MDedge Surgery

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A majority of Mohs surgeons have adopted telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey finds, but only half expressed interest in making it a permanent part of their practices.

A variety of factors combine to make it “very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices,” said Mario Maruthur, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery. “Telemedicine likely has a role in Mohs practices, particularly with postop follow-up visits. However, postpandemic reimbursement and regulatory issues need to be formally laid out before Mohs surgeons are able to incorporate it into their permanent work flow.”

Dr. Maruthur, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members in September and October 2020. “We saw first-hand in our surgical practice that telemedicine quickly became an important tool when the pandemic surged in the spring of 2020,” he said. Considering that surgical practices are highly dependent on in-person visits, the impetus for this study was to assess to what degree Mohs practices from across the spectrum, including academic and private practices, embraced telemedicine during the pandemic, and “what these surgical practices used telemedicine for, how it was received by their patients, which telemedicine platforms were most often utilized, and lastly, what are their plans if any for incorporating telemedicine into their surgical practices after the pandemic subsides.”

The researchers received responses from 115 surgeons representing all regions of the country (40% Northeast, 21% South, 21% Midwest, and 18% West). Half practiced in urban areas (37%) and large cities (13%), and 40% were in an academic setting versus 36% in a single-specialty private practice.

More than 70% of the respondents said their case load fell by at least 75% during the initial surge of the pandemic; 80% turned to telemedicine, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic. The most commonly used telemedicine technologies were FaceTime, Zoom, Doximity, and Epic.

Mohs surgeons reported most commonly using telemedicine for postsurgery management (77% of the total 115 responses). “Telemedicine is a great fit for this category of visits as they allow the surgeon to view the surgical site and answer any questions they patient may have,” Dr. Maruthur said. “If the surgeon does suspect a postop infection or other concern based on a patient’s signs or symptoms, they can easily schedule the patient for an in-person assessment. We suspect that postop follow-up visits may be the best candidate for long-term use of telemedicine in Mohs surgery practices.”

Surgeons also reported using telemedicine for “spot checks” (61%) and surgical consultations (59%).

However, Dr. Maruther noted that preoperative assessments and spot checks can be difficult to perform using telemedicine. “The quality of the video image is not always great, patients can have a difficult time pointing the camera at the right spot and at the right distance. Even appreciating the actual size of the lesion are all difficult over a video encounter. And there is a lot of information gleaned from in-person physical examination, such as whether the lesion is fixed to a deeper structure and whether there are any nearby scars or other suspicious lesions.”

Nearly three-quarters of the surgeons using the technology said most or all patients were receptive to telemedicine.

However, the surgeons reported multiple barriers to the use of telemedicine: Limitations when compared with physical exams (88%), fitting it into the work flow (58%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

In an interview, Sumaira Z. Aasi, MD, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery, Stanford University, agreed that there are many obstacles to routine use of telemedicine by Mohs surgeons. “As surgeons, we rely on the physical and tactile exam to get a sense of the size and extent of the cancer and characteristics such as the laxity of the surrounding tissue whether the tumor is fixed,” she said. “It is very difficult to access this on a telemedicine visit.”

In addition, she said, “many of our patients are in the elderly population, and some may not be comfortable using this technology. Also, it’s not a work flow that we are comfortable or familiar with. And I think that the technology has to improve to allow for better resolution of images as we ‘examine’ patients through a telemedicine visit.”

She added that “another con is there is a reliance on having the patient point out lesions of concern. Many cancers are picked by a careful in-person examination by a qualified physician/dermatologist/Mohs surgeon when the lesion is quite small or subtle and not even noticed by the patient themselves. This approach invariably leads to earlier biopsies and earlier treatments that can prevent morbidity and save health care money.”

On the other hand, she said, telemedicine “may save patients some time and money in terms of the effort and cost of transportation to come in for simpler postoperative medical visits that are often short in their very nature, such as postop check-ups.”

Most of the surgeons surveyed (69%) said telemedicine probably or definitely deserves a place in the practice Mohs surgery, but only 50% said they’d like to or would definitely pursue giving telemedicine a role in their practices once the pandemic is over.

“At the start of the pandemic, many regulations in areas such as HIPAA were eased, and reimbursements were increased, which allowed telemedicine to be quickly adopted,” Dr. Maruther said. “The government and payers have yet to decide which regulations and reimbursements will be in place after the pandemic. That makes it very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices.”

Dr. Aasi predicted that telemedicine will become more appealing to patients and physicians as it its technology and usability improves. More familiarity with its use will also be helpful, she said, and surgeons will be more receptive as it’s incorporated into efficient daily work flow.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

A majority of Mohs surgeons have adopted telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey finds, but only half expressed interest in making it a permanent part of their practices.

A variety of factors combine to make it “very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices,” said Mario Maruthur, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery. “Telemedicine likely has a role in Mohs practices, particularly with postop follow-up visits. However, postpandemic reimbursement and regulatory issues need to be formally laid out before Mohs surgeons are able to incorporate it into their permanent work flow.”

