowledge acquisition and resident perception of the experience.

There was not a significant difference in mean objective quiz scores when comparing the 2 curricula. The flipped model was not better or worse than the traditional teaching model at relaying information and promoting learning. Rather, there was a significant difference in quiz scores based on the individual resident and on the individual quiz. Individual performance was not affected by the teaching model but rather by the individual resident and lecture topic.

These findings differ from a study of internal medicine residents, which revealed that trainees in a quality-improvement flipped classroom had greater increases in knowledge than a traditional cohort.⁷ It is difficult to make direct comparisons to this group, given the difference in specialty and subject content. In comparison, an emergency medicine program completed a cross-sectional cohort study of in-service examination scores in the setting of a traditional curriculum (2011-2012) vs a flipped curriculum (2015-2016) and found that there was no statistical difference in average in-service examination scores.⁸ The type of examination content in this study may be more similar to the quizzes that our residents experienced (ie, fact-based material based on traditional medical knowledge).

The dermatology residents favored the flipped curriculum for 6 of 10 perception questions, which included areas of co-resident participation, personal and co-resident enjoyment, efficiency, boards preparation, and preparation for clinical practice. They did not favor the flipped classroom for prelecture preparation, personal participation, lecture effectiveness, or knowledge acquisition. They perceived their peers as being more engaged and found the flipped classroom to be a more positive experience. The residents thought that the flipped lectures were more time efficient, which could have contributed to overall learner satisfaction. Additionally, they thought that the flipped model better prepared them for both the boards and clinical practice, which are markers of future performance.

These findings are consistent with other studies that revealed improved postcourse perception scores for a quality improvement emergency medicine–flipped classroom. Most of this group preferred the flipped classroom over the traditional after completion of the flipped curriculum.⁹ A neurosurgery residency program also reported increased resident engagement and resident preference for a newly designed flipped curriculum.¹⁰

Overall, our data indicate that there was no objective change in knowledge acquisition at the time of the quiz, but learner satisfaction was significantly greater in the flipped classroom model.

Limitations
This study was comprised of a small number of residents from a single institution and was based on a limited number of lectures given throughout the year. All lectures during the study year were flipped with the exception of the 6 traditional study lectures. Therefore, each resident who presented a traditional lecture was not blinded for her individual assigned lecture. In addition, because traditional lectures only occurred on study days, once the lectures started, all trainees could predict that a content quiz would occur at the end of the session, which could potentially introduce bias toward better quiz performance for the traditional lectures.

Conclusion

When comparing traditional and flipped classroom models, we found no difference in knowledge acquisition. Rather, the difference in quiz scores was among individual residents. There was a significant positive difference in how residents perceived these teaching models, including enjoyment and feeling prepared for the boards. The flipped classroom model provides another opportunity to better engage residents during teaching and should be considered as part of dermatology residency education.



Acknowledgments
Duke Social Sciences Institute postdoctoral fellow Scott Clifford, PhD, and Duke Dermatology residents Daniel Chang, MD; Sinae Kane, MD; Rebecca Bialas, MD; Jolene Jewell, MD; Elizabeth Ju, MD; Michael Raisch, MD; Reed Garza, MD; Joanna Hooten, MD; and E. Schell Bressler, MD (all Durham, North Carolina).

Editor’s Note: I am very excited to introduce a section to The New Gastroenterologist that will address topics in clinical medical ethics we frequently face as gastroenterologists. There are several inherent ethical issues in gastroenterology that are not often explicitly discussed, such as periprocedural code status, informed consent, transplantation, performance of endoscopy in the critically ill, and nutrition support in the setting of end of life care. Often the most difficult decisions we make as clinicians are fraught with ethical implications which can be daunting and difficult to navigate. The goal of this section is to address these issues in a case-based format to offer some guidance to young gastroenterologists grappling with similar scenarios.

This month’s issue features the inaugural piece for this series, written by Dr. Lauren Feld (University of Washington), which discusses a clinical scenario in which a patient with a preexisting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is about to undergo endoscopy. The article provides a systematic approach to periprocedural code status and highlights existing guidelines that are generally not well known among gastroenterologists.
 

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief

 

An 89-year old female with history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with melena and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia. The family member designated as the patient’s power of attorney (POA) agrees that her code status upon admission will be do-not-resuscitate and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) without plan for invasive procedures. However, she has continued overt bleeding with concomitant hemodynamic instability. The POA and ICU team are now asking for urgent endoscopic evaluation, but do not agree to temporary code reversal for the duration of the procedure.

This vignette highlights an important distinction between a patient’s goals of care and the code status. While these two terms are often erroneously used interchangeably, “code status” refers to a patient’s wishes in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest, while “goals of care” refers to a more comprehensive understanding of what care fits within a patient’s values. Patients or their families may still desire interventions such as procedures, but not wish to have a resuscitation attempt in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest. This leads to the commonly encountered clinical scenario in which a patient planning to undergo endoscopy has an active DNR order.

Frequently, DNR orders are temporarily rescinded prior to invasive procedures. There are several reasons this occurs. First, patients or decision makers may decide that the improved rates of survival in intraprocedural arrests changes their risk-benefit assessment about resuscitation procedures. Secondly, proceduralists may feel an ethical duty to resuscitate a patient if the cause of the arrest is considered iatrogenic and potentially reversible. In addition, proceduralists may worry about legal or professional risk if a patient suffers cardiopulmonary arrest during a procedure and an attempt at resuscitation does not occur.

