MDedge Surgery

Patients who receive the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are experiencing a variety of skin rashes, a dermatologist told colleagues, and some lesions don’t appear until several days after an injection. The good news is that these side effects tend to be minor and vanish within a few days, Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“The reality is actually very reassuring,” Dr. Freeman said, especially in light of what is currently known about when the rashes occur and how anaphylaxis is extremely uncommon. Now, she added, dermatologists can tell patients who had reactions to their initial vaccination that “we know you had this big reaction, and we know that it was upsetting and uncomfortable. But it may not happen the second time around. And if it does, [the reaction is] probably going to be smaller.”

Dr. Freeman, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, highlighted a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology that she coauthored with dermatologists across the United States. The researchers tracked 414 cutaneous reactions to the Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%) COVID-19 vaccines in a group of patients, which was 90% female, 78% White, and mostly from the United States. Their average age was 44 years. The cases were reported to the AAD–International League of Dermatological Societies registry of COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations.

While most were women, “it’s a little hard to know if this is really going to end up being a true finding,” said Dr. Freeman, the registry’s principal investigator and a member of the AAD’s COVID-19 Ad Hoc Task Force. “If you think about who got vaccinated early, it was health care providers, and the American health care workforce is over 70% female. So I think there’s a little bit of bias here. There may also be a bias because women may be slightly more likely to report or go to their health care provider for a rash.”

Delayed large local reactions were the most common, accounting for 66% (175 cases) of the 267 skin reactions reported after the first Moderna vaccine dose and 30% (31 cases) of the 102 reactions reported after the second dose. These reactions represented 15% (5 cases) of the 34 skin reactions reported after the first Pfizer vaccine dose and 18% (7 cases) of the 40 reactions after the second dose.

There are two peaks with that first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “There’s a peak around day 2 or 3. And there’s another peak around day 7 or 8 with some of these reactions. Only 27% who had a reaction with the first dose had the same reaction with the second.” She added that these reactions “are not cellulitis and don’t require antibiotics.”

Other more common reactions included local injection-site reactions (swelling, erythema, and pain), urticaria (after 24 hours in almost all cases, occurring at a higher rate in patients who received the Pfizer vaccine), and morbilliform eruptions.

Dr. Freeman said that patients may experience redness and swelling in the hands and feet that can be “very uncomfortable.” She described one patient “who was having a hard time actually closing his fist, just because of the amount of swelling and redness in his hand. It did resolve, and it’s important to reassure your patients it will go away.”

According to this study, less common reports of other cutaneous findings with both vaccines included 9 reports of swelling at the site of cosmetic fillers, 8 reports of pernio/chilblains, 10 reports of varicella zoster, 4 reports of herpes simplex flares, 4 pityriasis rosea–like reactions, and 4 rashes in infants of vaccinated breastfeeding mothers.

The study noted that “patients responded well to topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines, and/or pain-relieving medications. These reactions resolved after a median of 3-4 days.”

It’s important to understand that none of the patients developed anaphylaxis after the second dose even if they’d had a reaction to the first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “But I should point out that we’re talking about reactions that have started more than 4 hours after the vaccine. If a rash such as a urticaria specifically starts within 4 hours of vaccination, that’s in a different category. Those are considered more immediate allergic reactions, and those patients need to be seen by allergy before a second dose.”

Dr. Freeman added that “it’s really interesting to think about how our bodies are really reacting to the vaccine in a way that’s mimicking our body’s reactions to COVID-19.” For example, some patients who got vaccinated developed chilblains similar to the “COVID toes” described in infected patients, apparently as part of the body’s immune response to the virus. “We’ve seen this in patients who actually had COVID and had prior COVID toes and then actually got a flare with their vaccine. And then we’ve also seen it in patients who never had COVID.”

In regard to general advice for patients, she said, “I do still encourage my patients who previously had COVID to go ahead and get the vaccine even if they had a skin manifestation with COVID.”

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has have seen only a handful of cases of delayed large local reactions and local injection site reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. “I have seen a significant number of cases of acute urticaria following the first and second doses,” she said in an interview. “However, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot determine cause and effect for the cases of acute urticaria. They may or may not be vaccine related.”

Fortunately, none of the adverse effects she’s seen have been severe. “It is important that dermatologists educate the public and their patients that most people do not develop any skin reaction in response to the vaccine,” she said. In the minority who do, “reactions tend to be mild and are not life-threatening. Many of these skin reactions resolve on their own without treatment.”