Dr. Maruthur, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members in September and October 2020. “We saw first-hand in our surgical practice that telemedicine quickly became an important tool when the pandemic surged in the spring of 2020,” he said. Considering that surgical practices are highly dependent on in-person visits, the impetus for this study was to assess to what degree Mohs practices from across the spectrum, including academic and private practices, embraced telemedicine during the pandemic, and “what these surgical practices used telemedicine for, how it was received by their patients, which telemedicine platforms were most often utilized, and lastly, what are their plans if any for incorporating telemedicine into their surgical practices after the pandemic subsides.”

The researchers received responses from 115 surgeons representing all regions of the country (40% Northeast, 21% South, 21% Midwest, and 18% West). Half practiced in urban areas (37%) and large cities (13%), and 40% were in an academic setting versus 36% in a single-specialty private practice.

More than 70% of the respondents said their case load fell by at least 75% during the initial surge of the pandemic; 80% turned to telemedicine, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic. The most commonly used telemedicine technologies were FaceTime, Zoom, Doximity, and Epic.

Mohs surgeons reported most commonly using telemedicine for postsurgery management (77% of the total 115 responses). “Telemedicine is a great fit for this category of visits as they allow the surgeon to view the surgical site and answer any questions they patient may have,” Dr. Maruthur said. “If the surgeon does suspect a postop infection or other concern based on a patient’s signs or symptoms, they can easily schedule the patient for an in-person assessment. We suspect that postop follow-up visits may be the best candidate for long-term use of telemedicine in Mohs surgery practices.”

Surgeons also reported using telemedicine for “spot checks” (61%) and surgical consultations (59%).

However, Dr. Maruther noted that preoperative assessments and spot checks can be difficult to perform using telemedicine. “The quality of the video image is not always great, patients can have a difficult time pointing the camera at the right spot and at the right distance. Even appreciating the actual size of the lesion are all difficult over a video encounter. And there is a lot of information gleaned from in-person physical examination, such as whether the lesion is fixed to a deeper structure and whether there are any nearby scars or other suspicious lesions.”

Nearly three-quarters of the surgeons using the technology said most or all patients were receptive to telemedicine.

However, the surgeons reported multiple barriers to the use of telemedicine: Limitations when compared with physical exams (88%), fitting it into the work flow (58%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

In an interview, Sumaira Z. Aasi, MD, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery, Stanford University, agreed that there are many obstacles to routine use of telemedicine by Mohs surgeons. “As surgeons, we rely on the physical and tactile exam to get a sense of the size and extent of the cancer and characteristics such as the laxity of the surrounding tissue whether the tumor is fixed,” she said. “It is very difficult to access this on a telemedicine visit.”

In addition, she said, “many of our patients are in the elderly population, and some may not be comfortable using this technology. Also, it’s not a work flow that we are comfortable or familiar with. And I think that the technology has to improve to allow for better resolution of images as we ‘examine’ patients through a telemedicine visit.”

She added that “another con is there is a reliance on having the patient point out lesions of concern. Many cancers are picked by a careful in-person examination by a qualified physician/dermatologist/Mohs surgeon when the lesion is quite small or subtle and not even noticed by the patient themselves. This approach invariably leads to earlier biopsies and earlier treatments that can prevent morbidity and save health care money.”

On the other hand, she said, telemedicine “may save patients some time and money in terms of the effort and cost of transportation to come in for simpler postoperative medical visits that are often short in their very nature, such as postop check-ups.”

Most of the surgeons surveyed (69%) said telemedicine probably or definitely deserves a place in the practice Mohs surgery, but only 50% said they’d like to or would definitely pursue giving telemedicine a role in their practices once the pandemic is over.

“At the start of the pandemic, many regulations in areas such as HIPAA were eased, and reimbursements were increased, which allowed telemedicine to be quickly adopted,” Dr. Maruther said. “The government and payers have yet to decide which regulations and reimbursements will be in place after the pandemic. That makes it very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices.”

Dr. Aasi predicted that telemedicine will become more appealing to patients and physicians as it its technology and usability improves. More familiarity with its use will also be helpful, she said, and surgeons will be more receptive as it’s incorporated into efficient daily work flow.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

A majority of Mohs surgeons have adopted telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey finds, but only half expressed interest in making it a permanent part of their practices.

A variety of factors combine to make it “very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices,” said Mario Maruthur, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery. “Telemedicine likely has a role in Mohs practices, particularly with postop follow-up visits. However, postpandemic reimbursement and regulatory issues need to be formally laid out before Mohs surgeons are able to incorporate it into their permanent work flow.”

Dr. Maruthur, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members in September and October 2020. “We saw first-hand in our surgical practice that telemedicine quickly became an important tool when the pandemic surged in the spring of 2020,” he said. Considering that surgical practices are highly dependent on in-person visits, the impetus for this study was to assess to what degree Mohs practices from across the spectrum, including academic and private practices, embraced telemedicine during the pandemic, and “what these surgical practices used telemedicine for, how it was received by their patients, which telemedicine platforms were most often utilized, and lastly, what are their plans if any for incorporating telemedicine into their surgical practices after the pandemic subsides.”

The researchers received responses from 115 surgeons representing all regions of the country (40% Northeast, 21% South, 21% Midwest, and 18% West). Half practiced in urban areas (37%) and large cities (13%), and 40% were in an academic setting versus 36% in a single-specialty private practice.