While this is a frequently encountered clinical scenario, there is wide variation in clinical practice. This variation led to the creation of guidelines set forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 1993 and subsequently adopted by the American College of Surgeons. These guidelines recommend a discussion between the physician and the patient prior to the procedure, utilizing shared decision-making around three options: 1) a full attempt at resuscitation; 2) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to specific procedures; and 3) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to the patient’s goals and values.

However, these guidelines are both not well known and frequently not applied amongst clinicians and ancillary staff. Patients are frequently told that they must reverse their DNR order to full code prior to undergoing endoscopy. Dissemination of a systematic approach to a patient with a DNR order who requires endoscopy is important to ensure patients have autonomy over their medical decision-making, while also ensuring that health care professionals feel comfortable with their decisions.

 

The first step when encountering this scenario is to ensure that the procedure is indicated in this particular patient. While guidelines and algorithms have a substantial role in deciding the appropriate work-up for a presenting complaint such as a presumed upper gastrointestinal bleed, the art of medicine lies in the role of the physicians to decide if an invasive procedure is indicated in their specific patients. This decision should be based on the patients’ presenting clinical scenario, their overall comorbidities, their values, and their goals of care.

As the medical complexity of the patient increases, the risks of the procedure increase and it is ultimately up to the endoscopist to frame the informed consent conversation such that the patient and family understand the potential risks and benefits in their specific case.

With a patient who has a desire to avoid aggressive resuscitation attempts, the physician, patient, and family should weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure, and carefully examine if the indication is sufficient. For the patient outlined in the case, her dementia limits her decision-making capacity, and the clinical team is working with a surrogate decision-maker, her POA, to understand the patient’s wishes and goals. Her POA reports upon admission that invasive procedures may not be in line with her previously expressed values or in her best interest. However, with the development of an acute decompensation due to a presumed GI bleed, a potentially reversible cause, the POA requests an endoscopy to attempt to intervene. Occasionally, a patient with clear goals of care can have a change in these goals when a decompensation occurs. The gastroenterologist should assess if this represents a true desire for invasive procedures, or if this is a response to pressure from other members of the clinical team or family, or if palliative needs are not being met. In this patient, her POA desires an endoscopy because her likely upper GI bleed may be contributing to an acute decompensation, but does not wish for other aggressive measures if she should suffer cardiopulmonary arrest. Although upper endoscopy is a generally safe and well-tolerated procedure, this patient’s cardiopulmonary comorbidities increase the risk of the procedure; therefore, the gastroenterology team should proceed with a candid, detailed discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives with the patient’s POA.

If the decision is made to proceed with endoscopy, the next step is to address the patient’s code status surrounding the procedure. This conversation should focus on three key goals: 1) allow the physician to gain understanding of the patient or surrogate’s perspectives on goals of care; 2) provide the patient or surrogate with an understanding of the risks and potential outcomes of the procedure, as well as resuscitation options; and 3) ultimately arrive at a mutual consensus regarding the patient’s periprocedural code status. Plans for postprocedural care should also be discussed.

While gastroenterology societies do not have specific guidelines surrounding this situation, there are several steps clinicians can take to ensure patient safety and autonomy are preserved:

 

• Physicians should avoid one-size-fits-all policies, such as the expectation that patients routinely return to full code for procedures.
• The patient and/or decision-makers should have a discussion regarding the risks during the procedure and potential reversibility of these risks.
• The patient should be presented with the option to either reverse to full code, refuse specific resuscitative measures such as defibrillation or intubation, or be allowed to explain his or her own views on goals of care and allow the procedural team to use their clinical judgment should an emergency arise.
• Physicians should be specific regarding the duration of the code status change. For example, in a patient who has reversed the code status to allow a full resuscitation attempt, the team and patient should discuss how long the patient will remain intubated after the procedure.
• This discussion should be documented carefully in the chart to assist with dissemination amongst the medical team.

This process will ensure that clear guidelines are defined such that everyone, including the patient’s potential decision makers, understand to what they are agreeing.

While physicians and care teams are primarily concerned with providing high-quality and individualized care to patients, it is true that concerns surrounding medicolegal risk are present. Careful informed consent and informed refusal conversations will reduce risk. Indeed, in a patient who has a DNR order, physicians are more likely to be at risk performing resuscitation efforts than withholding them. Communication between patients, families, and physicians remains the foundation for a trusting relationship and decreased litigation risk.

For this patient, engaging her POA in an honest and thorough discussion about her goals of care, as well as the risks of both performing and not performing the upper endoscopy are critical to her care. If her POA wishes to proceed with the procedure and have her remain DNR during the procedure, this should be documented and adhered to. Ultimately, the best outcome for this patient will occur with an individualized risk-benefit assessment and open, frequent communication among the care team and her POA.
 

Dr. Feld is a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts of interest.

Editor’s Note: I am very excited to introduce a section to The New Gastroenterologist that will address topics in clinical medical ethics we frequently face as gastroenterologists. There are several inherent ethical issues in gastroenterology that are not often explicitly discussed, such as periprocedural code status, informed consent, transplantation, performance of endoscopy in the critically ill, and nutrition support in the setting of end of life care. Often the most difficult decisions we make as clinicians are fraught with ethical implications which can be daunting and difficult to navigate. The goal of this section is to address these issues in a case-based format to offer some guidance to young gastroenterologists grappling with similar scenarios.

This month’s issue features the inaugural piece for this series, written by Dr. Lauren Feld (University of Washington), which discusses a clinical scenario in which a patient with a preexisting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is about to undergo endoscopy. The article provides a systematic approach to periprocedural code status and highlights existing guidelines that are generally not well known among gastroenterologists.
 

