The Journal of Family Practice

THE COMPARISON

A Elbow and forearm with erythematous, well-demarcated, pink plaques with mild micaceous scale in a 42-year-old White woman.

B Elbow and forearm with violaceous, well-demarcated plaques with micaceous scale and hyperpigmented patches around the active plaques in a 58-year-old Black man.

Epidemiology

Psoriasis prevalence in the United States has been estimated at 3.7%.^1-3 If broken down by race or ethnicity, the prevalence of psoriasis varies: 2.5% to 3.7% in White adults^1-4; 1.3% to 2% in Black adults^1-4; 1.6% in Hispanics/other adults^1-3; 1% in children overall; 0.29% in White children^1,5; and 0.06% in Black children.^1,5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• plaques that may appear more violaceous in color instead of pink or erythematous
• higher body surface area of involvement⁴ and thicker, more scaly plaques⁶
• increased likelihood of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).

Worth noting

Although individuals of all skin tones may experience the psychosocial impact of psoriasis, quality-of-life measures have been found to be worse in those with skin of color (SOC) compared to White patients. ^1,4 This may be due to the lingering PIH and hypopigmentation that occurs even after inflammatory plaques are treated. Of course, lack of access to care contributes to greater disease burden and more devastating psychological impact.

Health disparity highlight

Psoriasis may be underreported and underdiagnosed in individuals with SOC, as factors contributing to health care disparities may play a role, such as access to health care in general,^1,7 and access to clinicians proficient in diagnosing cutaneous diseases in SOC may be delayed.⁸

Biologic medications are used less often in Black patients than in White patients, despite biologic medications being very efficacious for treatment of psoriasis.^1,9,10

THE COMPARISON

A Elbow and forearm with erythematous, well-demarcated, pink plaques with mild micaceous scale in a 42-year-old White woman.

B Elbow and forearm with violaceous, well-demarcated plaques with micaceous scale and hyperpigmented patches around the active plaques in a 58-year-old Black man.

Epidemiology

Psoriasis prevalence in the United States has been estimated at 3.7%.^1-3 If broken down by race or ethnicity, the prevalence of psoriasis varies: 2.5% to 3.7% in White adults^1-4; 1.3% to 2% in Black adults^1-4; 1.6% in Hispanics/other adults^1-3; 1% in children overall; 0.29% in White children^1,5; and 0.06% in Black children.^1,5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• plaques that may appear more violaceous in color instead of pink or erythematous
• higher body surface area of involvement⁴ and thicker, more scaly plaques⁶
• increased likelihood of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).

Worth noting

Although individuals of all skin tones may experience the psychosocial impact of psoriasis, quality-of-life measures have been found to be worse in those with skin of color (SOC) compared to White patients. ^1,4 This may be due to the lingering PIH and hypopigmentation that occurs even after inflammatory plaques are treated. Of course, lack of access to care contributes to greater disease burden and more devastating psychological impact.

Health disparity highlight

Psoriasis may be underreported and underdiagnosed in individuals with SOC, as factors contributing to health care disparities may play a role, such as access to health care in general,^1,7 and access to clinicians proficient in diagnosing cutaneous diseases in SOC may be delayed.⁸

Biologic medications are used less often in Black patients than in White patients, despite biologic medications being very efficacious for treatment of psoriasis.^1,9,10

THE COMPARISON

A Elbow and forearm with erythematous, well-demarcated, pink plaques with mild micaceous scale in a 42-year-old White woman.

B Elbow and forearm with violaceous, well-demarcated plaques with micaceous scale and hyperpigmented patches around the active plaques in a 58-year-old Black man.

Epidemiology

Psoriasis prevalence in the United States has been estimated at 3.7%.^1-3 If broken down by race or ethnicity, the prevalence of psoriasis varies: 2.5% to 3.7% in White adults^1-4; 1.3% to 2% in Black adults^1-4; 1.6% in Hispanics/other adults^1-3; 1% in children overall; 0.29% in White children^1,5; and 0.06% in Black children.^1,5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• plaques that may appear more violaceous in color instead of pink or erythematous
• higher body surface area of involvement⁴ and thicker, more scaly plaques⁶
• increased likelihood of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).

Worth noting

Although individuals of all skin tones may experience the psychosocial impact of psoriasis, quality-of-life measures have been found to be worse in those with skin of color (SOC) compared to White patients. ^1,4 This may be due to the lingering PIH and hypopigmentation that occurs even after inflammatory plaques are treated. Of course, lack of access to care contributes to greater disease burden and more devastating psychological impact.

Health disparity highlight

Psoriasis may be underreported and underdiagnosed in individuals with SOC, as factors contributing to health care disparities may play a role, such as access to health care in general,^1,7 and access to clinicians proficient in diagnosing cutaneous diseases in SOC may be delayed.⁸

Biologic medications are used less often in Black patients than in White patients, despite biologic medications being very efficacious for treatment of psoriasis.^1,9,10

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 67-year-old man with hypertension that is well controlled on hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg po daily was admitted to the family medicine inpatient service for community-­acquired pneumonia requiring antibiotic therapy and oxygen support. Despite improvement in his overall condition, his blood pressure was consistently > 160/90 mm Hg during his hospitalization. He was treated with lisinopril 10 mg po daily in addition to his home medications, which helped achieve recommended blood pressure goals.

Prior to discharge, his blood pressure was noted to be 108/62 mm Hg. He asks if it is necessary to continue this new blood pressure medicine, as his home blood pressure readings had been within the goal set by his primary care physician. Should you continue this new antihypertensive agent at discharge?

Outpatient antihypertensive medication regimens are commonly intensified at hospital discharge in response to transient short-term elevations in blood pressure during inpatient encounters for noncardiac conditions.^1,2 This is typically a reflexive response during a hospitalization, despite the unknown long-term, patient-oriented clinical outcomes. These short-term, in-­hospital blood pressure elevations may be due to numerous temporary causes, such as stress/anxiety, a pain response, agitation, a medication adverse effect, or volume overload.³

The transition from inpatient to outpatient care is a high-risk period, especially for older adults, as functional status is generally worse at hospital discharge than prehospitalization baseline.⁴ To compound this problem, adverse drug reactions are a common cause of hospitalization for older adults. Changing blood pressure medications in response to acute physiologic changes during illness may contribute to patient harm. Although observational studies of adverse drug reactions related to blood pressure medications are numerous, researchers have only evaluated adverse drug reactions pertaining to hospital admissions.^5-8 This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with intensification of antihypertensive regimens at discharge among older adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Increased risk of readmission, adverse events after intensification at discharge

This retrospective cohort study, which was conducted across multiple Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals, evaluated the association between intensifying blood pressure medication regimens at hospital discharge and sustained clinical outcomes in the outpatient setting. Study participants were community-dwelling adults (98% male) ages 65 years or older who had a prehospitalization diagnosis of hypertension and were admitted for pneumonia, urinary tract infection, or venous thromboembolism over a 3-year period (n = 4056).

This first study to address outcomes related to intensification of BP regimens at discharge found increased risk of readmission and serious adverse events within 30 days.

Antihypertensive medication changes at discharge were evaluated using information pulled from VHA pharmacies, combined with clinical data merged from VHA and Medicare claims. Intensification was defined as either adding a new blood pressure medication or a dose increase of more than 20% on a previously prescribed antihypertensive medication. Patients were excluded if they were discharged with a secondary diagnosis that required modifications to a blood pressure medication (such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, or stroke), were hospitalized in the previous 30 days, were admitted from a skilled nursing facility, or received more than 20% of their care (including filling prescriptions) outside the VHA system.

Primary outcomes included hospital readmission or SAEs (falls, syncope, hypotension, serious electrolyte abnormalities, or acute kidney injury) within 30 days or having a cardiovascular event within 1 year of hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) within 1 year after discharge. Propensity score matching was used as a balancing factor to create a matched-pairs cohort to compare those receiving blood pressure medication intensification at hospital discharge with those who did not.

Continue to: Intensification of the blood pressure...

Intensification of the blood pressure regimen at hospital discharge was associated with an increased risk in 30-day hospital readmission (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07–1.42; number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and SAEs (HR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06–1.88; NNH = 63). There was no associated reduction in cardiovascular events (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99–1.40) or change in mean SBP within 1 year after hospital discharge in those who received intensification vs those who did not (mean BP, 134.7 vs 134.4 mm Hg; difference-in-differences estimate = 0.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, −2.0 to 2.4 mm Hg).

WHAT’S NEW

First study on outcomes related to HTN med changes at hospital discharge

This well-designed, retrospective cohort study provides important clinical data to help guide inpatient blood pressure management decisions for patients with noncardiac conditions. No clinical trials up to that time had assessed patient-oriented outcomes when antihypertensive medication regimens were intensified at hospital discharge.

CAVEATS

Study population: Primarily older men with noncardiac conditions

Selected populations benefit from intensive blood pressure control based on specific risk factors and medical conditions. In patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease, without a history of stroke or diabetes, intensive blood pressure control (SBP < 120 mm Hg) improves cardiovascular outcomes and overall survival compared with standard therapy (SBP < 140 mm Hg).⁹ This retrospective cohort study involved mainly elderly male patients with noncardiac conditions. The study also excluded patients with a secondary diagnosis requiring modifications to an antihypertensive regimen, such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, or cerebrovascular accident. Thus, the findings may not be applicable to these patient populations.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Clinicians will need to address individual needs

Physicians have to balance various antihypertensive management strategies, as competing medical specialty society guidelines recommend differing targets for optimal blood pressure control. Given the concern for medicolegal liability and potential harms of therapeutic inertia, inpatient physicians must consider whether hospitalization is the best time to alter medications for long-term outpatient blood pressure control. Finally, the decision to leave blood pressure management to outpatient physicians assumes the patient has a continuity relationship with a primary care medical home.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 67-year-old man with hypertension that is well controlled on hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg po daily was admitted to the family medicine inpatient service for community-­acquired pneumonia requiring antibiotic therapy and oxygen support. Despite improvement in his overall condition, his blood pressure was consistently > 160/90 mm Hg during his hospitalization. He was treated with lisinopril 10 mg po daily in addition to his home medications, which helped achieve recommended blood pressure goals.