More than 70% of the respondents said their case load fell by at least 75% during the initial surge of the pandemic; 80% turned to telemedicine, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic. The most commonly used telemedicine technologies were FaceTime, Zoom, Doximity, and Epic.

Mohs surgeons reported most commonly using telemedicine for postsurgery management (77% of the total 115 responses). “Telemedicine is a great fit for this category of visits as they allow the surgeon to view the surgical site and answer any questions they patient may have,” Dr. Maruthur said. “If the surgeon does suspect a postop infection or other concern based on a patient’s signs or symptoms, they can easily schedule the patient for an in-person assessment. We suspect that postop follow-up visits may be the best candidate for long-term use of telemedicine in Mohs surgery practices.”

Surgeons also reported using telemedicine for “spot checks” (61%) and surgical consultations (59%).

However, Dr. Maruther noted that preoperative assessments and spot checks can be difficult to perform using telemedicine. “The quality of the video image is not always great, patients can have a difficult time pointing the camera at the right spot and at the right distance. Even appreciating the actual size of the lesion are all difficult over a video encounter. And there is a lot of information gleaned from in-person physical examination, such as whether the lesion is fixed to a deeper structure and whether there are any nearby scars or other suspicious lesions.”

Nearly three-quarters of the surgeons using the technology said most or all patients were receptive to telemedicine.

However, the surgeons reported multiple barriers to the use of telemedicine: Limitations when compared with physical exams (88%), fitting it into the work flow (58%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

In an interview, Sumaira Z. Aasi, MD, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery, Stanford University, agreed that there are many obstacles to routine use of telemedicine by Mohs surgeons. “As surgeons, we rely on the physical and tactile exam to get a sense of the size and extent of the cancer and characteristics such as the laxity of the surrounding tissue whether the tumor is fixed,” she said. “It is very difficult to access this on a telemedicine visit.”

In addition, she said, “many of our patients are in the elderly population, and some may not be comfortable using this technology. Also, it’s not a work flow that we are comfortable or familiar with. And I think that the technology has to improve to allow for better resolution of images as we ‘examine’ patients through a telemedicine visit.”

She added that “another con is there is a reliance on having the patient point out lesions of concern. Many cancers are picked by a careful in-person examination by a qualified physician/dermatologist/Mohs surgeon when the lesion is quite small or subtle and not even noticed by the patient themselves. This approach invariably leads to earlier biopsies and earlier treatments that can prevent morbidity and save health care money.”

On the other hand, she said, telemedicine “may save patients some time and money in terms of the effort and cost of transportation to come in for simpler postoperative medical visits that are often short in their very nature, such as postop check-ups.”

Most of the surgeons surveyed (69%) said telemedicine probably or definitely deserves a place in the practice Mohs surgery, but only 50% said they’d like to or would definitely pursue giving telemedicine a role in their practices once the pandemic is over.

“At the start of the pandemic, many regulations in areas such as HIPAA were eased, and reimbursements were increased, which allowed telemedicine to be quickly adopted,” Dr. Maruther said. “The government and payers have yet to decide which regulations and reimbursements will be in place after the pandemic. That makes it very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices.”

Dr. Aasi predicted that telemedicine will become more appealing to patients and physicians as it its technology and usability improves. More familiarity with its use will also be helpful, she said, and surgeons will be more receptive as it’s incorporated into efficient daily work flow.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated the HIPAA privacy rule when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative online review. More recently, a Texas dental practice paid a substantial fine to the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, after it responded to unfavorable Yelp reviews with patient names and details of their health conditions, treatment plans, and cost information. In addition to the fine, the practice agreed to 2 years of monitoring by HHS for compliance with HIPAA rules.

Most physicians have had the unpleasant experience of finding a negative online review from a disgruntled patient or family member. Some are justified, many are not; either way, your first impulse will often be to post a response – but that is almost always a bad idea. “Social media is not the place for providers to discuss a patient’s care,” an HHS official said in a statement issued about the dental practice case in 2016. “Doctors and dentists must think carefully about patient privacy before responding to online reviews.”

Any information that could be used to identify a patient is a HIPAA breach. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights, and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

Responding to good reviews can get you in trouble too, for the same reasons. In 2016, a physical therapy practice paid a $25,000 fine after it posted patient testimonials, “including full names and full-face photographic images to its website without obtaining valid, HIPAA-compliant authorizations.”

And by the way, most malpractice policies specifically exclude disciplinary fines and settlements from coverage.

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are some options:
 

• Ignore them. This is your best choice most of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response; responding may pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated.
• Solicit more reviews to that site. The more you can obtain, the less impact any complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, or in your email reminders. To be clear, you must encourage reviews from all patients, whether they have had a positive experience or not. If you invite only the satisfied ones, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising. (Google calls it “review-gating,” and according to their guidelines, if they catch you doing it they will remove all of your reviews.)
• Respond politely. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can explain that, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely; you will probably need to consult your attorney.