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief

 

An 89-year old female with history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with melena and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia. The family member designated as the patient’s power of attorney (POA) agrees that her code status upon admission will be do-not-resuscitate and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) without plan for invasive procedures. However, she has continued overt bleeding with concomitant hemodynamic instability. The POA and ICU team are now asking for urgent endoscopic evaluation, but do not agree to temporary code reversal for the duration of the procedure.

This vignette highlights an important distinction between a patient’s goals of care and the code status. While these two terms are often erroneously used interchangeably, “code status” refers to a patient’s wishes in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest, while “goals of care” refers to a more comprehensive understanding of what care fits within a patient’s values. Patients or their families may still desire interventions such as procedures, but not wish to have a resuscitation attempt in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest. This leads to the commonly encountered clinical scenario in which a patient planning to undergo endoscopy has an active DNR order.

Frequently, DNR orders are temporarily rescinded prior to invasive procedures. There are several reasons this occurs. First, patients or decision makers may decide that the improved rates of survival in intraprocedural arrests changes their risk-benefit assessment about resuscitation procedures. Secondly, proceduralists may feel an ethical duty to resuscitate a patient if the cause of the arrest is considered iatrogenic and potentially reversible. In addition, proceduralists may worry about legal or professional risk if a patient suffers cardiopulmonary arrest during a procedure and an attempt at resuscitation does not occur.

While this is a frequently encountered clinical scenario, there is wide variation in clinical practice. This variation led to the creation of guidelines set forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 1993 and subsequently adopted by the American College of Surgeons. These guidelines recommend a discussion between the physician and the patient prior to the procedure, utilizing shared decision-making around three options: 1) a full attempt at resuscitation; 2) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to specific procedures; and 3) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to the patient’s goals and values.

However, these guidelines are both not well known and frequently not applied amongst clinicians and ancillary staff. Patients are frequently told that they must reverse their DNR order to full code prior to undergoing endoscopy. Dissemination of a systematic approach to a patient with a DNR order who requires endoscopy is important to ensure patients have autonomy over their medical decision-making, while also ensuring that health care professionals feel comfortable with their decisions.

 

The first step when encountering this scenario is to ensure that the procedure is indicated in this particular patient. While guidelines and algorithms have a substantial role in deciding the appropriate work-up for a presenting complaint such as a presumed upper gastrointestinal bleed, the art of medicine lies in the role of the physicians to decide if an invasive procedure is indicated in their specific patients. This decision should be based on the patients’ presenting clinical scenario, their overall comorbidities, their values, and their goals of care.

As the medical complexity of the patient increases, the risks of the procedure increase and it is ultimately up to the endoscopist to frame the informed consent conversation such that the patient and family understand the potential risks and benefits in their specific case.

With a patient who has a desire to avoid aggressive resuscitation attempts, the physician, patient, and family should weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure, and carefully examine if the indication is sufficient. For the patient outlined in the case, her dementia limits her decision-making capacity, and the clinical team is working with a surrogate decision-maker, her POA, to understand the patient’s wishes and goals. Her POA reports upon admission that invasive procedures may not be in line with her previously expressed values or in her best interest. However, with the development of an acute decompensation due to a presumed GI bleed, a potentially reversible cause, the POA requests an endoscopy to attempt to intervene. Occasionally, a patient with clear goals of care can have a change in these goals when a decompensation occurs. The gastroenterologist should assess if this represents a true desire for invasive procedures, or if this is a response to pressure from other members of the clinical team or family, or if palliative needs are not being met. In this patient, her POA desires an endoscopy because her likely upper GI bleed may be contributing to an acute decompensation, but does not wish for other aggressive measures if she should suffer cardiopulmonary arrest. Although upper endoscopy is a generally safe and well-tolerated procedure, this patient’s cardiopulmonary comorbidities increase the risk of the procedure; therefore, the gastroenterology team should proceed with a candid, detailed discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives with the patient’s POA.

If the decision is made to proceed with endoscopy, the next step is to address the patient’s code status surrounding the procedure. This conversation should focus on three key goals: 1) allow the physician to gain understanding of the patient or surrogate’s perspectives on goals of care; 2) provide the patient or surrogate with an understanding of the risks and potential outcomes of the procedure, as well as resuscitation options; and 3) ultimately arrive at a mutual consensus regarding the patient’s periprocedural code status. Plans for postprocedural care should also be discussed.

While gastroenterology societies do not have specific guidelines surrounding this situation, there are several steps clinicians can take to ensure patient safety and autonomy are preserved:

 

• Physicians should avoid one-size-fits-all policies, such as the expectation that patients routinely return to full code for procedures.
• The patient and/or decision-makers should have a discussion regarding the risks during the procedure and potential reversibility of these risks.
• The patient should be presented with the option to either reverse to full code, refuse specific resuscitative measures such as defibrillation or intubation, or be allowed to explain his or her own views on goals of care and allow the procedural team to use their clinical judgment should an emergency arise.
• Physicians should be specific regarding the duration of the code status change. For example, in a patient who has reversed the code status to allow a full resuscitation attempt, the team and patient should discuss how long the patient will remain intubated after the procedure.
• This discussion should be documented carefully in the chart to assist with dissemination amongst the medical team.

This process will ensure that clear guidelines are defined such that everyone, including the patient’s potential decision makers, understand to what they are agreeing.