Prior to discharge, his blood pressure was noted to be 108/62 mm Hg. He asks if it is necessary to continue this new blood pressure medicine, as his home blood pressure readings had been within the goal set by his primary care physician. Should you continue this new antihypertensive agent at discharge?

Outpatient antihypertensive medication regimens are commonly intensified at hospital discharge in response to transient short-term elevations in blood pressure during inpatient encounters for noncardiac conditions.^1,2 This is typically a reflexive response during a hospitalization, despite the unknown long-term, patient-oriented clinical outcomes. These short-term, in-­hospital blood pressure elevations may be due to numerous temporary causes, such as stress/anxiety, a pain response, agitation, a medication adverse effect, or volume overload.³

The transition from inpatient to outpatient care is a high-risk period, especially for older adults, as functional status is generally worse at hospital discharge than prehospitalization baseline.⁴ To compound this problem, adverse drug reactions are a common cause of hospitalization for older adults. Changing blood pressure medications in response to acute physiologic changes during illness may contribute to patient harm. Although observational studies of adverse drug reactions related to blood pressure medications are numerous, researchers have only evaluated adverse drug reactions pertaining to hospital admissions.^5-8 This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with intensification of antihypertensive regimens at discharge among older adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Increased risk of readmission, adverse events after intensification at discharge

This retrospective cohort study, which was conducted across multiple Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals, evaluated the association between intensifying blood pressure medication regimens at hospital discharge and sustained clinical outcomes in the outpatient setting. Study participants were community-dwelling adults (98% male) ages 65 years or older who had a prehospitalization diagnosis of hypertension and were admitted for pneumonia, urinary tract infection, or venous thromboembolism over a 3-year period (n = 4056).

This first study to address outcomes related to intensification of BP regimens at discharge found increased risk of readmission and serious adverse events within 30 days.

Antihypertensive medication changes at discharge were evaluated using information pulled from VHA pharmacies, combined with clinical data merged from VHA and Medicare claims. Intensification was defined as either adding a new blood pressure medication or a dose increase of more than 20% on a previously prescribed antihypertensive medication. Patients were excluded if they were discharged with a secondary diagnosis that required modifications to a blood pressure medication (such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, or stroke), were hospitalized in the previous 30 days, were admitted from a skilled nursing facility, or received more than 20% of their care (including filling prescriptions) outside the VHA system.

Primary outcomes included hospital readmission or SAEs (falls, syncope, hypotension, serious electrolyte abnormalities, or acute kidney injury) within 30 days or having a cardiovascular event within 1 year of hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) within 1 year after discharge. Propensity score matching was used as a balancing factor to create a matched-pairs cohort to compare those receiving blood pressure medication intensification at hospital discharge with those who did not.

Continue to: Intensification of the blood pressure...

Intensification of the blood pressure regimen at hospital discharge was associated with an increased risk in 30-day hospital readmission (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07–1.42; number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and SAEs (HR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06–1.88; NNH = 63). There was no associated reduction in cardiovascular events (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99–1.40) or change in mean SBP within 1 year after hospital discharge in those who received intensification vs those who did not (mean BP, 134.7 vs 134.4 mm Hg; difference-in-differences estimate = 0.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, −2.0 to 2.4 mm Hg).

WHAT’S NEW

First study on outcomes related to HTN med changes at hospital discharge

This well-designed, retrospective cohort study provides important clinical data to help guide inpatient blood pressure management decisions for patients with noncardiac conditions. No clinical trials up to that time had assessed patient-oriented outcomes when antihypertensive medication regimens were intensified at hospital discharge.

CAVEATS

Study population: Primarily older men with noncardiac conditions

Selected populations benefit from intensive blood pressure control based on specific risk factors and medical conditions. In patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease, without a history of stroke or diabetes, intensive blood pressure control (SBP < 120 mm Hg) improves cardiovascular outcomes and overall survival compared with standard therapy (SBP < 140 mm Hg).⁹ This retrospective cohort study involved mainly elderly male patients with noncardiac conditions. The study also excluded patients with a secondary diagnosis requiring modifications to an antihypertensive regimen, such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, or cerebrovascular accident. Thus, the findings may not be applicable to these patient populations.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Clinicians will need to address individual needs

Physicians have to balance various antihypertensive management strategies, as competing medical specialty society guidelines recommend differing targets for optimal blood pressure control. Given the concern for medicolegal liability and potential harms of therapeutic inertia, inpatient physicians must consider whether hospitalization is the best time to alter medications for long-term outpatient blood pressure control. Finally, the decision to leave blood pressure management to outpatient physicians assumes the patient has a continuity relationship with a primary care medical home.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 67-year-old man with hypertension that is well controlled on hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg po daily was admitted to the family medicine inpatient service for community-­acquired pneumonia requiring antibiotic therapy and oxygen support. Despite improvement in his overall condition, his blood pressure was consistently > 160/90 mm Hg during his hospitalization. He was treated with lisinopril 10 mg po daily in addition to his home medications, which helped achieve recommended blood pressure goals.

Prior to discharge, his blood pressure was noted to be 108/62 mm Hg. He asks if it is necessary to continue this new blood pressure medicine, as his home blood pressure readings had been within the goal set by his primary care physician. Should you continue this new antihypertensive agent at discharge?

Outpatient antihypertensive medication regimens are commonly intensified at hospital discharge in response to transient short-term elevations in blood pressure during inpatient encounters for noncardiac conditions.^1,2 This is typically a reflexive response during a hospitalization, despite the unknown long-term, patient-oriented clinical outcomes. These short-term, in-­hospital blood pressure elevations may be due to numerous temporary causes, such as stress/anxiety, a pain response, agitation, a medication adverse effect, or volume overload.³

The transition from inpatient to outpatient care is a high-risk period, especially for older adults, as functional status is generally worse at hospital discharge than prehospitalization baseline.⁴ To compound this problem, adverse drug reactions are a common cause of hospitalization for older adults. Changing blood pressure medications in response to acute physiologic changes during illness may contribute to patient harm. Although observational studies of adverse drug reactions related to blood pressure medications are numerous, researchers have only evaluated adverse drug reactions pertaining to hospital admissions.^5-8 This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with intensification of antihypertensive regimens at discharge among older adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Increased risk of readmission, adverse events after intensification at discharge

This retrospective cohort study, which was conducted across multiple Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals, evaluated the association between intensifying blood pressure medication regimens at hospital discharge and sustained clinical outcomes in the outpatient setting. Study participants were community-dwelling adults (98% male) ages 65 years or older who had a prehospitalization diagnosis of hypertension and were admitted for pneumonia, urinary tract infection, or venous thromboembolism over a 3-year period (n = 4056).

This first study to address outcomes related to intensification of BP regimens at discharge found increased risk of readmission and serious adverse events within 30 days.

Antihypertensive medication changes at discharge were evaluated using information pulled from VHA pharmacies, combined with clinical data merged from VHA and Medicare claims. Intensification was defined as either adding a new blood pressure medication or a dose increase of more than 20% on a previously prescribed antihypertensive medication. Patients were excluded if they were discharged with a secondary diagnosis that required modifications to a blood pressure medication (such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, or stroke), were hospitalized in the previous 30 days, were admitted from a skilled nursing facility, or received more than 20% of their care (including filling prescriptions) outside the VHA system.

Primary outcomes included hospital readmission or SAEs (falls, syncope, hypotension, serious electrolyte abnormalities, or acute kidney injury) within 30 days or having a cardiovascular event within 1 year of hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) within 1 year after discharge. Propensity score matching was used as a balancing factor to create a matched-pairs cohort to compare those receiving blood pressure medication intensification at hospital discharge with those who did not.

Continue to: Intensification of the blood pressure...

Intensification of the blood pressure regimen at hospital discharge was associated with an increased risk in 30-day hospital readmission (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07–1.42; number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and SAEs (HR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06–1.88; NNH = 63). There was no associated reduction in cardiovascular events (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99–1.40) or change in mean SBP within 1 year after hospital discharge in those who received intensification vs those who did not (mean BP, 134.7 vs 134.4 mm Hg; difference-in-differences estimate = 0.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, −2.0 to 2.4 mm Hg).

WHAT’S NEW

First study on outcomes related to HTN med changes at hospital discharge

This well-designed, retrospective cohort study provides important clinical data to help guide inpatient blood pressure management decisions for patients with noncardiac conditions. No clinical trials up to that time had assessed patient-oriented outcomes when antihypertensive medication regimens were intensified at hospital discharge.

CAVEATS

Study population: Primarily older men with noncardiac conditions

Selected populations benefit from intensive blood pressure control based on specific risk factors and medical conditions. In patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease, without a history of stroke or diabetes, intensive blood pressure control (SBP < 120 mm Hg) improves cardiovascular outcomes and overall survival compared with standard therapy (SBP < 140 mm Hg).⁹ This retrospective cohort study involved mainly elderly male patients with noncardiac conditions. The study also excluded patients with a secondary diagnosis requiring modifications to an antihypertensive regimen, such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, or cerebrovascular accident. Thus, the findings may not be applicable to these patient populations.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Clinicians will need to address individual needs

Physicians have to balance various antihypertensive management strategies, as competing medical specialty society guidelines recommend differing targets for optimal blood pressure control. Given the concern for medicolegal liability and potential harms of therapeutic inertia, inpatient physicians must consider whether hospitalization is the best time to alter medications for long-term outpatient blood pressure control. Finally, the decision to leave blood pressure management to outpatient physicians assumes the patient has a continuity relationship with a primary care medical home.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

All clinicians who have patients who are employed play an essential role in work disability programs—whether or not those clinicians have received formal training in occupational health. A study found that primary care clinicians are asked to provide guidance about work activities in nearly 10% of their patient encounters; however, 25% of those clinicians thought they had little influence over work disability outcomes.¹

In this article, we explain why it is important for family physicians to better manage work disability at the point of care, to help patients return to their pre-injury or pre-illness level of activity.

Why managing the duration of work disability matters

Each year, millions of American workers leave their jobs—temporarily or permanently—because of illness, injury, or the effects of a chronic condition.² It is estimated that 893 million workdays are lost annually due to a new medical problem; an additional 527 million workdays are lost due to the impact of chronic health conditions on the ability to perform at work.³ The great majority of these lost workdays are the result of personal health conditions, not work-related problems; patients must therefore cope with the accompanying disruption of life and work.