She added that “patients with pernio/chilblains or herpes zoster following vaccination should be referred by a board-certified dermatologist for prompt treatment and to avoid sequelae.”


 

‘COVID vaccine arm’

Delayed local reactions to the Moderna vaccine were also described in a report published online on May 12, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, after the AAD meeting, in 16 patients referred to the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital Dermatology service who experienced delayed localized cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions a median of 7 days after receiving the vaccine (range, 2-12 days), from Jan. 20 to Feb. 12, 2021. No such cases were reported in Pfizer vaccine recipients.

Of the 16 patients, whose median age was 38 years and who were mostly women, 15 developed the reaction after the first dose, described as “pruritic and variably painful erythematous reactions near the injection site,” which lasted a median of 5 days (range, 1-21 days). After the second dose, 12 of the 16 patients developed injection-site reactions (including one patient who had no reaction after dose 1), a median of 2 days after the vaccine was administered (range, 0-5 days). Histologic results of a biopsy in one patient with a reaction to the second dose “ demonstrated mild predominantly perivascular and focal interstitial mixed infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils consistent with a dermal hypersensitivity reaction,” wrote Alicia J. Little, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, and coauthors.

Compared with immediate hypersensitivity reactions, occurring within 4 hours of vaccination, such as anaphylaxis and urticaria, they concluded that “these delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions are not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination,” and they proposed that they be named “COVID vaccine arm.”

Dr. Freeman reported no disclosures. Dr. Lipner also had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Little reported receiving a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science and a Women’s Health Career Development Award from the Dermatology Foundation while the study was conducted; another author reported equity in Johnson & Johnson in his spouse’s retirement fund outside the submitted work.
 

Patients who receive the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are experiencing a variety of skin rashes, a dermatologist told colleagues, and some lesions don’t appear until several days after an injection. The good news is that these side effects tend to be minor and vanish within a few days, Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“The reality is actually very reassuring,” Dr. Freeman said, especially in light of what is currently known about when the rashes occur and how anaphylaxis is extremely uncommon. Now, she added, dermatologists can tell patients who had reactions to their initial vaccination that “we know you had this big reaction, and we know that it was upsetting and uncomfortable. But it may not happen the second time around. And if it does, [the reaction is] probably going to be smaller.”

Dr. Freeman, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, highlighted a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology that she coauthored with dermatologists across the United States. The researchers tracked 414 cutaneous reactions to the Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%) COVID-19 vaccines in a group of patients, which was 90% female, 78% White, and mostly from the United States. Their average age was 44 years. The cases were reported to the AAD–International League of Dermatological Societies registry of COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations.

While most were women, “it’s a little hard to know if this is really going to end up being a true finding,” said Dr. Freeman, the registry’s principal investigator and a member of the AAD’s COVID-19 Ad Hoc Task Force. “If you think about who got vaccinated early, it was health care providers, and the American health care workforce is over 70% female. So I think there’s a little bit of bias here. There may also be a bias because women may be slightly more likely to report or go to their health care provider for a rash.”

Delayed large local reactions were the most common, accounting for 66% (175 cases) of the 267 skin reactions reported after the first Moderna vaccine dose and 30% (31 cases) of the 102 reactions reported after the second dose. These reactions represented 15% (5 cases) of the 34 skin reactions reported after the first Pfizer vaccine dose and 18% (7 cases) of the 40 reactions after the second dose.

There are two peaks with that first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “There’s a peak around day 2 or 3. And there’s another peak around day 7 or 8 with some of these reactions. Only 27% who had a reaction with the first dose had the same reaction with the second.” She added that these reactions “are not cellulitis and don’t require antibiotics.”

Other more common reactions included local injection-site reactions (swelling, erythema, and pain), urticaria (after 24 hours in almost all cases, occurring at a higher rate in patients who received the Pfizer vaccine), and morbilliform eruptions.

Dr. Freeman said that patients may experience redness and swelling in the hands and feet that can be “very uncomfortable.” She described one patient “who was having a hard time actually closing his fist, just because of the amount of swelling and redness in his hand. It did resolve, and it’s important to reassure your patients it will go away.”

According to this study, less common reports of other cutaneous findings with both vaccines included 9 reports of swelling at the site of cosmetic fillers, 8 reports of pernio/chilblains, 10 reports of varicella zoster, 4 reports of herpes simplex flares, 4 pityriasis rosea–like reactions, and 4 rashes in infants of vaccinated breastfeeding mothers.