While physicians and care teams are primarily concerned with providing high-quality and individualized care to patients, it is true that concerns surrounding medicolegal risk are present. Careful informed consent and informed refusal conversations will reduce risk. Indeed, in a patient who has a DNR order, physicians are more likely to be at risk performing resuscitation efforts than withholding them. Communication between patients, families, and physicians remains the foundation for a trusting relationship and decreased litigation risk.

For this patient, engaging her POA in an honest and thorough discussion about her goals of care, as well as the risks of both performing and not performing the upper endoscopy are critical to her care. If her POA wishes to proceed with the procedure and have her remain DNR during the procedure, this should be documented and adhered to. Ultimately, the best outcome for this patient will occur with an individualized risk-benefit assessment and open, frequent communication among the care team and her POA.
 

Dr. Feld is a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts of interest.

Editor’s Note: I am very excited to introduce a section to The New Gastroenterologist that will address topics in clinical medical ethics we frequently face as gastroenterologists. There are several inherent ethical issues in gastroenterology that are not often explicitly discussed, such as periprocedural code status, informed consent, transplantation, performance of endoscopy in the critically ill, and nutrition support in the setting of end of life care. Often the most difficult decisions we make as clinicians are fraught with ethical implications which can be daunting and difficult to navigate. The goal of this section is to address these issues in a case-based format to offer some guidance to young gastroenterologists grappling with similar scenarios.

This month’s issue features the inaugural piece for this series, written by Dr. Lauren Feld (University of Washington), which discusses a clinical scenario in which a patient with a preexisting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is about to undergo endoscopy. The article provides a systematic approach to periprocedural code status and highlights existing guidelines that are generally not well known among gastroenterologists.
 

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief

 

An 89-year old female with history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with melena and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia. The family member designated as the patient’s power of attorney (POA) agrees that her code status upon admission will be do-not-resuscitate and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) without plan for invasive procedures. However, she has continued overt bleeding with concomitant hemodynamic instability. The POA and ICU team are now asking for urgent endoscopic evaluation, but do not agree to temporary code reversal for the duration of the procedure.

This vignette highlights an important distinction between a patient’s goals of care and the code status. While these two terms are often erroneously used interchangeably, “code status” refers to a patient’s wishes in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest, while “goals of care” refers to a more comprehensive understanding of what care fits within a patient’s values. Patients or their families may still desire interventions such as procedures, but not wish to have a resuscitation attempt in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest. This leads to the commonly encountered clinical scenario in which a patient planning to undergo endoscopy has an active DNR order.

Frequently, DNR orders are temporarily rescinded prior to invasive procedures. There are several reasons this occurs. First, patients or decision makers may decide that the improved rates of survival in intraprocedural arrests changes their risk-benefit assessment about resuscitation procedures. Secondly, proceduralists may feel an ethical duty to resuscitate a patient if the cause of the arrest is considered iatrogenic and potentially reversible. In addition, proceduralists may worry about legal or professional risk if a patient suffers cardiopulmonary arrest during a procedure and an attempt at resuscitation does not occur.

While this is a frequently encountered clinical scenario, there is wide variation in clinical practice. This variation led to the creation of guidelines set forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 1993 and subsequently adopted by the American College of Surgeons. These guidelines recommend a discussion between the physician and the patient prior to the procedure, utilizing shared decision-making around three options: 1) a full attempt at resuscitation; 2) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to specific procedures; and 3) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to the patient’s goals and values.

However, these guidelines are both not well known and frequently not applied amongst clinicians and ancillary staff. Patients are frequently told that they must reverse their DNR order to full code prior to undergoing endoscopy. Dissemination of a systematic approach to a patient with a DNR order who requires endoscopy is important to ensure patients have autonomy over their medical decision-making, while also ensuring that health care professionals feel comfortable with their decisions.

 

The first step when encountering this scenario is to ensure that the procedure is indicated in this particular patient. While guidelines and algorithms have a substantial role in deciding the appropriate work-up for a presenting complaint such as a presumed upper gastrointestinal bleed, the art of medicine lies in the role of the physicians to decide if an invasive procedure is indicated in their specific patients. This decision should be based on the patients’ presenting clinical scenario, their overall comorbidities, their values, and their goals of care.

As the medical complexity of the patient increases, the risks of the procedure increase and it is ultimately up to the endoscopist to frame the informed consent conversation such that the patient and family understand the potential risks and benefits in their specific case.

With a patient who has a desire to avoid aggressive resuscitation attempts, the physician, patient, and family should weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure, and carefully examine if the indication is sufficient. For the patient outlined in the case, her dementia limits her decision-making capacity, and the clinical team is working with a surrogate decision-maker, her POA, to understand the patient’s wishes and goals. Her POA reports upon admission that invasive procedures may not be in line with her previously expressed values or in her best interest. However, with the development of an acute decompensation due to a presumed GI bleed, a potentially reversible cause, the POA requests an endoscopy to attempt to intervene. Occasionally, a patient with clear goals of care can have a change in these goals when a decompensation occurs. The gastroenterologist should assess if this represents a true desire for invasive procedures, or if this is a response to pressure from other members of the clinical team or family, or if palliative needs are not being met. In this patient, her POA desires an endoscopy because her likely upper GI bleed may be contributing to an acute decompensation, but does not wish for other aggressive measures if she should suffer cardiopulmonary arrest. Although upper endoscopy is a generally safe and well-tolerated procedure, this patient’s cardiopulmonary comorbidities increase the risk of the procedure; therefore, the gastroenterology team should proceed with a candid, detailed discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives with the patient’s POA.