Significant injury and illness can create a life crisis, especially when there is uncertainty about future livelihood, such as an income shortfall during a lengthy recovery. Only 40% of the US workforce is covered by a short-term disability insurance program; only 10% of low-wage and low-skill workers have this type of coverage.⁴ Benefits rarely replace loss of income entirely, and worker compensation insurance programs provide only partial wage replacement.

In short, work disability is destabilizing and can threaten overall well-being.⁵

Furthermore, the longer a person remains on temporary disability, the more likely that person is to move to a publicly funded disability program or leave the workforce entirely—thus, potentially losing future earnings and self-identity related to being a working member of society.^6-8

Most of the annual cost of poor health for US employers derives from medical and wage benefits ($226 billion) and impaired or reduced employee performance ($223 billion).³ In addition, temporarily disabled workers likely account for a disproportionate share of health care costs: A study found that one-half of medical and pharmacy payments were paid out to the one-quarter of employees requiring disability benefits.⁹

Continue to: Benefits of staying on the job

Benefits of staying on the job. Research shows that there are physical and mental health benefits to remaining at, or returning to, work after an injury or illness.^10,11 For example, in a longitudinal cohort of people with low back pain, immediate or early return to work (in 1-7 days) was associated with reduced pain and improved functioning at 3 months.¹² Physicians who can guide patients safely back to normal activities, including work, minimize the physical and mental health impact of the injury or illness and avoid chronicity.¹³

Emphasizing the importance of health, not disease or injury

Health researchers have found that diagnosis, cause, and extent of morbidity do not adequately explain observed variability in the impact of health conditions, utilization of resources, or need for services. A wider view of the functional implications of an injury or illness is therefore required for physicians to effectively recommend disability duration.

Consider that your patient’s prolonged work disability and consequent loss of livelihood are very poor outcomes of a medical or health condition.

The World Health Organization recommends a shift toward a more holistic view of health, impairment, and disability, including an emphasis on functional ability, intrinsic capacity, and environmental context.¹⁴ The American Medical Association, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and Canadian Medical Association emphasize that prolonged absence from one’s normal role can be detrimental to mental, physical, and social well-being.⁸ These advisory groups recommend that physicians encourage patients who are unable to work to (1) focus on restoring the rhythm of their everyday life in a stepwise fashion and (2) resume their usual responsibilities as soon as possible.

Advising a patient to focus on “what you can do,” not “what you can’t do,” might make all the difference in their return to productivity. Keeping the patient’s—as well as your own—attention focused on the positive process of recovery and documenting evidence of functional progress is an important addition to (or substitute for) detailed inquiries about pain and dysfunction.

Why does duration of disability vary so much from case to case?

Disability duration is influenced by the individual patient, employer, physician, jurisdiction, insurer or benefits structure, and access to care.¹⁵ For you to effectively manage a patient who is out of work for a medical reason, it is important to understand how nonmedical variables often influence the pace of recovery and the timing of return to work (FIGURE).

Continue to: Deficient communication

Deficient communication. Often, employers, insurers, third-party administrators, and clinicians—each a key stakeholder in disability care—are disconnected from one another, resulting in poor communication with the injured worker. Such fragmented communication can delay treatment and recovery.¹⁶ Data systems are not designed to measure the duration of disability or provide proactive notification for key stakeholders who might intervene to facilitate a patient’s recovery.

Alternatively, a collaborative approach to disability management has been shown to improve outcomes.^17,18 Communication among the various professionals involved can be coordinated and expedited by a case manager or disability manager hired by the medical practice, the employer, or the insurance company.

Psychosocial and economic influences can radically affect the time it takes to return to pre-injury or pre-illness functional status. Demographic variables (age, sex, income, education, and support system) influence how a person responds to a debilitating injury or illness.¹⁹ Fear of re-injury, anxiety over the intensity of pain upon movement, worry over dependency on others, and resiliency play an important role when a patient is attempting to return to full activity.^20,21

Job satisfaction has been identified as the most significant variable associated with prompt return to work.¹⁵ Work has many health-enhancing aspects, including socioeconomic status, psychosocial support, and self-identity²²; however, not everyone wants, or feels ready, to go back to work even once they are physically able. Workplace variables, such as the patient–employee’s dislike of the position, coworkers, or manager, have been cited by physicians as leading barriers to returning to work at an appropriate time.^23,24

Other external variables. Physicians should formulate activity prescriptions and medical restrictions based on the impact the medical condition has on the usual ability to function, as well as the anticipated impact of specific activities on the body’s natural healing process. However, Rainville and colleagues found that external variables—patient requests, employer characteristics, and jurisdiction issues—considerably influence physicians’ recommendations.²⁰ For example, benefit structure might influence how long a patient wants to remain out of work—thus altering the requests they make to their physician. Jurisdictional characteristics, such as health care systems, state workers’ compensation departments, and payer systems, all influence a patient’s recovery timeline and time away from work.²⁵

Continue to: What does your patient need so that they can recover?

What does your patient need so that they can recover? Individual and systemic factors must be appropriately addressed to minimize the impact that recovery from a disability has on a person’s life. Successful functional recovery enables the person to self-manage symptoms, reduce disruption-associated stress, preserve mental health, and maintain healthy relationships at home and work. An example is the patient who has successfully coped with the entire predicament that their medical condition posed and resumed their usual daily routine and responsibilities at home and at work—albeit sometimes with temporary or permanent modification necessitated by their specific condition.

Strategies that help patients stay at, or return to, their job

Physicians who anticipate, monitor, and actively manage the duration of a work disability can improve patient outcomes by minimizing life disruption, avoiding unnecessary medical care, and shortening the period of absence from work.

Key strategy: Set expectations for functional recovery early in the episode, including a forecast of how long it will take to get life and work back to normal.^26,27 This is similar to discussing expectations about pain before surgery, which has been shown to decrease subsequent requests for opioids.²⁸ It is crucial to educate the patient about timelines, define functional outcomes, and encourage them to set goals for recovery.²⁹

Devise an evidence-based treatment plan. A fundamental way to reduce disability duration is to (1) devise a treatment plan that is evidence based and (2) take the most effective route to recovery. Given the pace with which medical research changes the understanding of diseases and treatments, it is essential to rely on up-to-date, comprehensive, independent, and authoritative resources to support your care decisions.

Aligning clinical practice with evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a good way to accomplish that goal. By definition, EBM practice guidelines recommend the safest and most effective treatments after unbiased assessment of the best available research. Increasingly, EBM is adopted to improve clinical and functional outcomes, establish national standards of care, and set criteria to evaluate clinical performance.³⁰

Continue to: Utilize established guidelines

Utilize established guidelines. A tactic that can make it easier to discuss return to work with patients is to rely on an independent and authoritative reference set of codified disability duration guidelines, which, typically, can be searched by diagnosis, procedure, or presenting symptoms. Such guidelines provide a condition-specific expected duration of work disability in the form of number of days, with shortest, typical, and maximum durations for different levels of job demands. If necessary, you can then adjust the guideline’s estimated duration to account for the patient’s age, underlying state of health, comorbidities, and so forth. 

The use of disability duration guidelines at the point of care can facilitate the process of setting early and appropriate expectations for a patient’s recovery. If a patient is confrontational in response to your recommendation on the duration of work disability, guidelines can be used to address specific objections and facilitate understanding of functional recovery.

Consider the employer’s needs. To support return-to-work efforts, your guidance about work should consider the employer’s business needs. Employers require that the patient’s abilities, restrictions, and limitations be described in concrete terms because they must decide which specific tasks are unsafe and which ones they can reasonably expect the recovering worker to perform. However, employers often fail to send information to the physician about the patient’s job tasks—such that the clinician must rely on patient self-reporting, which might be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased.¹⁵ When a patient needs protection against foreseeable harm, highlight specific activities that are currently unsafe on the recovery timeline.

Employers rely on the physician to (1) estimate what the patient can do and (2) describe work ability in clear, objective terms that both patient and employer can interpret (TABLE). For example, “no heavy lifting” might be hard for an employer to interpret; “may lift 10 pounds from the floor to the waist as many as 12 times an hour” might be applied in a more practical manner to help a patient return to work safely.³¹ Including specific numbers, rates, and metrics in activity restrictions can also help demonstrate improvement over the course of treatment.

Be clear and specific on work restrictions. During recovery, it is important to tell the patient which temporary work restrictions are intended to prevent further injury or recurrence (prophylactic work restrictions) and which are an estimate of what they are able to do safely at work (capacity-based restrictions). Your written work restrictions form should be kept separate from private medical information because those restrictions will be the basis of subsequent conversations between patient and employer, who should be invited to give feedback if the guidance needs revision or clarification.

Continue to: Employer programs

Employer programs, such as modified duty, transitional duty, or early return to work programs, have been found to resolve claims faster and improve recovery outcomes.^10,12 Such programs might also reduce occupational stress and improve productivity when an employee realizes that their functional abilities are matched to realistic job expectations during recovery.¹⁶ You can play an important role in empowering your patients to seek out these support programs.

What’s ahead for managing disability durations?

Work disability duration is influenced by the complex mix of biological, psychosocial, and economic variables that we have touched on here. All stakeholders involved in the recovery process should support the patient’s ability to live life with as few restrictions as possible; you play a key role in their recovery by focusing on ability, highlighting remaining capabilities, emphasizing activities that are safe to perform, and encouraging acceptance of, and adaptation to, any irrevocable losses.

This is a holistic approach that might help patients overcome the stress and anxiety associated with major life events arising from illness or injury that trigger disability benefits. Open communication and establishing a shared goal, among all involved, of the best possible outcome increases the likelihood that working patients will return to their familiar life or find another positive path forward.

Keep the patient’s attention on the positive process of recovery, and document evidence of functional progress.

Using EBM and disability duration guidelines can help decrease the length of life–work disruption by ensuring that patients are given a diagnosis, treated, and managed appropriately.^32,33 Although these practices have been adopted by some physicians, health care systems, and insurers, they are not being implemented systematically and are unlikely to become ubiquitous unless they are mandated by payers or by law.