Regardless of how you handle negative reviews, be sure to learn from them. Your critics, as the song goes, are not always evil – and not always wrong. Complaints give you a chance to review your office policies and procedures and your own conduct, identify weaknesses, and make changes as necessary. At the very least, the exercise will help you to avoid similar complaints in the future. Don’t let valuable opportunities like that pass you by.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated the HIPAA privacy rule when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative online review. More recently, a Texas dental practice paid a substantial fine to the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, after it responded to unfavorable Yelp reviews with patient names and details of their health conditions, treatment plans, and cost information. In addition to the fine, the practice agreed to 2 years of monitoring by HHS for compliance with HIPAA rules.

Most physicians have had the unpleasant experience of finding a negative online review from a disgruntled patient or family member. Some are justified, many are not; either way, your first impulse will often be to post a response – but that is almost always a bad idea. “Social media is not the place for providers to discuss a patient’s care,” an HHS official said in a statement issued about the dental practice case in 2016. “Doctors and dentists must think carefully about patient privacy before responding to online reviews.”

Any information that could be used to identify a patient is a HIPAA breach. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights, and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

Responding to good reviews can get you in trouble too, for the same reasons. In 2016, a physical therapy practice paid a $25,000 fine after it posted patient testimonials, “including full names and full-face photographic images to its website without obtaining valid, HIPAA-compliant authorizations.”

And by the way, most malpractice policies specifically exclude disciplinary fines and settlements from coverage.

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are some options:
 

• Ignore them. This is your best choice most of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response; responding may pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated.
• Solicit more reviews to that site. The more you can obtain, the less impact any complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, or in your email reminders. To be clear, you must encourage reviews from all patients, whether they have had a positive experience or not. If you invite only the satisfied ones, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising. (Google calls it “review-gating,” and according to their guidelines, if they catch you doing it they will remove all of your reviews.)
• Respond politely. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can explain that, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely; you will probably need to consult your attorney.

Regardless of how you handle negative reviews, be sure to learn from them. Your critics, as the song goes, are not always evil – and not always wrong. Complaints give you a chance to review your office policies and procedures and your own conduct, identify weaknesses, and make changes as necessary. At the very least, the exercise will help you to avoid similar complaints in the future. Don’t let valuable opportunities like that pass you by.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated the HIPAA privacy rule when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative online review. More recently, a Texas dental practice paid a substantial fine to the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, after it responded to unfavorable Yelp reviews with patient names and details of their health conditions, treatment plans, and cost information. In addition to the fine, the practice agreed to 2 years of monitoring by HHS for compliance with HIPAA rules.

Most physicians have had the unpleasant experience of finding a negative online review from a disgruntled patient or family member. Some are justified, many are not; either way, your first impulse will often be to post a response – but that is almost always a bad idea. “Social media is not the place for providers to discuss a patient’s care,” an HHS official said in a statement issued about the dental practice case in 2016. “Doctors and dentists must think carefully about patient privacy before responding to online reviews.”

Any information that could be used to identify a patient is a HIPAA breach. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights, and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

Responding to good reviews can get you in trouble too, for the same reasons. In 2016, a physical therapy practice paid a $25,000 fine after it posted patient testimonials, “including full names and full-face photographic images to its website without obtaining valid, HIPAA-compliant authorizations.”

And by the way, most malpractice policies specifically exclude disciplinary fines and settlements from coverage.

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are some options:
 

• Ignore them. This is your best choice most of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response; responding may pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated.
• Solicit more reviews to that site. The more you can obtain, the less impact any complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, or in your email reminders. To be clear, you must encourage reviews from all patients, whether they have had a positive experience or not. If you invite only the satisfied ones, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising. (Google calls it “review-gating,” and according to their guidelines, if they catch you doing it they will remove all of your reviews.)
• Respond politely. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can explain that, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely; you will probably need to consult your attorney.

Regardless of how you handle negative reviews, be sure to learn from them. Your critics, as the song goes, are not always evil – and not always wrong. Complaints give you a chance to review your office policies and procedures and your own conduct, identify weaknesses, and make changes as necessary. At the very least, the exercise will help you to avoid similar complaints in the future. Don’t let valuable opportunities like that pass you by.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

A study of long-term outcomes after medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy for knee osteoarthritis suggests the procedure is associated with significant and sustained improvements in pain, function, quality of life, and gait biomechanics.

At the OARSI 2021 World Congress, PhD candidate Codie Primeau, MSc, of the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic at the University of Western Ontario, London, presented the findings from a 10-year prospective cohort study of 102 patients with symptomatic medial compartment knee osteoarthritis who underwent medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy but did not get a total knee replacement during the study.

The surgical procedure aims to correct malalignment by redistributing knee joint loads away from the affected compartment of the knee, with the ultimate goal of slowing disease progression and improving pain and function, Mr. Primeau told the conference, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

At 10 years, the procedure was associated with a mean 14.3-point improvement in the 0-100 Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for pain, a mean 12-point improvement in the score for function in daily living, a 15.5-point improvement in the score for function in sport and recreation, and a 24.5-point improvement in knee-related quality of life score. Researchers also saw a 35%-45% reduction in the magnitude of the external knee adduction moment from baseline, and a gradual reduction in the knee flexion moment over the course of the study.

While the improvements did decline somewhat over the 10 years, 53% of patients still met the criteria for responder at the end of the follow-up period, meaning that they had a relative change of at least 20% in both KOOS pain and function scores, and an absolute change of at least 10 points.