If the decision is made to proceed with endoscopy, the next step is to address the patient’s code status surrounding the procedure. This conversation should focus on three key goals: 1) allow the physician to gain understanding of the patient or surrogate’s perspectives on goals of care; 2) provide the patient or surrogate with an understanding of the risks and potential outcomes of the procedure, as well as resuscitation options; and 3) ultimately arrive at a mutual consensus regarding the patient’s periprocedural code status. Plans for postprocedural care should also be discussed.

While gastroenterology societies do not have specific guidelines surrounding this situation, there are several steps clinicians can take to ensure patient safety and autonomy are preserved:

 

• Physicians should avoid one-size-fits-all policies, such as the expectation that patients routinely return to full code for procedures.
• The patient and/or decision-makers should have a discussion regarding the risks during the procedure and potential reversibility of these risks.
• The patient should be presented with the option to either reverse to full code, refuse specific resuscitative measures such as defibrillation or intubation, or be allowed to explain his or her own views on goals of care and allow the procedural team to use their clinical judgment should an emergency arise.
• Physicians should be specific regarding the duration of the code status change. For example, in a patient who has reversed the code status to allow a full resuscitation attempt, the team and patient should discuss how long the patient will remain intubated after the procedure.
• This discussion should be documented carefully in the chart to assist with dissemination amongst the medical team.

This process will ensure that clear guidelines are defined such that everyone, including the patient’s potential decision makers, understand to what they are agreeing.

While physicians and care teams are primarily concerned with providing high-quality and individualized care to patients, it is true that concerns surrounding medicolegal risk are present. Careful informed consent and informed refusal conversations will reduce risk. Indeed, in a patient who has a DNR order, physicians are more likely to be at risk performing resuscitation efforts than withholding them. Communication between patients, families, and physicians remains the foundation for a trusting relationship and decreased litigation risk.

For this patient, engaging her POA in an honest and thorough discussion about her goals of care, as well as the risks of both performing and not performing the upper endoscopy are critical to her care. If her POA wishes to proceed with the procedure and have her remain DNR during the procedure, this should be documented and adhered to. Ultimately, the best outcome for this patient will occur with an individualized risk-benefit assessment and open, frequent communication among the care team and her POA.
 

Dr. Feld is a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts of interest.

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) should be revised to clarify and harmonize procedures related to the determination of death by neurologic criteria, according to an editorial published online Dec. 24, 2019, in Annals of Internal Medicine. Proposed revisions would identify the standards for determining death by neurologic criteria and address the question of whether consent is required to make this determination. If accepted, the revisions would enhance public trust in the determination of death by neurologic criteria, the authors said.

Edwin Verin/©Thinkstock

“There is a disconnect between the medical and legal standards for brain death,” said Ariane K. Lewis, MD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery at New York University and lead author of the editorial. The discrepancy must be remedied because it has led to lawsuits and has proved to be problematic from a societal standpoint, she added.

“We defend changing the law to match medical practice, rather than changing medical practice to match the law,” said Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, director of the Health Law Institute at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and an author of the editorial.
 

Accepted medical standards are unclear

The UDDA was drafted in 1981 to establish a uniform legal standard for death by neurologic criteria. A person with “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem,” is dead, according to the statute. A determination of death, it adds, “must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”

But the medical standards used to determine death by neurologic cause have not been uniform. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled that it was not clear that the standard published by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), which had been used in the case at issue, was the “accepted medical standard.” An AAN summit later affirmed that the accepted medical standards for determination of death by neurologic cause are the 2010 AAN standard for determination of brain death in adults and the 2011 Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Child Neurology Society (CNS) standard for determination of brain death in children. The Nevada legislature amended the state UDDA to identify these standards as the accepted standards. A revised UDDA also should identify these standards and grant an administrative agency (i.e., the board of medicine) the power to review and update the accepted medical standards as needed, according to the editorial.

To the extent that hospitals are not following the AAN or SCCM/AAP/CNS standards for determining death by neurologic cause, “enshrining” these standards in a revised UDDA “should increase uniformity and consistency” in hospitals’ policies on brain death, Dr. Pope said.
 

The question of hormonal function

Lawsuits in California and Nevada raised the question of whether the pituitary gland and hypothalamus are parts of the brain. If so, then the accepted medical standards for death by neurologic cause are not consistent with the statutory requirements for the determination of death, since the former do not test for cessation of hormonal function.

The current edition of the adult standards for determining death by neurologic cause were published in 2010. “Whenever we measure brain death, we’re not measuring the cessation of all functions of the entire brain,” Dr. Pope said. “That’s not a new thing; that’s been the case for a long time.”

To address the discrepancy between medical practice and the legal statute, Dr. Lewis and colleagues proposed that the UDDA’s reference to “irreversible cessation of functions of the entire brain” be followed by the following clause: “including the brainstem, leading to unresponsive coma with loss of capacity for consciousness, brainstem areflexia, and the inability to breathe spontaneously.” An alternative revision would be to add the briefer phrase “... with the exception of hormonal function.”
 

Authors say consent is not required for testing

Other complications have arisen from the UDDA’s failure to specify whether consent is required for a determination of death by neurologic cause. Court rulings on this question have not been consistent. Dr. Lewis and colleagues propose adding the following text to the UDDA: “Reasonable efforts should be made to notify a patient’s legally authorized decision-maker before performing a determination of death by neurologic criteria, but consent is not required to initiate such an evaluation.”

The proposed revisions to the UDDA “might give [clinicians] more confidence to proceed with brain death testing, because it would clarify that they don’t need the parents’ [or the patient’s legally authorized decision-maker] consent to do the tests,” said Dr. Pope. “If anything, they might even have a duty to do the tests.”