The study noted that “patients responded well to topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines, and/or pain-relieving medications. These reactions resolved after a median of 3-4 days.”

It’s important to understand that none of the patients developed anaphylaxis after the second dose even if they’d had a reaction to the first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “But I should point out that we’re talking about reactions that have started more than 4 hours after the vaccine. If a rash such as a urticaria specifically starts within 4 hours of vaccination, that’s in a different category. Those are considered more immediate allergic reactions, and those patients need to be seen by allergy before a second dose.”

Dr. Freeman added that “it’s really interesting to think about how our bodies are really reacting to the vaccine in a way that’s mimicking our body’s reactions to COVID-19.” For example, some patients who got vaccinated developed chilblains similar to the “COVID toes” described in infected patients, apparently as part of the body’s immune response to the virus. “We’ve seen this in patients who actually had COVID and had prior COVID toes and then actually got a flare with their vaccine. And then we’ve also seen it in patients who never had COVID.”

In regard to general advice for patients, she said, “I do still encourage my patients who previously had COVID to go ahead and get the vaccine even if they had a skin manifestation with COVID.”

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has have seen only a handful of cases of delayed large local reactions and local injection site reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. “I have seen a significant number of cases of acute urticaria following the first and second doses,” she said in an interview. “However, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot determine cause and effect for the cases of acute urticaria. They may or may not be vaccine related.”

Fortunately, none of the adverse effects she’s seen have been severe. “It is important that dermatologists educate the public and their patients that most people do not develop any skin reaction in response to the vaccine,” she said. In the minority who do, “reactions tend to be mild and are not life-threatening. Many of these skin reactions resolve on their own without treatment.”

She added that “patients with pernio/chilblains or herpes zoster following vaccination should be referred by a board-certified dermatologist for prompt treatment and to avoid sequelae.”


 

‘COVID vaccine arm’

Delayed local reactions to the Moderna vaccine were also described in a report published online on May 12, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, after the AAD meeting, in 16 patients referred to the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital Dermatology service who experienced delayed localized cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions a median of 7 days after receiving the vaccine (range, 2-12 days), from Jan. 20 to Feb. 12, 2021. No such cases were reported in Pfizer vaccine recipients.

Of the 16 patients, whose median age was 38 years and who were mostly women, 15 developed the reaction after the first dose, described as “pruritic and variably painful erythematous reactions near the injection site,” which lasted a median of 5 days (range, 1-21 days). After the second dose, 12 of the 16 patients developed injection-site reactions (including one patient who had no reaction after dose 1), a median of 2 days after the vaccine was administered (range, 0-5 days). Histologic results of a biopsy in one patient with a reaction to the second dose “ demonstrated mild predominantly perivascular and focal interstitial mixed infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils consistent with a dermal hypersensitivity reaction,” wrote Alicia J. Little, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, and coauthors.

Compared with immediate hypersensitivity reactions, occurring within 4 hours of vaccination, such as anaphylaxis and urticaria, they concluded that “these delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions are not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination,” and they proposed that they be named “COVID vaccine arm.”

Dr. Freeman reported no disclosures. Dr. Lipner also had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Little reported receiving a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science and a Women’s Health Career Development Award from the Dermatology Foundation while the study was conducted; another author reported equity in Johnson & Johnson in his spouse’s retirement fund outside the submitted work.
 

Patients who receive the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are experiencing a variety of skin rashes, a dermatologist told colleagues, and some lesions don’t appear until several days after an injection. The good news is that these side effects tend to be minor and vanish within a few days, Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“The reality is actually very reassuring,” Dr. Freeman said, especially in light of what is currently known about when the rashes occur and how anaphylaxis is extremely uncommon. Now, she added, dermatologists can tell patients who had reactions to their initial vaccination that “we know you had this big reaction, and we know that it was upsetting and uncomfortable. But it may not happen the second time around. And if it does, [the reaction is] probably going to be smaller.”

Dr. Freeman, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, highlighted a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology that she coauthored with dermatologists across the United States. The researchers tracked 414 cutaneous reactions to the Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%) COVID-19 vaccines in a group of patients, which was 90% female, 78% White, and mostly from the United States. Their average age was 44 years. The cases were reported to the AAD–International League of Dermatological Societies registry of COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations.