Mr. Primeau noted that the patient population represented those who were the best candidates for high tibial osteotomy, in that they were keen to avoid total knee replacement.

“While these types of patients may have the best outcomes, our studies suggest patients traditionally not considered ideal candidates for HTO [high tibial osteotomy] – such as females, and patients with limited disease in other knee compartments – also have large improvements in pain and function after HTO, and around 70% of those patients do not get a total knee replacement within 10 years,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Primeau suggested that the improvements achieved with high tibial osteotomy might extend the time before a knee replacement is required, or even help some patients avoid it altogether.

“Importantly, recent studies show HTO does not complicate future joint replacement surgery,” he said. “One can get a knee replacement after HTO; the reverse is not possible.”

The ideal patient for a high tibial osteotomy would be one whose osteoarthritis was confined to the medial compartment of the knee, was younger – in their 40s or 50s – and with relatively high activity levels, he said. Some studies also suggest better outcomes in men than women.

In response to an audience question about the rehabilitation requirements after high tibial osteotomy, Mr. Primeau commented that the design of the plates used in the procedure have changed over time, and this has influenced rehabilitation needs. When the study began, patients needed anywhere from 8 to 12 weeks of no weight bearing, using crutches, to allow for bone consolidation to occur.

“Since then, plate designs have changed a lot, and patients are able to start ambulating as early as 2 weeks after the surgery now,” he said. The rehabilitation is similar to what is required for knee osteoarthritis in general, focusing on range of motion, strengthening, proprioception, and muscle training.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

A study of long-term outcomes after medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy for knee osteoarthritis suggests the procedure is associated with significant and sustained improvements in pain, function, quality of life, and gait biomechanics.

At the OARSI 2021 World Congress, PhD candidate Codie Primeau, MSc, of the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic at the University of Western Ontario, London, presented the findings from a 10-year prospective cohort study of 102 patients with symptomatic medial compartment knee osteoarthritis who underwent medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy but did not get a total knee replacement during the study.

The surgical procedure aims to correct malalignment by redistributing knee joint loads away from the affected compartment of the knee, with the ultimate goal of slowing disease progression and improving pain and function, Mr. Primeau told the conference, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

At 10 years, the procedure was associated with a mean 14.3-point improvement in the 0-100 Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for pain, a mean 12-point improvement in the score for function in daily living, a 15.5-point improvement in the score for function in sport and recreation, and a 24.5-point improvement in knee-related quality of life score. Researchers also saw a 35%-45% reduction in the magnitude of the external knee adduction moment from baseline, and a gradual reduction in the knee flexion moment over the course of the study.

While the improvements did decline somewhat over the 10 years, 53% of patients still met the criteria for responder at the end of the follow-up period, meaning that they had a relative change of at least 20% in both KOOS pain and function scores, and an absolute change of at least 10 points.

Mr. Primeau noted that the patient population represented those who were the best candidates for high tibial osteotomy, in that they were keen to avoid total knee replacement.

“While these types of patients may have the best outcomes, our studies suggest patients traditionally not considered ideal candidates for HTO [high tibial osteotomy] – such as females, and patients with limited disease in other knee compartments – also have large improvements in pain and function after HTO, and around 70% of those patients do not get a total knee replacement within 10 years,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Primeau suggested that the improvements achieved with high tibial osteotomy might extend the time before a knee replacement is required, or even help some patients avoid it altogether.

“Importantly, recent studies show HTO does not complicate future joint replacement surgery,” he said. “One can get a knee replacement after HTO; the reverse is not possible.”

The ideal patient for a high tibial osteotomy would be one whose osteoarthritis was confined to the medial compartment of the knee, was younger – in their 40s or 50s – and with relatively high activity levels, he said. Some studies also suggest better outcomes in men than women.

In response to an audience question about the rehabilitation requirements after high tibial osteotomy, Mr. Primeau commented that the design of the plates used in the procedure have changed over time, and this has influenced rehabilitation needs. When the study began, patients needed anywhere from 8 to 12 weeks of no weight bearing, using crutches, to allow for bone consolidation to occur.

“Since then, plate designs have changed a lot, and patients are able to start ambulating as early as 2 weeks after the surgery now,” he said. The rehabilitation is similar to what is required for knee osteoarthritis in general, focusing on range of motion, strengthening, proprioception, and muscle training.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

A study of long-term outcomes after medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy for knee osteoarthritis suggests the procedure is associated with significant and sustained improvements in pain, function, quality of life, and gait biomechanics.

At the OARSI 2021 World Congress, PhD candidate Codie Primeau, MSc, of the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic at the University of Western Ontario, London, presented the findings from a 10-year prospective cohort study of 102 patients with symptomatic medial compartment knee osteoarthritis who underwent medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy but did not get a total knee replacement during the study.

The surgical procedure aims to correct malalignment by redistributing knee joint loads away from the affected compartment of the knee, with the ultimate goal of slowing disease progression and improving pain and function, Mr. Primeau told the conference, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

At 10 years, the procedure was associated with a mean 14.3-point improvement in the 0-100 Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for pain, a mean 12-point improvement in the score for function in daily living, a 15.5-point improvement in the score for function in sport and recreation, and a 24.5-point improvement in knee-related quality of life score. Researchers also saw a 35%-45% reduction in the magnitude of the external knee adduction moment from baseline, and a gradual reduction in the knee flexion moment over the course of the study.