The final problem with the UDDA that Dr. Lewis and colleagues cited is that it does not provide clear guidance about how to respond to religious objections to discontinuation of organ support after a determination of death by neurologic cause. “Because the issue is rather complicated, we have not advocated for a singular position related to this [question] in our revised UDDA,” Dr. Lewis said. “Rather, we recommended the need for a multidisciplinary group to come together to determine what is the best approach. In an ideal world, this [approach] would be universal throughout the country.”

Although a revised UDDA would provide greater clarity to physicians and promote uniformity of practice, it would not resolve ongoing theological and philosophical debates about whether brain death is biological death, Dr. Pope said. “The key thing is that it would give clinicians a green light or certainty and clarity that they may proceed to do the test in the first place. If the tests are positive and the patient really is dead, then they could proceed to organ procurement or to move to the morgue.”

Dr. Lewis is a member of various AAN committees and working groups but receives no compensation for her role. A coauthor received personal fees from the AAN that were unrelated to the editorial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lewis A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Dec 24. doi: 10.7326/M19-2731.

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) should be revised to clarify and harmonize procedures related to the determination of death by neurologic criteria, according to an editorial published online Dec. 24, 2019, in Annals of Internal Medicine. Proposed revisions would identify the standards for determining death by neurologic criteria and address the question of whether consent is required to make this determination. If accepted, the revisions would enhance public trust in the determination of death by neurologic criteria, the authors said.

Edwin Verin/©Thinkstock

“There is a disconnect between the medical and legal standards for brain death,” said Ariane K. Lewis, MD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery at New York University and lead author of the editorial. The discrepancy must be remedied because it has led to lawsuits and has proved to be problematic from a societal standpoint, she added.

“We defend changing the law to match medical practice, rather than changing medical practice to match the law,” said Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, director of the Health Law Institute at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and an author of the editorial.
 

Accepted medical standards are unclear

The UDDA was drafted in 1981 to establish a uniform legal standard for death by neurologic criteria. A person with “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem,” is dead, according to the statute. A determination of death, it adds, “must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”

But the medical standards used to determine death by neurologic cause have not been uniform. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled that it was not clear that the standard published by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), which had been used in the case at issue, was the “accepted medical standard.” An AAN summit later affirmed that the accepted medical standards for determination of death by neurologic cause are the 2010 AAN standard for determination of brain death in adults and the 2011 Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Child Neurology Society (CNS) standard for determination of brain death in children. The Nevada legislature amended the state UDDA to identify these standards as the accepted standards. A revised UDDA also should identify these standards and grant an administrative agency (i.e., the board of medicine) the power to review and update the accepted medical standards as needed, according to the editorial.

To the extent that hospitals are not following the AAN or SCCM/AAP/CNS standards for determining death by neurologic cause, “enshrining” these standards in a revised UDDA “should increase uniformity and consistency” in hospitals’ policies on brain death, Dr. Pope said.
 

The question of hormonal function

Lawsuits in California and Nevada raised the question of whether the pituitary gland and hypothalamus are parts of the brain. If so, then the accepted medical standards for death by neurologic cause are not consistent with the statutory requirements for the determination of death, since the former do not test for cessation of hormonal function.

The current edition of the adult standards for determining death by neurologic cause were published in 2010. “Whenever we measure brain death, we’re not measuring the cessation of all functions of the entire brain,” Dr. Pope said. “That’s not a new thing; that’s been the case for a long time.”

To address the discrepancy between medical practice and the legal statute, Dr. Lewis and colleagues proposed that the UDDA’s reference to “irreversible cessation of functions of the entire brain” be followed by the following clause: “including the brainstem, leading to unresponsive coma with loss of capacity for consciousness, brainstem areflexia, and the inability to breathe spontaneously.” An alternative revision would be to add the briefer phrase “... with the exception of hormonal function.”
 

Authors say consent is not required for testing

Other complications have arisen from the UDDA’s failure to specify whether consent is required for a determination of death by neurologic cause. Court rulings on this question have not been consistent. Dr. Lewis and colleagues propose adding the following text to the UDDA: “Reasonable efforts should be made to notify a patient’s legally authorized decision-maker before performing a determination of death by neurologic criteria, but consent is not required to initiate such an evaluation.”

The proposed revisions to the UDDA “might give [clinicians] more confidence to proceed with brain death testing, because it would clarify that they don’t need the parents’ [or the patient’s legally authorized decision-maker] consent to do the tests,” said Dr. Pope. “If anything, they might even have a duty to do the tests.”

The final problem with the UDDA that Dr. Lewis and colleagues cited is that it does not provide clear guidance about how to respond to religious objections to discontinuation of organ support after a determination of death by neurologic cause. “Because the issue is rather complicated, we have not advocated for a singular position related to this [question] in our revised UDDA,” Dr. Lewis said. “Rather, we recommended the need for a multidisciplinary group to come together to determine what is the best approach. In an ideal world, this [approach] would be universal throughout the country.”

Although a revised UDDA would provide greater clarity to physicians and promote uniformity of practice, it would not resolve ongoing theological and philosophical debates about whether brain death is biological death, Dr. Pope said. “The key thing is that it would give clinicians a green light or certainty and clarity that they may proceed to do the test in the first place. If the tests are positive and the patient really is dead, then they could proceed to organ procurement or to move to the morgue.”

Dr. Lewis is a member of various AAN committees and working groups but receives no compensation for her role. A coauthor received personal fees from the AAN that were unrelated to the editorial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lewis A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Dec 24. doi: 10.7326/M19-2731.