Family physicians are front-line providers for America’s workforce. They are distinctly situated to help patients achieve their best life at home and work. Improving the timeliness and quality of work guidance provided by the physician is an important way to minimize the impact of health problems on working people’s lives and livelihoods—and to help them stay employed.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kerri Wizner, MPH, 10355 Westmoor Drive, Westminster, CO 80021; [email protected].

All clinicians who have patients who are employed play an essential role in work disability programs—whether or not those clinicians have received formal training in occupational health. A study found that primary care clinicians are asked to provide guidance about work activities in nearly 10% of their patient encounters; however, 25% of those clinicians thought they had little influence over work disability outcomes.¹

In this article, we explain why it is important for family physicians to better manage work disability at the point of care, to help patients return to their pre-injury or pre-illness level of activity.

Why managing the duration of work disability matters

Each year, millions of American workers leave their jobs—temporarily or permanently—because of illness, injury, or the effects of a chronic condition.² It is estimated that 893 million workdays are lost annually due to a new medical problem; an additional 527 million workdays are lost due to the impact of chronic health conditions on the ability to perform at work.³ The great majority of these lost workdays are the result of personal health conditions, not work-related problems; patients must therefore cope with the accompanying disruption of life and work.

Significant injury and illness can create a life crisis, especially when there is uncertainty about future livelihood, such as an income shortfall during a lengthy recovery. Only 40% of the US workforce is covered by a short-term disability insurance program; only 10% of low-wage and low-skill workers have this type of coverage.⁴ Benefits rarely replace loss of income entirely, and worker compensation insurance programs provide only partial wage replacement.

In short, work disability is destabilizing and can threaten overall well-being.⁵

Furthermore, the longer a person remains on temporary disability, the more likely that person is to move to a publicly funded disability program or leave the workforce entirely—thus, potentially losing future earnings and self-identity related to being a working member of society.^6-8

Most of the annual cost of poor health for US employers derives from medical and wage benefits ($226 billion) and impaired or reduced employee performance ($223 billion).³ In addition, temporarily disabled workers likely account for a disproportionate share of health care costs: A study found that one-half of medical and pharmacy payments were paid out to the one-quarter of employees requiring disability benefits.⁹

Continue to: Benefits of staying on the job

Benefits of staying on the job. Research shows that there are physical and mental health benefits to remaining at, or returning to, work after an injury or illness.^10,11 For example, in a longitudinal cohort of people with low back pain, immediate or early return to work (in 1-7 days) was associated with reduced pain and improved functioning at 3 months.¹² Physicians who can guide patients safely back to normal activities, including work, minimize the physical and mental health impact of the injury or illness and avoid chronicity.¹³

Emphasizing the importance of health, not disease or injury

Health researchers have found that diagnosis, cause, and extent of morbidity do not adequately explain observed variability in the impact of health conditions, utilization of resources, or need for services. A wider view of the functional implications of an injury or illness is therefore required for physicians to effectively recommend disability duration.

Consider that your patient’s prolonged work disability and consequent loss of livelihood are very poor outcomes of a medical or health condition.

The World Health Organization recommends a shift toward a more holistic view of health, impairment, and disability, including an emphasis on functional ability, intrinsic capacity, and environmental context.¹⁴ The American Medical Association, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and Canadian Medical Association emphasize that prolonged absence from one’s normal role can be detrimental to mental, physical, and social well-being.⁸ These advisory groups recommend that physicians encourage patients who are unable to work to (1) focus on restoring the rhythm of their everyday life in a stepwise fashion and (2) resume their usual responsibilities as soon as possible.

Advising a patient to focus on “what you can do,” not “what you can’t do,” might make all the difference in their return to productivity. Keeping the patient’s—as well as your own—attention focused on the positive process of recovery and documenting evidence of functional progress is an important addition to (or substitute for) detailed inquiries about pain and dysfunction.

Why does duration of disability vary so much from case to case?

Disability duration is influenced by the individual patient, employer, physician, jurisdiction, insurer or benefits structure, and access to care.¹⁵ For you to effectively manage a patient who is out of work for a medical reason, it is important to understand how nonmedical variables often influence the pace of recovery and the timing of return to work (FIGURE).

Continue to: Deficient communication

Deficient communication. Often, employers, insurers, third-party administrators, and clinicians—each a key stakeholder in disability care—are disconnected from one another, resulting in poor communication with the injured worker. Such fragmented communication can delay treatment and recovery.¹⁶ Data systems are not designed to measure the duration of disability or provide proactive notification for key stakeholders who might intervene to facilitate a patient’s recovery.

Alternatively, a collaborative approach to disability management has been shown to improve outcomes.^17,18 Communication among the various professionals involved can be coordinated and expedited by a case manager or disability manager hired by the medical practice, the employer, or the insurance company.

Psychosocial and economic influences can radically affect the time it takes to return to pre-injury or pre-illness functional status. Demographic variables (age, sex, income, education, and support system) influence how a person responds to a debilitating injury or illness.¹⁹ Fear of re-injury, anxiety over the intensity of pain upon movement, worry over dependency on others, and resiliency play an important role when a patient is attempting to return to full activity.^20,21

Job satisfaction has been identified as the most significant variable associated with prompt return to work.¹⁵ Work has many health-enhancing aspects, including socioeconomic status, psychosocial support, and self-identity²²; however, not everyone wants, or feels ready, to go back to work even once they are physically able. Workplace variables, such as the patient–employee’s dislike of the position, coworkers, or manager, have been cited by physicians as leading barriers to returning to work at an appropriate time.^23,24

Other external variables. Physicians should formulate activity prescriptions and medical restrictions based on the impact the medical condition has on the usual ability to function, as well as the anticipated impact of specific activities on the body’s natural healing process. However, Rainville and colleagues found that external variables—patient requests, employer characteristics, and jurisdiction issues—considerably influence physicians’ recommendations.²⁰ For example, benefit structure might influence how long a patient wants to remain out of work—thus altering the requests they make to their physician. Jurisdictional characteristics, such as health care systems, state workers’ compensation departments, and payer systems, all influence a patient’s recovery timeline and time away from work.²⁵

Continue to: What does your patient need so that they can recover?

What does your patient need so that they can recover? Individual and systemic factors must be appropriately addressed to minimize the impact that recovery from a disability has on a person’s life. Successful functional recovery enables the person to self-manage symptoms, reduce disruption-associated stress, preserve mental health, and maintain healthy relationships at home and work. An example is the patient who has successfully coped with the entire predicament that their medical condition posed and resumed their usual daily routine and responsibilities at home and at work—albeit sometimes with temporary or permanent modification necessitated by their specific condition.

Strategies that help patients stay at, or return to, their job

Physicians who anticipate, monitor, and actively manage the duration of a work disability can improve patient outcomes by minimizing life disruption, avoiding unnecessary medical care, and shortening the period of absence from work.

Key strategy: Set expectations for functional recovery early in the episode, including a forecast of how long it will take to get life and work back to normal.^26,27 This is similar to discussing expectations about pain before surgery, which has been shown to decrease subsequent requests for opioids.²⁸ It is crucial to educate the patient about timelines, define functional outcomes, and encourage them to set goals for recovery.²⁹

Devise an evidence-based treatment plan. A fundamental way to reduce disability duration is to (1) devise a treatment plan that is evidence based and (2) take the most effective route to recovery. Given the pace with which medical research changes the understanding of diseases and treatments, it is essential to rely on up-to-date, comprehensive, independent, and authoritative resources to support your care decisions.

Aligning clinical practice with evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a good way to accomplish that goal. By definition, EBM practice guidelines recommend the safest and most effective treatments after unbiased assessment of the best available research. Increasingly, EBM is adopted to improve clinical and functional outcomes, establish national standards of care, and set criteria to evaluate clinical performance.³⁰

Continue to: Utilize established guidelines

Utilize established guidelines. A tactic that can make it easier to discuss return to work with patients is to rely on an independent and authoritative reference set of codified disability duration guidelines, which, typically, can be searched by diagnosis, procedure, or presenting symptoms. Such guidelines provide a condition-specific expected duration of work disability in the form of number of days, with shortest, typical, and maximum durations for different levels of job demands. If necessary, you can then adjust the guideline’s estimated duration to account for the patient’s age, underlying state of health, comorbidities, and so forth. 

The use of disability duration guidelines at the point of care can facilitate the process of setting early and appropriate expectations for a patient’s recovery. If a patient is confrontational in response to your recommendation on the duration of work disability, guidelines can be used to address specific objections and facilitate understanding of functional recovery.

Consider the employer’s needs. To support return-to-work efforts, your guidance about work should consider the employer’s business needs. Employers require that the patient’s abilities, restrictions, and limitations be described in concrete terms because they must decide which specific tasks are unsafe and which ones they can reasonably expect the recovering worker to perform. However, employers often fail to send information to the physician about the patient’s job tasks—such that the clinician must rely on patient self-reporting, which might be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased.¹⁵ When a patient needs protection against foreseeable harm, highlight specific activities that are currently unsafe on the recovery timeline.

Employers rely on the physician to (1) estimate what the patient can do and (2) describe work ability in clear, objective terms that both patient and employer can interpret (TABLE). For example, “no heavy lifting” might be hard for an employer to interpret; “may lift 10 pounds from the floor to the waist as many as 12 times an hour” might be applied in a more practical manner to help a patient return to work safely.³¹ Including specific numbers, rates, and metrics in activity restrictions can also help demonstrate improvement over the course of treatment.

Be clear and specific on work restrictions. During recovery, it is important to tell the patient which temporary work restrictions are intended to prevent further injury or recurrence (prophylactic work restrictions) and which are an estimate of what they are able to do safely at work (capacity-based restrictions). Your written work restrictions form should be kept separate from private medical information because those restrictions will be the basis of subsequent conversations between patient and employer, who should be invited to give feedback if the guidance needs revision or clarification.

Continue to: Employer programs

Employer programs, such as modified duty, transitional duty, or early return to work programs, have been found to resolve claims faster and improve recovery outcomes.^10,12 Such programs might also reduce occupational stress and improve productivity when an employee realizes that their functional abilities are matched to realistic job expectations during recovery.¹⁶ You can play an important role in empowering your patients to seek out these support programs.