While the improvements did decline somewhat over the 10 years, 53% of patients still met the criteria for responder at the end of the follow-up period, meaning that they had a relative change of at least 20% in both KOOS pain and function scores, and an absolute change of at least 10 points.

Mr. Primeau noted that the patient population represented those who were the best candidates for high tibial osteotomy, in that they were keen to avoid total knee replacement.

“While these types of patients may have the best outcomes, our studies suggest patients traditionally not considered ideal candidates for HTO [high tibial osteotomy] – such as females, and patients with limited disease in other knee compartments – also have large improvements in pain and function after HTO, and around 70% of those patients do not get a total knee replacement within 10 years,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Primeau suggested that the improvements achieved with high tibial osteotomy might extend the time before a knee replacement is required, or even help some patients avoid it altogether.

“Importantly, recent studies show HTO does not complicate future joint replacement surgery,” he said. “One can get a knee replacement after HTO; the reverse is not possible.”

The ideal patient for a high tibial osteotomy would be one whose osteoarthritis was confined to the medial compartment of the knee, was younger – in their 40s or 50s – and with relatively high activity levels, he said. Some studies also suggest better outcomes in men than women.

In response to an audience question about the rehabilitation requirements after high tibial osteotomy, Mr. Primeau commented that the design of the plates used in the procedure have changed over time, and this has influenced rehabilitation needs. When the study began, patients needed anywhere from 8 to 12 weeks of no weight bearing, using crutches, to allow for bone consolidation to occur.

“Since then, plate designs have changed a lot, and patients are able to start ambulating as early as 2 weeks after the surgery now,” he said. The rehabilitation is similar to what is required for knee osteoarthritis in general, focusing on range of motion, strengthening, proprioception, and muscle training.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

You’ve successfully resected a skin cancer lesion, leaving clear margins. Now what?

That’s the question the authors of an evidence-based guideline on reconstruction after skin cancer resection set out to answer.

The guideline – a joint effort of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Mohs Surgery, and American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

From the outset, the panel members realized that to keep the guideline manageable they had to limit recommendations to the practice of reconstruction defined as “cutaneous closure that requires a flap, graft, or tissue rearrangement.”

Other wound closure methods, such as secondary intention healing; simple closures; and complex closures that do not involve flaps, grafts, muscle, or bone, were not covered in the recommendations.

As with similar guidelines, the developers selected seven clinical questions to be addressed, and attempted to find consensus through literature searches, appraisal of the evidence, grading of recommendations, peer review, and public comment.

“We had a very heterogeneous set of things that we were trying to comment on, so we had to keep things somewhat generic,” lead author Andrew Chen, MD, chief of the division of plastic surgery, at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, said in an interview.

“Skin cancer and reconstruction affect different body areas and areas of different sizes. When we were creating the guidelines, we had to tailor the questions we could ask based on things that would make sense to answer, because obviously we couldn’t ask a question such as: ‘What’s better, a skin graft or a flap?’ Well, there are some things you can’t put a skin graft on – it won’t last, so we couldn’t ask that kind of question,” Dr. Chen said.

Curtis Cetrulo, MD, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the guideline process, said in an interview that the broad recommendations are in keeping with his practice and experience. He also acknowledged, however, the difficulty in creating a guideline that covers the complexity and heterogeneity of reconstructive surgery.

“These are generally good recommendations, but they’re recommendations only, with generally weak levels of evidence. What we really need are clinical trials that can give us definitive answers to some of these questions,” he said.

Recommendations
 

The seven key recommendations, based on the clinical questions raised, are summarized below:

• Delayed (asynchronous) reconstruction is acceptable. Although the quality of the evidence is low and the recommendations are listed as an option, the guideline authors said that depending on the situation, reconstruction can be performed either immediately after resection or delayed by days, weeks, “or even months.”
• Systemic antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in the interim between resection and reconstruction in adults. Here too, the evidence is low and the recommendation strength is weak, but in “the absence of data showing convincing benefits, systemic antibiotic therapy does not appear necessary or desirable in most cases when there is an interval between cancer resection and reconstruction,” the work group wrote.
• Clinicians may administer perioperative systemic antibiotics in a facility-based setting for adults undergoing reconstruction (3a), but antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in an office-based setting (3b). The rationale for these recommendations, supported by a moderate level of evidence, is that the risk of surgical-site infection is generally higher in facilities, compared with an office-based setting. Patients who undergo reconstruction in hospitals or surgical centers are more likely to have complex reconstructions or have risks that may make them suitable candidates for antibiotics, but patients in office-based setting may often be spared from the additional costs, side effects, and possible drug interactions from antibiotic use. “There is no evidence in either setting that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis provides infection risk reduction, compared with short-term prophylaxis,” the guideline working group wrote.
• Continue anticoagulant, antithrombotic, and antiplatelet medications for adult patients undergoing reconstruction after skin cancer resection in the office-based setting (4a), and in the facility-based setting should coordinate with the physician managing anticoagulation before modifying the medication prior to surgery (4b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• The guideline authors recommend against routine prescription of narcotics as first-line treatment for pain in adults undergoing skin reconstruction (5a), favoring instead acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line therapy (5b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• In the absence of standardized protocols for the management of pain medications, oral antibiotics, and/or anticoagulants in the perioperative period, clinicians should discuss possible approaches with adult patients. “Educating patients about their perioperative treatment through discussion of treatment strategies may help alleviate anxiety, improve communication, increase patient satisfaction, and maximize patient compliance with the postoperative orders,” the guideline authors wrote.
• The authors suggest that adult patients may be offered follow-up assessments to discuss functional and cosmetic outcomes. “The return of the patient for follow-up visits is an excellent opportunity to better understand and measure these outcomes, improve patient-physician communication, and foster quality improvement. Postoperative follow-up can lead to increased communication between the patient and physician, thereby empowering patients to comment on satisfaction and other important outcomes measures,” they wrote.