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) should be revised to clarify and harmonize procedures related to the determination of death by neurologic criteria, according to an editorial published online Dec. 24, 2019, in Annals of Internal Medicine. Proposed revisions would identify the standards for determining death by neurologic criteria and address the question of whether consent is required to make this determination. If accepted, the revisions would enhance public trust in the determination of death by neurologic criteria, the authors said.

Edwin Verin/©Thinkstock

“There is a disconnect between the medical and legal standards for brain death,” said Ariane K. Lewis, MD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery at New York University and lead author of the editorial. The discrepancy must be remedied because it has led to lawsuits and has proved to be problematic from a societal standpoint, she added.

“We defend changing the law to match medical practice, rather than changing medical practice to match the law,” said Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, director of the Health Law Institute at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and an author of the editorial.
 

Accepted medical standards are unclear

The UDDA was drafted in 1981 to establish a uniform legal standard for death by neurologic criteria. A person with “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem,” is dead, according to the statute. A determination of death, it adds, “must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”

But the medical standards used to determine death by neurologic cause have not been uniform. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled that it was not clear that the standard published by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), which had been used in the case at issue, was the “accepted medical standard.” An AAN summit later affirmed that the accepted medical standards for determination of death by neurologic cause are the 2010 AAN standard for determination of brain death in adults and the 2011 Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Child Neurology Society (CNS) standard for determination of brain death in children. The Nevada legislature amended the state UDDA to identify these standards as the accepted standards. A revised UDDA also should identify these standards and grant an administrative agency (i.e., the board of medicine) the power to review and update the accepted medical standards as needed, according to the editorial.

To the extent that hospitals are not following the AAN or SCCM/AAP/CNS standards for determining death by neurologic cause, “enshrining” these standards in a revised UDDA “should increase uniformity and consistency” in hospitals’ policies on brain death, Dr. Pope said.
 

The question of hormonal function

Lawsuits in California and Nevada raised the question of whether the pituitary gland and hypothalamus are parts of the brain. If so, then the accepted medical standards for death by neurologic cause are not consistent with the statutory requirements for the determination of death, since the former do not test for cessation of hormonal function.

The current edition of the adult standards for determining death by neurologic cause were published in 2010. “Whenever we measure brain death, we’re not measuring the cessation of all functions of the entire brain,” Dr. Pope said. “That’s not a new thing; that’s been the case for a long time.”

To address the discrepancy between medical practice and the legal statute, Dr. Lewis and colleagues proposed that the UDDA’s reference to “irreversible cessation of functions of the entire brain” be followed by the following clause: “including the brainstem, leading to unresponsive coma with loss of capacity for consciousness, brainstem areflexia, and the inability to breathe spontaneously.” An alternative revision would be to add the briefer phrase “... with the exception of hormonal function.”
 

Authors say consent is not required for testing

Other complications have arisen from the UDDA’s failure to specify whether consent is required for a determination of death by neurologic cause. Court rulings on this question have not been consistent. Dr. Lewis and colleagues propose adding the following text to the UDDA: “Reasonable efforts should be made to notify a patient’s legally authorized decision-maker before performing a determination of death by neurologic criteria, but consent is not required to initiate such an evaluation.”

The proposed revisions to the UDDA “might give [clinicians] more confidence to proceed with brain death testing, because it would clarify that they don’t need the parents’ [or the patient’s legally authorized decision-maker] consent to do the tests,” said Dr. Pope. “If anything, they might even have a duty to do the tests.”

The final problem with the UDDA that Dr. Lewis and colleagues cited is that it does not provide clear guidance about how to respond to religious objections to discontinuation of organ support after a determination of death by neurologic cause. “Because the issue is rather complicated, we have not advocated for a singular position related to this [question] in our revised UDDA,” Dr. Lewis said. “Rather, we recommended the need for a multidisciplinary group to come together to determine what is the best approach. In an ideal world, this [approach] would be universal throughout the country.”

Although a revised UDDA would provide greater clarity to physicians and promote uniformity of practice, it would not resolve ongoing theological and philosophical debates about whether brain death is biological death, Dr. Pope said. “The key thing is that it would give clinicians a green light or certainty and clarity that they may proceed to do the test in the first place. If the tests are positive and the patient really is dead, then they could proceed to organ procurement or to move to the morgue.”

Dr. Lewis is a member of various AAN committees and working groups but receives no compensation for her role. A coauthor received personal fees from the AAN that were unrelated to the editorial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lewis A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Dec 24. doi: 10.7326/M19-2731.

Hospitalist work schedules have been the subject of much reporting – and recent research. Studies have shown that control over work hours and schedule flexibility are predictors of clinicians’ career satisfaction and burnout, factors linked to quality of patient care and retention.

Starting in January 2017, an academic hospital medicine group at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, undertook a scheduling redesign using improvement methodology, combined with purchased scheduling software. Tyler Anstett, DO, a hospitalist and assistant professor at the university, and colleagues presented the results in an abstract published during the SHM 2019 annual conference last March.

“We wrote this abstract as a report of the work that we did over several years in our hospital medicine group to improve hospitalist satisfaction with their schedules,” said Dr. Anstett. “We identified that, despite not following the traditional seven-on, seven-off model and 100% fulfillment of individual schedule requests, the majority of clinicians were dissatisfied with the scheduling process and their overall clinical schedules. Further, building these complex, individualized schedules resulted in a heavy administrative burden. We strove to provide better alignment of schedule satisfaction and the administrative burden of incorporating individualized schedule requests.”