What’s ahead for managing disability durations?

Work disability duration is influenced by the complex mix of biological, psychosocial, and economic variables that we have touched on here. All stakeholders involved in the recovery process should support the patient’s ability to live life with as few restrictions as possible; you play a key role in their recovery by focusing on ability, highlighting remaining capabilities, emphasizing activities that are safe to perform, and encouraging acceptance of, and adaptation to, any irrevocable losses.

This is a holistic approach that might help patients overcome the stress and anxiety associated with major life events arising from illness or injury that trigger disability benefits. Open communication and establishing a shared goal, among all involved, of the best possible outcome increases the likelihood that working patients will return to their familiar life or find another positive path forward.

Keep the patient’s attention on the positive process of recovery, and document evidence of functional progress.

Using EBM and disability duration guidelines can help decrease the length of life–work disruption by ensuring that patients are given a diagnosis, treated, and managed appropriately.^32,33 Although these practices have been adopted by some physicians, health care systems, and insurers, they are not being implemented systematically and are unlikely to become ubiquitous unless they are mandated by payers or by law.

Family physicians are front-line providers for America’s workforce. They are distinctly situated to help patients achieve their best life at home and work. Improving the timeliness and quality of work guidance provided by the physician is an important way to minimize the impact of health problems on working people’s lives and livelihoods—and to help them stay employed.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kerri Wizner, MPH, 10355 Westmoor Drive, Westminster, CO 80021; [email protected].

All clinicians who have patients who are employed play an essential role in work disability programs—whether or not those clinicians have received formal training in occupational health. A study found that primary care clinicians are asked to provide guidance about work activities in nearly 10% of their patient encounters; however, 25% of those clinicians thought they had little influence over work disability outcomes.¹

In this article, we explain why it is important for family physicians to better manage work disability at the point of care, to help patients return to their pre-injury or pre-illness level of activity.

Why managing the duration of work disability matters

Each year, millions of American workers leave their jobs—temporarily or permanently—because of illness, injury, or the effects of a chronic condition.² It is estimated that 893 million workdays are lost annually due to a new medical problem; an additional 527 million workdays are lost due to the impact of chronic health conditions on the ability to perform at work.³ The great majority of these lost workdays are the result of personal health conditions, not work-related problems; patients must therefore cope with the accompanying disruption of life and work.

Significant injury and illness can create a life crisis, especially when there is uncertainty about future livelihood, such as an income shortfall during a lengthy recovery. Only 40% of the US workforce is covered by a short-term disability insurance program; only 10% of low-wage and low-skill workers have this type of coverage.⁴ Benefits rarely replace loss of income entirely, and worker compensation insurance programs provide only partial wage replacement.

In short, work disability is destabilizing and can threaten overall well-being.⁵

Furthermore, the longer a person remains on temporary disability, the more likely that person is to move to a publicly funded disability program or leave the workforce entirely—thus, potentially losing future earnings and self-identity related to being a working member of society.^6-8

Most of the annual cost of poor health for US employers derives from medical and wage benefits ($226 billion) and impaired or reduced employee performance ($223 billion).³ In addition, temporarily disabled workers likely account for a disproportionate share of health care costs: A study found that one-half of medical and pharmacy payments were paid out to the one-quarter of employees requiring disability benefits.⁹

Continue to: Benefits of staying on the job

Benefits of staying on the job. Research shows that there are physical and mental health benefits to remaining at, or returning to, work after an injury or illness.^10,11 For example, in a longitudinal cohort of people with low back pain, immediate or early return to work (in 1-7 days) was associated with reduced pain and improved functioning at 3 months.¹² Physicians who can guide patients safely back to normal activities, including work, minimize the physical and mental health impact of the injury or illness and avoid chronicity.¹³

Emphasizing the importance of health, not disease or injury

Health researchers have found that diagnosis, cause, and extent of morbidity do not adequately explain observed variability in the impact of health conditions, utilization of resources, or need for services. A wider view of the functional implications of an injury or illness is therefore required for physicians to effectively recommend disability duration.

Consider that your patient’s prolonged work disability and consequent loss of livelihood are very poor outcomes of a medical or health condition.

The World Health Organization recommends a shift toward a more holistic view of health, impairment, and disability, including an emphasis on functional ability, intrinsic capacity, and environmental context.¹⁴ The American Medical Association, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and Canadian Medical Association emphasize that prolonged absence from one’s normal role can be detrimental to mental, physical, and social well-being.⁸ These advisory groups recommend that physicians encourage patients who are unable to work to (1) focus on restoring the rhythm of their everyday life in a stepwise fashion and (2) resume their usual responsibilities as soon as possible.

Advising a patient to focus on “what you can do,” not “what you can’t do,” might make all the difference in their return to productivity. Keeping the patient’s—as well as your own—attention focused on the positive process of recovery and documenting evidence of functional progress is an important addition to (or substitute for) detailed inquiries about pain and dysfunction.

Why does duration of disability vary so much from case to case?

Disability duration is influenced by the individual patient, employer, physician, jurisdiction, insurer or benefits structure, and access to care.¹⁵ For you to effectively manage a patient who is out of work for a medical reason, it is important to understand how nonmedical variables often influence the pace of recovery and the timing of return to work (FIGURE).

Continue to: Deficient communication

Deficient communication. Often, employers, insurers, third-party administrators, and clinicians—each a key stakeholder in disability care—are disconnected from one another, resulting in poor communication with the injured worker. Such fragmented communication can delay treatment and recovery.¹⁶ Data systems are not designed to measure the duration of disability or provide proactive notification for key stakeholders who might intervene to facilitate a patient’s recovery.

Alternatively, a collaborative approach to disability management has been shown to improve outcomes.^17,18 Communication among the various professionals involved can be coordinated and expedited by a case manager or disability manager hired by the medical practice, the employer, or the insurance company.

Psychosocial and economic influences can radically affect the time it takes to return to pre-injury or pre-illness functional status. Demographic variables (age, sex, income, education, and support system) influence how a person responds to a debilitating injury or illness.¹⁹ Fear of re-injury, anxiety over the intensity of pain upon movement, worry over dependency on others, and resiliency play an important role when a patient is attempting to return to full activity.^20,21

Job satisfaction has been identified as the most significant variable associated with prompt return to work.¹⁵ Work has many health-enhancing aspects, including socioeconomic status, psychosocial support, and self-identity²²; however, not everyone wants, or feels ready, to go back to work even once they are physically able. Workplace variables, such as the patient–employee’s dislike of the position, coworkers, or manager, have been cited by physicians as leading barriers to returning to work at an appropriate time.^23,24

Other external variables. Physicians should formulate activity prescriptions and medical restrictions based on the impact the medical condition has on the usual ability to function, as well as the anticipated impact of specific activities on the body’s natural healing process. However, Rainville and colleagues found that external variables—patient requests, employer characteristics, and jurisdiction issues—considerably influence physicians’ recommendations.²⁰ For example, benefit structure might influence how long a patient wants to remain out of work—thus altering the requests they make to their physician. Jurisdictional characteristics, such as health care systems, state workers’ compensation departments, and payer systems, all influence a patient’s recovery timeline and time away from work.²⁵

Continue to: What does your patient need so that they can recover?

What does your patient need so that they can recover? Individual and systemic factors must be appropriately addressed to minimize the impact that recovery from a disability has on a person’s life. Successful functional recovery enables the person to self-manage symptoms, reduce disruption-associated stress, preserve mental health, and maintain healthy relationships at home and work. An example is the patient who has successfully coped with the entire predicament that their medical condition posed and resumed their usual daily routine and responsibilities at home and at work—albeit sometimes with temporary or permanent modification necessitated by their specific condition.

Strategies that help patients stay at, or return to, their job

Physicians who anticipate, monitor, and actively manage the duration of a work disability can improve patient outcomes by minimizing life disruption, avoiding unnecessary medical care, and shortening the period of absence from work.

Key strategy: Set expectations for functional recovery early in the episode, including a forecast of how long it will take to get life and work back to normal.^26,27 This is similar to discussing expectations about pain before surgery, which has been shown to decrease subsequent requests for opioids.²⁸ It is crucial to educate the patient about timelines, define functional outcomes, and encourage them to set goals for recovery.²⁹

Devise an evidence-based treatment plan. A fundamental way to reduce disability duration is to (1) devise a treatment plan that is evidence based and (2) take the most effective route to recovery. Given the pace with which medical research changes the understanding of diseases and treatments, it is essential to rely on up-to-date, comprehensive, independent, and authoritative resources to support your care decisions.

Aligning clinical practice with evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a good way to accomplish that goal. By definition, EBM practice guidelines recommend the safest and most effective treatments after unbiased assessment of the best available research. Increasingly, EBM is adopted to improve clinical and functional outcomes, establish national standards of care, and set criteria to evaluate clinical performance.³⁰

Continue to: Utilize established guidelines

Utilize established guidelines. A tactic that can make it easier to discuss return to work with patients is to rely on an independent and authoritative reference set of codified disability duration guidelines, which, typically, can be searched by diagnosis, procedure, or presenting symptoms. Such guidelines provide a condition-specific expected duration of work disability in the form of number of days, with shortest, typical, and maximum durations for different levels of job demands. If necessary, you can then adjust the guideline’s estimated duration to account for the patient’s age, underlying state of health, comorbidities, and so forth. 

The use of disability duration guidelines at the point of care can facilitate the process of setting early and appropriate expectations for a patient’s recovery. If a patient is confrontational in response to your recommendation on the duration of work disability, guidelines can be used to address specific objections and facilitate understanding of functional recovery.

Consider the employer’s needs. To support return-to-work efforts, your guidance about work should consider the employer’s business needs. Employers require that the patient’s abilities, restrictions, and limitations be described in concrete terms because they must decide which specific tasks are unsafe and which ones they can reasonably expect the recovering worker to perform. However, employers often fail to send information to the physician about the patient’s job tasks—such that the clinician must rely on patient self-reporting, which might be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased.¹⁵ When a patient needs protection against foreseeable harm, highlight specific activities that are currently unsafe on the recovery timeline.