What’s next

The guideline developers acknowledged that data are limited regarding reconstructive surgery following skin cancer resection, and that higher-quality studies would help to improve future guidelines. Dr. Chen said that greater use of prospective surgical databases and more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could inform further efforts.

The guideline development process was supported by the various groups represented. Dr. Chen and Dr. Cetrulo reported no relevant disclosures.

You’ve successfully resected a skin cancer lesion, leaving clear margins. Now what?

That’s the question the authors of an evidence-based guideline on reconstruction after skin cancer resection set out to answer.

The guideline – a joint effort of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Mohs Surgery, and American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

From the outset, the panel members realized that to keep the guideline manageable they had to limit recommendations to the practice of reconstruction defined as “cutaneous closure that requires a flap, graft, or tissue rearrangement.”

Other wound closure methods, such as secondary intention healing; simple closures; and complex closures that do not involve flaps, grafts, muscle, or bone, were not covered in the recommendations.

As with similar guidelines, the developers selected seven clinical questions to be addressed, and attempted to find consensus through literature searches, appraisal of the evidence, grading of recommendations, peer review, and public comment.

“We had a very heterogeneous set of things that we were trying to comment on, so we had to keep things somewhat generic,” lead author Andrew Chen, MD, chief of the division of plastic surgery, at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, said in an interview.

“Skin cancer and reconstruction affect different body areas and areas of different sizes. When we were creating the guidelines, we had to tailor the questions we could ask based on things that would make sense to answer, because obviously we couldn’t ask a question such as: ‘What’s better, a skin graft or a flap?’ Well, there are some things you can’t put a skin graft on – it won’t last, so we couldn’t ask that kind of question,” Dr. Chen said.

Curtis Cetrulo, MD, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the guideline process, said in an interview that the broad recommendations are in keeping with his practice and experience. He also acknowledged, however, the difficulty in creating a guideline that covers the complexity and heterogeneity of reconstructive surgery.

“These are generally good recommendations, but they’re recommendations only, with generally weak levels of evidence. What we really need are clinical trials that can give us definitive answers to some of these questions,” he said.

Recommendations
 

The seven key recommendations, based on the clinical questions raised, are summarized below:

• Delayed (asynchronous) reconstruction is acceptable. Although the quality of the evidence is low and the recommendations are listed as an option, the guideline authors said that depending on the situation, reconstruction can be performed either immediately after resection or delayed by days, weeks, “or even months.”
• Systemic antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in the interim between resection and reconstruction in adults. Here too, the evidence is low and the recommendation strength is weak, but in “the absence of data showing convincing benefits, systemic antibiotic therapy does not appear necessary or desirable in most cases when there is an interval between cancer resection and reconstruction,” the work group wrote.
• Clinicians may administer perioperative systemic antibiotics in a facility-based setting for adults undergoing reconstruction (3a), but antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in an office-based setting (3b). The rationale for these recommendations, supported by a moderate level of evidence, is that the risk of surgical-site infection is generally higher in facilities, compared with an office-based setting. Patients who undergo reconstruction in hospitals or surgical centers are more likely to have complex reconstructions or have risks that may make them suitable candidates for antibiotics, but patients in office-based setting may often be spared from the additional costs, side effects, and possible drug interactions from antibiotic use. “There is no evidence in either setting that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis provides infection risk reduction, compared with short-term prophylaxis,” the guideline working group wrote.
• Continue anticoagulant, antithrombotic, and antiplatelet medications for adult patients undergoing reconstruction after skin cancer resection in the office-based setting (4a), and in the facility-based setting should coordinate with the physician managing anticoagulation before modifying the medication prior to surgery (4b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• The guideline authors recommend against routine prescription of narcotics as first-line treatment for pain in adults undergoing skin reconstruction (5a), favoring instead acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line therapy (5b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• In the absence of standardized protocols for the management of pain medications, oral antibiotics, and/or anticoagulants in the perioperative period, clinicians should discuss possible approaches with adult patients. “Educating patients about their perioperative treatment through discussion of treatment strategies may help alleviate anxiety, improve communication, increase patient satisfaction, and maximize patient compliance with the postoperative orders,” the guideline authors wrote.
• The authors suggest that adult patients may be offered follow-up assessments to discuss functional and cosmetic outcomes. “The return of the patient for follow-up visits is an excellent opportunity to better understand and measure these outcomes, improve patient-physician communication, and foster quality improvement. Postoperative follow-up can lead to increased communication between the patient and physician, thereby empowering patients to comment on satisfaction and other important outcomes measures,” they wrote.