Prior to January 2017, service stretches had ranged from 5 to 9 days, and there were few limits on time-off requests.

“Through sequential interventions, we standardized service stretches to 7 days (Tuesday-Monday), introduced a limited number of guaranteed 7-day time-off requests (Tuesday-Monday), and added a limited number of nonguaranteed 3-day flexible time-off requests,” according to the authors. “This simplification improved the automation of the scheduling software, which increased the schedule release lead time to an average of 16 weeks. Further, despite standardizing service stretches to 7 days and limiting time-off requests, physicians surveyed reported improved satisfaction with both their scheduling process (34% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 67% in 2018) and their overall clinical schedules (50% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 75% in 2018).”So counterintuitively, creating individualized schedules may not result in improved satisfaction and likely results in heavy administrative burden, Dr. Anstett said. “Standardization of schedule creation with allowance of a ‘free-market’ system, allowing clinicians to self-individualize their schedules may also result in less administrative burden and improved satisfaction.”

Reference

1. Anstett T et al. K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple … Schedules): How Standardization and Simplification Can Improve Scheduling and Physician Satisfaction. SHM 2019, Abstract 112. Accessed June 4, 2019.

Hospitalist work schedules have been the subject of much reporting – and recent research. Studies have shown that control over work hours and schedule flexibility are predictors of clinicians’ career satisfaction and burnout, factors linked to quality of patient care and retention.

Starting in January 2017, an academic hospital medicine group at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, undertook a scheduling redesign using improvement methodology, combined with purchased scheduling software. Tyler Anstett, DO, a hospitalist and assistant professor at the university, and colleagues presented the results in an abstract published during the SHM 2019 annual conference last March.

“We wrote this abstract as a report of the work that we did over several years in our hospital medicine group to improve hospitalist satisfaction with their schedules,” said Dr. Anstett. “We identified that, despite not following the traditional seven-on, seven-off model and 100% fulfillment of individual schedule requests, the majority of clinicians were dissatisfied with the scheduling process and their overall clinical schedules. Further, building these complex, individualized schedules resulted in a heavy administrative burden. We strove to provide better alignment of schedule satisfaction and the administrative burden of incorporating individualized schedule requests.”

Prior to January 2017, service stretches had ranged from 5 to 9 days, and there were few limits on time-off requests.

“Through sequential interventions, we standardized service stretches to 7 days (Tuesday-Monday), introduced a limited number of guaranteed 7-day time-off requests (Tuesday-Monday), and added a limited number of nonguaranteed 3-day flexible time-off requests,” according to the authors. “This simplification improved the automation of the scheduling software, which increased the schedule release lead time to an average of 16 weeks. Further, despite standardizing service stretches to 7 days and limiting time-off requests, physicians surveyed reported improved satisfaction with both their scheduling process (34% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 67% in 2018) and their overall clinical schedules (50% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 75% in 2018).”So counterintuitively, creating individualized schedules may not result in improved satisfaction and likely results in heavy administrative burden, Dr. Anstett said. “Standardization of schedule creation with allowance of a ‘free-market’ system, allowing clinicians to self-individualize their schedules may also result in less administrative burden and improved satisfaction.”

Reference

1. Anstett T et al. K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple … Schedules): How Standardization and Simplification Can Improve Scheduling and Physician Satisfaction. SHM 2019, Abstract 112. Accessed June 4, 2019.

Hospitalist work schedules have been the subject of much reporting – and recent research. Studies have shown that control over work hours and schedule flexibility are predictors of clinicians’ career satisfaction and burnout, factors linked to quality of patient care and retention.

Starting in January 2017, an academic hospital medicine group at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, undertook a scheduling redesign using improvement methodology, combined with purchased scheduling software. Tyler Anstett, DO, a hospitalist and assistant professor at the university, and colleagues presented the results in an abstract published during the SHM 2019 annual conference last March.

“We wrote this abstract as a report of the work that we did over several years in our hospital medicine group to improve hospitalist satisfaction with their schedules,” said Dr. Anstett. “We identified that, despite not following the traditional seven-on, seven-off model and 100% fulfillment of individual schedule requests, the majority of clinicians were dissatisfied with the scheduling process and their overall clinical schedules. Further, building these complex, individualized schedules resulted in a heavy administrative burden. We strove to provide better alignment of schedule satisfaction and the administrative burden of incorporating individualized schedule requests.”

Prior to January 2017, service stretches had ranged from 5 to 9 days, and there were few limits on time-off requests.

“Through sequential interventions, we standardized service stretches to 7 days (Tuesday-Monday), introduced a limited number of guaranteed 7-day time-off requests (Tuesday-Monday), and added a limited number of nonguaranteed 3-day flexible time-off requests,” according to the authors. “This simplification improved the automation of the scheduling software, which increased the schedule release lead time to an average of 16 weeks. Further, despite standardizing service stretches to 7 days and limiting time-off requests, physicians surveyed reported improved satisfaction with both their scheduling process (34% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 67% in 2018) and their overall clinical schedules (50% of participants ‘satisfied’ in 2017 to 75% in 2018).”So counterintuitively, creating individualized schedules may not result in improved satisfaction and likely results in heavy administrative burden, Dr. Anstett said. “Standardization of schedule creation with allowance of a ‘free-market’ system, allowing clinicians to self-individualize their schedules may also result in less administrative burden and improved satisfaction.”

Reference

1. Anstett T et al. K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple … Schedules): How Standardization and Simplification Can Improve Scheduling and Physician Satisfaction. SHM 2019, Abstract 112. Accessed June 4, 2019.