Employers rely on the physician to (1) estimate what the patient can do and (2) describe work ability in clear, objective terms that both patient and employer can interpret (TABLE). For example, “no heavy lifting” might be hard for an employer to interpret; “may lift 10 pounds from the floor to the waist as many as 12 times an hour” might be applied in a more practical manner to help a patient return to work safely.³¹ Including specific numbers, rates, and metrics in activity restrictions can also help demonstrate improvement over the course of treatment.

Be clear and specific on work restrictions. During recovery, it is important to tell the patient which temporary work restrictions are intended to prevent further injury or recurrence (prophylactic work restrictions) and which are an estimate of what they are able to do safely at work (capacity-based restrictions). Your written work restrictions form should be kept separate from private medical information because those restrictions will be the basis of subsequent conversations between patient and employer, who should be invited to give feedback if the guidance needs revision or clarification.

Continue to: Employer programs

Employer programs, such as modified duty, transitional duty, or early return to work programs, have been found to resolve claims faster and improve recovery outcomes.^10,12 Such programs might also reduce occupational stress and improve productivity when an employee realizes that their functional abilities are matched to realistic job expectations during recovery.¹⁶ You can play an important role in empowering your patients to seek out these support programs.

What’s ahead for managing disability durations?

Work disability duration is influenced by the complex mix of biological, psychosocial, and economic variables that we have touched on here. All stakeholders involved in the recovery process should support the patient’s ability to live life with as few restrictions as possible; you play a key role in their recovery by focusing on ability, highlighting remaining capabilities, emphasizing activities that are safe to perform, and encouraging acceptance of, and adaptation to, any irrevocable losses.

This is a holistic approach that might help patients overcome the stress and anxiety associated with major life events arising from illness or injury that trigger disability benefits. Open communication and establishing a shared goal, among all involved, of the best possible outcome increases the likelihood that working patients will return to their familiar life or find another positive path forward.

Keep the patient’s attention on the positive process of recovery, and document evidence of functional progress.

Using EBM and disability duration guidelines can help decrease the length of life–work disruption by ensuring that patients are given a diagnosis, treated, and managed appropriately.^32,33 Although these practices have been adopted by some physicians, health care systems, and insurers, they are not being implemented systematically and are unlikely to become ubiquitous unless they are mandated by payers or by law.

Family physicians are front-line providers for America’s workforce. They are distinctly situated to help patients achieve their best life at home and work. Improving the timeliness and quality of work guidance provided by the physician is an important way to minimize the impact of health problems on working people’s lives and livelihoods—and to help them stay employed.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kerri Wizner, MPH, 10355 Westmoor Drive, Westminster, CO 80021; [email protected].

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Meta-analysis demonstrates accuracy of nonradiologist providers with POCUS

A systematic review and meta-­analysis (11 studies; 946 exams) compared ­nonradiologist-performed AAA screening with POCUS vs radiologist-performed aortic imaging as a gold standard. Eight trials involved emergency medicine physicians (718 exams); 1 trial, surgical residents (104 exams); 1 trial, primary care internal medicine physicians (79 exams); and 1 trial, rural family physicians (45 exams). The majority of studies were conducted in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, with 4 trials performed in the United States.¹

Researchers compared all POCUS exam findings with radiologist-performed imaging (using ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or angiography) and with operative findings or pathology where available. There were 193 true positives, 8 false-positives, 740 true negatives, and 5 false-negatives. Primary care physicians identified 6 patients with AAA, with no false-positives or false-negatives. Overall, POCUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.975 (95% CI, 0.942 to 0.992) and a specificity of 0.989 (95% CI, 0.979 to 0.995).¹

Nonradiologist providers received POCUS training as follows: emergency medicine residents, 5 hours to 3 days; emergency medicine physicians, 4 to 24 hours of didactics, 50 AAA scans, or American College of Emergency Medicine certification; and primary care physicians, 2.3 hours or 50 AAA scans. Information on training for surgical residents was not supplied. The authors rated the studies for quality (10-14 points on the 14-point QUADA quality score) and heterogeneity (I² = 0 for sensitivity and I² = .38 for specificity).¹

European studies support FPs’ ability to diagnose AAA with POCUS

Two subsequent prospective diagnostic accuracy studies both found that POCUS performed by family physicians had 100% concordance with radiologist overread. The first study (in Spain) included 106 men (ages 50 and older; mean, 69 years) with chronic hypertension or a history of tobacco use. One family physician underwent training (duration not reported) by a radiologist, including experience measuring standard cross-­sections of the aorta. Radiologists reviewed all POCUS images, which identified 6 patients with AAA (confirmed by CT scan). The concordance between the family ­physician and the radiologists was absolute (kappa = 1.0; sensitivity and specificity, 100%; positive and negative predictive values, both 1.0).²

The second study (in Denmark) compared 29 POCUS screenings for AAA performed by 5 family physicians vs a gold standard of a radiologist-performed abdominal ultrasound blinded to previous ultrasound findings. Four of the family physicians were board certified and 1 was a final-year resident in training. They all underwent a 3-day ultrasonography course that included initial e-learning followed by 2 days of hands-on training; all passed a final certification exam. The family physicians identified 1 patient with AAA. Radiologists overread all the scans and found 100% agreement with the 1 positive AAA and the 28 negative scans.³

Recommendations from others

In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) offered a Grade “B” (moderate net benefit) recommendation for screening with ultrasonography for AAA in men ages 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked, and a Grade “C” recommendation (small net benefit) for screening men ages 65 to 75 years who have never smoked.⁴ In 2017, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommended screening all men ages 65 to 80 years with 1 ultrasound exam for AAA (weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). The Canadian Task Force also noted that, with adequate training, AAA screening could be performed in a family practice setting.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

While these studies evaluating POCUS performed by nonradiologists included a small number of family physicians, their finding that all participants (attending physicians and residents) demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for AAA detection with relatively limited training bodes well for more widespread use of the technology. Offering POCUS to detect AAAs in family physician offices has the potential to dramatically improve access to USPSTF-recommended screening.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Meta-analysis demonstrates accuracy of nonradiologist providers with POCUS

A systematic review and meta-­analysis (11 studies; 946 exams) compared ­nonradiologist-performed AAA screening with POCUS vs radiologist-performed aortic imaging as a gold standard. Eight trials involved emergency medicine physicians (718 exams); 1 trial, surgical residents (104 exams); 1 trial, primary care internal medicine physicians (79 exams); and 1 trial, rural family physicians (45 exams). The majority of studies were conducted in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, with 4 trials performed in the United States.¹

Researchers compared all POCUS exam findings with radiologist-performed imaging (using ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or angiography) and with operative findings or pathology where available. There were 193 true positives, 8 false-positives, 740 true negatives, and 5 false-negatives. Primary care physicians identified 6 patients with AAA, with no false-positives or false-negatives. Overall, POCUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.975 (95% CI, 0.942 to 0.992) and a specificity of 0.989 (95% CI, 0.979 to 0.995).¹

Nonradiologist providers received POCUS training as follows: emergency medicine residents, 5 hours to 3 days; emergency medicine physicians, 4 to 24 hours of didactics, 50 AAA scans, or American College of Emergency Medicine certification; and primary care physicians, 2.3 hours or 50 AAA scans. Information on training for surgical residents was not supplied. The authors rated the studies for quality (10-14 points on the 14-point QUADA quality score) and heterogeneity (I² = 0 for sensitivity and I² = .38 for specificity).¹

European studies support FPs’ ability to diagnose AAA with POCUS

Two subsequent prospective diagnostic accuracy studies both found that POCUS performed by family physicians had 100% concordance with radiologist overread. The first study (in Spain) included 106 men (ages 50 and older; mean, 69 years) with chronic hypertension or a history of tobacco use. One family physician underwent training (duration not reported) by a radiologist, including experience measuring standard cross-­sections of the aorta. Radiologists reviewed all POCUS images, which identified 6 patients with AAA (confirmed by CT scan). The concordance between the family ­physician and the radiologists was absolute (kappa = 1.0; sensitivity and specificity, 100%; positive and negative predictive values, both 1.0).²

The second study (in Denmark) compared 29 POCUS screenings for AAA performed by 5 family physicians vs a gold standard of a radiologist-performed abdominal ultrasound blinded to previous ultrasound findings. Four of the family physicians were board certified and 1 was a final-year resident in training. They all underwent a 3-day ultrasonography course that included initial e-learning followed by 2 days of hands-on training; all passed a final certification exam. The family physicians identified 1 patient with AAA. Radiologists overread all the scans and found 100% agreement with the 1 positive AAA and the 28 negative scans.³

Recommendations from others

In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) offered a Grade “B” (moderate net benefit) recommendation for screening with ultrasonography for AAA in men ages 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked, and a Grade “C” recommendation (small net benefit) for screening men ages 65 to 75 years who have never smoked.⁴ In 2017, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommended screening all men ages 65 to 80 years with 1 ultrasound exam for AAA (weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). The Canadian Task Force also noted that, with adequate training, AAA screening could be performed in a family practice setting.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

While these studies evaluating POCUS performed by nonradiologists included a small number of family physicians, their finding that all participants (attending physicians and residents) demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for AAA detection with relatively limited training bodes well for more widespread use of the technology. Offering POCUS to detect AAAs in family physician offices has the potential to dramatically improve access to USPSTF-recommended screening.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Meta-analysis demonstrates accuracy of nonradiologist providers with POCUS

A systematic review and meta-­analysis (11 studies; 946 exams) compared ­nonradiologist-performed AAA screening with POCUS vs radiologist-performed aortic imaging as a gold standard. Eight trials involved emergency medicine physicians (718 exams); 1 trial, surgical residents (104 exams); 1 trial, primary care internal medicine physicians (79 exams); and 1 trial, rural family physicians (45 exams). The majority of studies were conducted in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, with 4 trials performed in the United States.¹

Researchers compared all POCUS exam findings with radiologist-performed imaging (using ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or angiography) and with operative findings or pathology where available. There were 193 true positives, 8 false-positives, 740 true negatives, and 5 false-negatives. Primary care physicians identified 6 patients with AAA, with no false-positives or false-negatives. Overall, POCUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.975 (95% CI, 0.942 to 0.992) and a specificity of 0.989 (95% CI, 0.979 to 0.995).¹