What’s next

The guideline developers acknowledged that data are limited regarding reconstructive surgery following skin cancer resection, and that higher-quality studies would help to improve future guidelines. Dr. Chen said that greater use of prospective surgical databases and more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could inform further efforts.

The guideline development process was supported by the various groups represented. Dr. Chen and Dr. Cetrulo reported no relevant disclosures.

You’ve successfully resected a skin cancer lesion, leaving clear margins. Now what?

That’s the question the authors of an evidence-based guideline on reconstruction after skin cancer resection set out to answer.

The guideline – a joint effort of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Mohs Surgery, and American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

From the outset, the panel members realized that to keep the guideline manageable they had to limit recommendations to the practice of reconstruction defined as “cutaneous closure that requires a flap, graft, or tissue rearrangement.”

Other wound closure methods, such as secondary intention healing; simple closures; and complex closures that do not involve flaps, grafts, muscle, or bone, were not covered in the recommendations.

As with similar guidelines, the developers selected seven clinical questions to be addressed, and attempted to find consensus through literature searches, appraisal of the evidence, grading of recommendations, peer review, and public comment.

“We had a very heterogeneous set of things that we were trying to comment on, so we had to keep things somewhat generic,” lead author Andrew Chen, MD, chief of the division of plastic surgery, at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, said in an interview.

“Skin cancer and reconstruction affect different body areas and areas of different sizes. When we were creating the guidelines, we had to tailor the questions we could ask based on things that would make sense to answer, because obviously we couldn’t ask a question such as: ‘What’s better, a skin graft or a flap?’ Well, there are some things you can’t put a skin graft on – it won’t last, so we couldn’t ask that kind of question,” Dr. Chen said.

Curtis Cetrulo, MD, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the guideline process, said in an interview that the broad recommendations are in keeping with his practice and experience. He also acknowledged, however, the difficulty in creating a guideline that covers the complexity and heterogeneity of reconstructive surgery.

“These are generally good recommendations, but they’re recommendations only, with generally weak levels of evidence. What we really need are clinical trials that can give us definitive answers to some of these questions,” he said.

Recommendations
 

The seven key recommendations, based on the clinical questions raised, are summarized below:

• Delayed (asynchronous) reconstruction is acceptable. Although the quality of the evidence is low and the recommendations are listed as an option, the guideline authors said that depending on the situation, reconstruction can be performed either immediately after resection or delayed by days, weeks, “or even months.”
• Systemic antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in the interim between resection and reconstruction in adults. Here too, the evidence is low and the recommendation strength is weak, but in “the absence of data showing convincing benefits, systemic antibiotic therapy does not appear necessary or desirable in most cases when there is an interval between cancer resection and reconstruction,” the work group wrote.
• Clinicians may administer perioperative systemic antibiotics in a facility-based setting for adults undergoing reconstruction (3a), but antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in an office-based setting (3b). The rationale for these recommendations, supported by a moderate level of evidence, is that the risk of surgical-site infection is generally higher in facilities, compared with an office-based setting. Patients who undergo reconstruction in hospitals or surgical centers are more likely to have complex reconstructions or have risks that may make them suitable candidates for antibiotics, but patients in office-based setting may often be spared from the additional costs, side effects, and possible drug interactions from antibiotic use. “There is no evidence in either setting that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis provides infection risk reduction, compared with short-term prophylaxis,” the guideline working group wrote.
• Continue anticoagulant, antithrombotic, and antiplatelet medications for adult patients undergoing reconstruction after skin cancer resection in the office-based setting (4a), and in the facility-based setting should coordinate with the physician managing anticoagulation before modifying the medication prior to surgery (4b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• The guideline authors recommend against routine prescription of narcotics as first-line treatment for pain in adults undergoing skin reconstruction (5a), favoring instead acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line therapy (5b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• In the absence of standardized protocols for the management of pain medications, oral antibiotics, and/or anticoagulants in the perioperative period, clinicians should discuss possible approaches with adult patients. “Educating patients about their perioperative treatment through discussion of treatment strategies may help alleviate anxiety, improve communication, increase patient satisfaction, and maximize patient compliance with the postoperative orders,” the guideline authors wrote.
• The authors suggest that adult patients may be offered follow-up assessments to discuss functional and cosmetic outcomes. “The return of the patient for follow-up visits is an excellent opportunity to better understand and measure these outcomes, improve patient-physician communication, and foster quality improvement. Postoperative follow-up can lead to increased communication between the patient and physician, thereby empowering patients to comment on satisfaction and other important outcomes measures,” they wrote.

What’s next

The guideline developers acknowledged that data are limited regarding reconstructive surgery following skin cancer resection, and that higher-quality studies would help to improve future guidelines. Dr. Chen said that greater use of prospective surgical databases and more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could inform further efforts.

The guideline development process was supported by the various groups represented. Dr. Chen and Dr. Cetrulo reported no relevant disclosures.

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.
 

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.
 

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.