Nonradiologist providers received POCUS training as follows: emergency medicine residents, 5 hours to 3 days; emergency medicine physicians, 4 to 24 hours of didactics, 50 AAA scans, or American College of Emergency Medicine certification; and primary care physicians, 2.3 hours or 50 AAA scans. Information on training for surgical residents was not supplied. The authors rated the studies for quality (10-14 points on the 14-point QUADA quality score) and heterogeneity (I² = 0 for sensitivity and I² = .38 for specificity).¹

European studies support FPs’ ability to diagnose AAA with POCUS

Two subsequent prospective diagnostic accuracy studies both found that POCUS performed by family physicians had 100% concordance with radiologist overread. The first study (in Spain) included 106 men (ages 50 and older; mean, 69 years) with chronic hypertension or a history of tobacco use. One family physician underwent training (duration not reported) by a radiologist, including experience measuring standard cross-­sections of the aorta. Radiologists reviewed all POCUS images, which identified 6 patients with AAA (confirmed by CT scan). The concordance between the family ­physician and the radiologists was absolute (kappa = 1.0; sensitivity and specificity, 100%; positive and negative predictive values, both 1.0).²

The second study (in Denmark) compared 29 POCUS screenings for AAA performed by 5 family physicians vs a gold standard of a radiologist-performed abdominal ultrasound blinded to previous ultrasound findings. Four of the family physicians were board certified and 1 was a final-year resident in training. They all underwent a 3-day ultrasonography course that included initial e-learning followed by 2 days of hands-on training; all passed a final certification exam. The family physicians identified 1 patient with AAA. Radiologists overread all the scans and found 100% agreement with the 1 positive AAA and the 28 negative scans.³

Recommendations from others

In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) offered a Grade “B” (moderate net benefit) recommendation for screening with ultrasonography for AAA in men ages 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked, and a Grade “C” recommendation (small net benefit) for screening men ages 65 to 75 years who have never smoked.⁴ In 2017, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommended screening all men ages 65 to 80 years with 1 ultrasound exam for AAA (weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). The Canadian Task Force also noted that, with adequate training, AAA screening could be performed in a family practice setting.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

While these studies evaluating POCUS performed by nonradiologists included a small number of family physicians, their finding that all participants (attending physicians and residents) demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for AAA detection with relatively limited training bodes well for more widespread use of the technology. Offering POCUS to detect AAAs in family physician offices has the potential to dramatically improve access to USPSTF-recommended screening.

The color change in this case is subtle, but consistent with green nail syndrome also termed chloronychia.

Green nail syndrome is a form of chronic paronychia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and is associated with frequent water exposure. Pseudomonas expresses pyocyanin and pyoverdine, leading to the characteristic blue or green coloration. A Woods lamp may reveal neon green fluorescence.

Risk factors include frequent water exposure, use of an instrument to relieve symptoms of an ingrown nail, and chronic immunosuppression. In this case, frequent hand washing being performed by this patient during the COVID-19 pandemic was the likely culprit.

The differential diagnosis includes simple structural onycholysis, onychomycosis, and nail psoriasis. Polymicrobial infection can occur. When in doubt, culture or pathologic examination of nail clippings with Grocott methenamine silver and periodic acid–Schiff can identify coincident fungal infection.¹ While systemic pseudomonas infection could also occur with green nail syndrome, the latter is usually only a mild nuisance and not associated with severe disease.

Treatment consists of avoidance of water and instrumentation. Topical sodium hypochlorite 2% solution applied to the nail or acetic acid soaks for 2 to 3 weeks is often curative. Antibiotic therapy may also be used. Topical tobramycin or gentamicin are available as otic or ophthalmic drops and can be applied just under the nail.

The patient was advised to meticulously dry her hands after washing them and to apply 1 drop of topical gentamicin solution 0.3% tid for 3 weeks. The green discoloration cleared in 3 weeks and the onycholysis resolved within 4 months.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

The color change in this case is subtle, but consistent with green nail syndrome also termed chloronychia.

Green nail syndrome is a form of chronic paronychia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and is associated with frequent water exposure. Pseudomonas expresses pyocyanin and pyoverdine, leading to the characteristic blue or green coloration. A Woods lamp may reveal neon green fluorescence.

Risk factors include frequent water exposure, use of an instrument to relieve symptoms of an ingrown nail, and chronic immunosuppression. In this case, frequent hand washing being performed by this patient during the COVID-19 pandemic was the likely culprit.

The differential diagnosis includes simple structural onycholysis, onychomycosis, and nail psoriasis. Polymicrobial infection can occur. When in doubt, culture or pathologic examination of nail clippings with Grocott methenamine silver and periodic acid–Schiff can identify coincident fungal infection.¹ While systemic pseudomonas infection could also occur with green nail syndrome, the latter is usually only a mild nuisance and not associated with severe disease.

Treatment consists of avoidance of water and instrumentation. Topical sodium hypochlorite 2% solution applied to the nail or acetic acid soaks for 2 to 3 weeks is often curative. Antibiotic therapy may also be used. Topical tobramycin or gentamicin are available as otic or ophthalmic drops and can be applied just under the nail.

The patient was advised to meticulously dry her hands after washing them and to apply 1 drop of topical gentamicin solution 0.3% tid for 3 weeks. The green discoloration cleared in 3 weeks and the onycholysis resolved within 4 months.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

The color change in this case is subtle, but consistent with green nail syndrome also termed chloronychia.

Green nail syndrome is a form of chronic paronychia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and is associated with frequent water exposure. Pseudomonas expresses pyocyanin and pyoverdine, leading to the characteristic blue or green coloration. A Woods lamp may reveal neon green fluorescence.

Risk factors include frequent water exposure, use of an instrument to relieve symptoms of an ingrown nail, and chronic immunosuppression. In this case, frequent hand washing being performed by this patient during the COVID-19 pandemic was the likely culprit.

The differential diagnosis includes simple structural onycholysis, onychomycosis, and nail psoriasis. Polymicrobial infection can occur. When in doubt, culture or pathologic examination of nail clippings with Grocott methenamine silver and periodic acid–Schiff can identify coincident fungal infection.¹ While systemic pseudomonas infection could also occur with green nail syndrome, the latter is usually only a mild nuisance and not associated with severe disease.

Treatment consists of avoidance of water and instrumentation. Topical sodium hypochlorite 2% solution applied to the nail or acetic acid soaks for 2 to 3 weeks is often curative. Antibiotic therapy may also be used. Topical tobramycin or gentamicin are available as otic or ophthalmic drops and can be applied just under the nail.

The patient was advised to meticulously dry her hands after washing them and to apply 1 drop of topical gentamicin solution 0.3% tid for 3 weeks. The green discoloration cleared in 3 weeks and the onycholysis resolved within 4 months.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

A 6-year-old boy was seen in the hospital in consultation for a 3-week history of suspected cellulitis of the right ear. Drainage from the right ear was refractory to treatment with a 7-day course of cephalexin 15 mL po bid of 250 mg/5 mL solution and clindamycin 24.4 mL po tid of 75 mg/5 mL solution. Treatment was followed by admission to the hospital for treatment with intravenous (IV) cefazolin 1000 mg q6h and IV vancomycin 825 mg q6h for 1 week.

The patient had a significant past medical history for asthma, allergic rhinitis, and severe atopic dermatitis that had been treated with methotrexate 10 mg per week for 6 months beginning when the child was 5 years of age. When the methotrexate proved to be ineffective, the patient was started on Aquaphor and mometasone 0.1% ointment. A 6-month trial of these agents failed as well.

Physical examination revealed that the right ear and skin around it were edematous, erythematous, pruritic, and tender. There was also purulent drainage coming from the ear (FIGURE 1).

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Infectious eczematoid dermatitis

The patient was referred to a dermatologist after seeing an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist who made the diagnosis of otitis externa when the rash failed to respond to topical and systemic antibiotics. The patient’s tender, pruritic, oozing, edematous eruption was recognized as an infectious eczematoid dermatitis (IED).

The ears, nose, and face are predominantly involved in cases of infectious eczematoid dermatitis in the pediatric population, while the lower extremities are predominantly involved in adults.

Although it is not an uncommon condition, IED may be underrecognized. It accounted for 2.9% of admissions to a ­dermatology-run inpatient service between 2000 and 2010.¹ IED results from cutaneous sensitization to purulent drainage secondary to acute otitis externa or another primary infection.² In fact, cultures from the purulent drainage in this patient grew methicillin-­resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The patient’s right otitis externa drainage may have been associated with the previous history of atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis is associated with an increased risk of skin infections due to decreased inflammatory mediators (defensins).

Cellulitis and herpes zoster oticus are part of the differential

The differential diagnosis in this case includes bacterial cellulitis, acute otitis media, and herpes zoster oticus.

Bacterial cellulitis manifests with erythema, edema, and tenderness with blistering when associated with bullous impetigo rather than pruritus. The clinical appearance of the patient’s diffuse, weeping, edematous external ear, the lack of response to guided antibiotic therapy, and the pruritus experienced by the patient argue against the diagnosis of bacterial cellulitis.

Acute otitis media, like otitis externa, produces ear discharge usually associated with significant pain. Thus, it is important when working through the differential to define the source of the ear discharge. In this case, a consultation with an ENT specialist confirmed that there was an intact tympanic membrane with no middle ear involvement, ruling out the diagnosis of acute otitis media.

Continue to: Herpes zoster oticus

Herpes zoster oticus. The absence of grouped vesicles at any point during the eruption, itching rather than pain, and negative viral culture and polymerase chain reaction studies for herpes simplex and varicella zoster virus excluded the diagnosis of herpes zoster oticus.

Diagnostic criteria were met

This case was compatible with the characterizations of IED as initially described by Engman³ in 1902 and further detailed by Sutton,⁴ who provided the following criteria for diagnosis:

• an initial eczematous or pustular lesion
• extension peripherally by autoinoculation
• an absence of central clearing
• Staphylococcus on culture of the initial lesion
• a history of infection.

Case reports have added to our understanding of the mechanism of autosensitization of surrounding skin.⁵ Yamany and Schwartz have proposed the diagnostic criteria summarized in the TABLE.²

Age factors into location. The ears, nose, and face are predominantly involved in cases of IED in the pediatric population, while the lower extremities are predominantly involved in adults.⁶ Laboratory tests and imaging may aid in excluding other potential diagnoses or complications, but the diagnosis remains clinical and requires the clinician to avoid jumping to the conclusion that every moist, erythematous crusting eruption is purely infectious in nature.

Tx and prevention hinge on a combination of antibiotics, steroids

The management of IED should be aimed at fighting the infection, eliminating the allergic contact dermatitis associated with infectious products, and improving barrier protection. Topical and/or systemic antibiotics guided by culture focus on killing bacteria. The allergic immune response is dampened by systemic steroids. Topical steroids, however, are difficult to utilize on moist, draining skin. In the case of otitis externa, a combination topical antibiotic and steroid otic drop can be utilized. As healing begins, emollients are applied to aid in skin repair.² Topical antibiotics containing neomycin or polymyxin should be avoided to eliminate the possibility of developing contact sensitivity to these agents.

Topical antibiotics containing neomycin or polymyxin should be avoided to eliminate the possibility of developing contact sensitivity to these agents.

For our patient, inpatient wound cultures demonstrated methicillin-resistant S aureus, and empiric treatment with IV cefepime and vancomycin was transitioned to IV clindamycin based on sensitivities and then transitioned to a 12-day course of oral clindamycin 150 mg bid. In addition, the patient received ciprofloxacin/dexamethasone otic drops 3 times/d to treat his otitis externa. After initiating prednisone 30 mg (1 mg/kg/d) for 10 days to cover the allergic component, the patient showed prompt clinical improvement. Gentle cleansing of the right ear with hypoallergenic soap and water followed by application of petrolatum ointment 4 times/d was used to promote healing and improve barrier function (FIGURE 2). The patient’s mother indicated during a follow-up call that the affected area had dramatically improved.

A 6-year-old boy was seen in the hospital in consultation for a 3-week history of suspected cellulitis of the right ear. Drainage from the right ear was refractory to treatment with a 7-day course of cephalexin 15 mL po bid of 250 mg/5 mL solution and clindamycin 24.4 mL po tid of 75 mg/5 mL solution. Treatment was followed by admission to the hospital for treatment with intravenous (IV) cefazolin 1000 mg q6h and IV vancomycin 825 mg q6h for 1 week.

The patient had a significant past medical history for asthma, allergic rhinitis, and severe atopic dermatitis that had been treated with methotrexate 10 mg per week for 6 months beginning when the child was 5 years of age. When the methotrexate proved to be ineffective, the patient was started on Aquaphor and mometasone 0.1% ointment. A 6-month trial of these agents failed as well.

Physical examination revealed that the right ear and skin around it were edematous, erythematous, pruritic, and tender. There was also purulent drainage coming from the ear (FIGURE 1).

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Infectious eczematoid dermatitis

The patient was referred to a dermatologist after seeing an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist who made the diagnosis of otitis externa when the rash failed to respond to topical and systemic antibiotics. The patient’s tender, pruritic, oozing, edematous eruption was recognized as an infectious eczematoid dermatitis (IED).

The ears, nose, and face are predominantly involved in cases of infectious eczematoid dermatitis in the pediatric population, while the lower extremities are predominantly involved in adults.

Although it is not an uncommon condition, IED may be underrecognized. It accounted for 2.9% of admissions to a ­dermatology-run inpatient service between 2000 and 2010.¹ IED results from cutaneous sensitization to purulent drainage secondary to acute otitis externa or another primary infection.² In fact, cultures from the purulent drainage in this patient grew methicillin-­resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The patient’s right otitis externa drainage may have been associated with the previous history of atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis is associated with an increased risk of skin infections due to decreased inflammatory mediators (defensins).

Cellulitis and herpes zoster oticus are part of the differential

The differential diagnosis in this case includes bacterial cellulitis, acute otitis media, and herpes zoster oticus.

Bacterial cellulitis manifests with erythema, edema, and tenderness with blistering when associated with bullous impetigo rather than pruritus. The clinical appearance of the patient’s diffuse, weeping, edematous external ear, the lack of response to guided antibiotic therapy, and the pruritus experienced by the patient argue against the diagnosis of bacterial cellulitis.

Acute otitis media, like otitis externa, produces ear discharge usually associated with significant pain. Thus, it is important when working through the differential to define the source of the ear discharge. In this case, a consultation with an ENT specialist confirmed that there was an intact tympanic membrane with no middle ear involvement, ruling out the diagnosis of acute otitis media.

Continue to: Herpes zoster oticus

Herpes zoster oticus. The absence of grouped vesicles at any point during the eruption, itching rather than pain, and negative viral culture and polymerase chain reaction studies for herpes simplex and varicella zoster virus excluded the diagnosis of herpes zoster oticus.

Diagnostic criteria were met

This case was compatible with the characterizations of IED as initially described by Engman³ in 1902 and further detailed by Sutton,⁴ who provided the following criteria for diagnosis:

• an initial eczematous or pustular lesion
• extension peripherally by autoinoculation
• an absence of central clearing
• Staphylococcus on culture of the initial lesion
• a history of infection.

Case reports have added to our understanding of the mechanism of autosensitization of surrounding skin.⁵ Yamany and Schwartz have proposed the diagnostic criteria summarized in the TABLE.²

Age factors into location. The ears, nose, and face are predominantly involved in cases of IED in the pediatric population, while the lower extremities are predominantly involved in adults.⁶ Laboratory tests and imaging may aid in excluding other potential diagnoses or complications, but the diagnosis remains clinical and requires the clinician to avoid jumping to the conclusion that every moist, erythematous crusting eruption is purely infectious in nature.

Tx and prevention hinge on a combination of antibiotics, steroids

The management of IED should be aimed at fighting the infection, eliminating the allergic contact dermatitis associated with infectious products, and improving barrier protection. Topical and/or systemic antibiotics guided by culture focus on killing bacteria. The allergic immune response is dampened by systemic steroids. Topical steroids, however, are difficult to utilize on moist, draining skin. In the case of otitis externa, a combination topical antibiotic and steroid otic drop can be utilized. As healing begins, emollients are applied to aid in skin repair.² Topical antibiotics containing neomycin or polymyxin should be avoided to eliminate the possibility of developing contact sensitivity to these agents.

Topical antibiotics containing neomycin or polymyxin should be avoided to eliminate the possibility of developing contact sensitivity to these agents.

For our patient, inpatient wound cultures demonstrated methicillin-resistant S aureus, and empiric treatment with IV cefepime and vancomycin was transitioned to IV clindamycin based on sensitivities and then transitioned to a 12-day course of oral clindamycin 150 mg bid. In addition, the patient received ciprofloxacin/dexamethasone otic drops 3 times/d to treat his otitis externa. After initiating prednisone 30 mg (1 mg/kg/d) for 10 days to cover the allergic component, the patient showed prompt clinical improvement. Gentle cleansing of the right ear with hypoallergenic soap and water followed by application of petrolatum ointment 4 times/d was used to promote healing and improve barrier function (FIGURE 2). The patient’s mother indicated during a follow-up call that the affected area had dramatically improved.

A 6-year-old boy was seen in the hospital in consultation for a 3-week history of suspected cellulitis of the right ear. Drainage from the right ear was refractory to treatment with a 7-day course of cephalexin 15 mL po bid of 250 mg/5 mL solution and clindamycin 24.4 mL po tid of 75 mg/5 mL solution. Treatment was followed by admission to the hospital for treatment with intravenous (IV) cefazolin 1000 mg q6h and IV vancomycin 825 mg q6h for 1 week.

The patient had a significant past medical history for asthma, allergic rhinitis, and severe atopic dermatitis that had been treated with methotrexate 10 mg per week for 6 months beginning when the child was 5 years of age. When the methotrexate proved to be ineffective, the patient was started on Aquaphor and mometasone 0.1% ointment. A 6-month trial of these agents failed as well.

Physical examination revealed that the right ear and skin around it were edematous, erythematous, pruritic, and tender. There was also purulent drainage coming from the ear (FIGURE 1).

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Infectious eczematoid dermatitis

The patient was referred to a dermatologist after seeing an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist who made the diagnosis of otitis externa when the rash failed to respond to topical and systemic antibiotics. The patient’s tender, pruritic, oozing, edematous eruption was recognized as an infectious eczematoid dermatitis (IED).

The ears, nose, and face are predominantly involved in cases of infectious eczematoid dermatitis in the pediatric population, while the lower extremities are predominantly involved in adults.

Although it is not an uncommon condition, IED may be underrecognized. It accounted for 2.9% of admissions to a ­dermatology-run inpatient service between 2000 and 2010.¹ IED results from cutaneous sensitization to purulent drainage secondary to acute otitis externa or another primary infection.² In fact, cultures from the purulent drainage in this patient grew methicillin-­resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The patient’s right otitis externa drainage may have been associated with the previous history of atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis is associated with an increased risk of skin infections due to decreased inflammatory mediators (defensins).

Cellulitis and herpes zoster oticus are part of the differential

The differential diagnosis in this case includes bacterial cellulitis, acute otitis media, and herpes zoster oticus.

Bacterial cellulitis manifests with erythema, edema, and tenderness with blistering when associated with bullous impetigo rather than pruritus. The clinical appearance of the patient’s diffuse, weeping, edematous external ear, the lack of response to guided antibiotic therapy, and the pruritus experienced by the patient argue against the diagnosis of bacterial cellulitis.

Acute otitis media, like otitis externa, produces ear discharge usually associated with significant pain. Thus, it is important when working through the differential to define the source of the ear discharge. In this case, a consultation with an ENT specialist confirmed that there was an intact tympanic membrane with no middle ear involvement, ruling out the diagnosis of acute otitis media.

Continue to: Herpes zoster oticus

Herpes zoster oticus. The absence of grouped vesicles at any point during the eruption, itching rather than pain, and negative viral culture and polymerase chain reaction studies for herpes simplex and varicella zoster virus excluded the diagnosis of herpes zoster oticus.