While most were women, “it’s a little hard to know if this is really going to end up being a true finding,” said Dr. Freeman, the registry’s principal investigator and a member of the AAD’s COVID-19 Ad Hoc Task Force. “If you think about who got vaccinated early, it was health care providers, and the American health care workforce is over 70% female. So I think there’s a little bit of bias here. There may also be a bias because women may be slightly more likely to report or go to their health care provider for a rash.”

Delayed large local reactions were the most common, accounting for 66% (175 cases) of the 267 skin reactions reported after the first Moderna vaccine dose and 30% (31 cases) of the 102 reactions reported after the second dose. These reactions represented 15% (5 cases) of the 34 skin reactions reported after the first Pfizer vaccine dose and 18% (7 cases) of the 40 reactions after the second dose.

There are two peaks with that first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “There’s a peak around day 2 or 3. And there’s another peak around day 7 or 8 with some of these reactions. Only 27% who had a reaction with the first dose had the same reaction with the second.” She added that these reactions “are not cellulitis and don’t require antibiotics.”

Other more common reactions included local injection-site reactions (swelling, erythema, and pain), urticaria (after 24 hours in almost all cases, occurring at a higher rate in patients who received the Pfizer vaccine), and morbilliform eruptions.

Dr. Freeman said that patients may experience redness and swelling in the hands and feet that can be “very uncomfortable.” She described one patient “who was having a hard time actually closing his fist, just because of the amount of swelling and redness in his hand. It did resolve, and it’s important to reassure your patients it will go away.”

According to this study, less common reports of other cutaneous findings with both vaccines included 9 reports of swelling at the site of cosmetic fillers, 8 reports of pernio/chilblains, 10 reports of varicella zoster, 4 reports of herpes simplex flares, 4 pityriasis rosea–like reactions, and 4 rashes in infants of vaccinated breastfeeding mothers.

The study noted that “patients responded well to topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines, and/or pain-relieving medications. These reactions resolved after a median of 3-4 days.”

It’s important to understand that none of the patients developed anaphylaxis after the second dose even if they’d had a reaction to the first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “But I should point out that we’re talking about reactions that have started more than 4 hours after the vaccine. If a rash such as a urticaria specifically starts within 4 hours of vaccination, that’s in a different category. Those are considered more immediate allergic reactions, and those patients need to be seen by allergy before a second dose.”

Dr. Freeman added that “it’s really interesting to think about how our bodies are really reacting to the vaccine in a way that’s mimicking our body’s reactions to COVID-19.” For example, some patients who got vaccinated developed chilblains similar to the “COVID toes” described in infected patients, apparently as part of the body’s immune response to the virus. “We’ve seen this in patients who actually had COVID and had prior COVID toes and then actually got a flare with their vaccine. And then we’ve also seen it in patients who never had COVID.”

In regard to general advice for patients, she said, “I do still encourage my patients who previously had COVID to go ahead and get the vaccine even if they had a skin manifestation with COVID.”

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has have seen only a handful of cases of delayed large local reactions and local injection site reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. “I have seen a significant number of cases of acute urticaria following the first and second doses,” she said in an interview. “However, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot determine cause and effect for the cases of acute urticaria. They may or may not be vaccine related.”

Fortunately, none of the adverse effects she’s seen have been severe. “It is important that dermatologists educate the public and their patients that most people do not develop any skin reaction in response to the vaccine,” she said. In the minority who do, “reactions tend to be mild and are not life-threatening. Many of these skin reactions resolve on their own without treatment.”

She added that “patients with pernio/chilblains or herpes zoster following vaccination should be referred by a board-certified dermatologist for prompt treatment and to avoid sequelae.”


 

‘COVID vaccine arm’

Delayed local reactions to the Moderna vaccine were also described in a report published online on May 12, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, after the AAD meeting, in 16 patients referred to the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital Dermatology service who experienced delayed localized cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions a median of 7 days after receiving the vaccine (range, 2-12 days), from Jan. 20 to Feb. 12, 2021. No such cases were reported in Pfizer vaccine recipients.

Of the 16 patients, whose median age was 38 years and who were mostly women, 15 developed the reaction after the first dose, described as “pruritic and variably painful erythematous reactions near the injection site,” which lasted a median of 5 days (range, 1-21 days). After the second dose, 12 of the 16 patients developed injection-site reactions (including one patient who had no reaction after dose 1), a median of 2 days after the vaccine was administered (range, 0-5 days). Histologic results of a biopsy in one patient with a reaction to the second dose “ demonstrated mild predominantly perivascular and focal interstitial mixed infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils consistent with a dermal hypersensitivity reaction,” wrote Alicia J. Little, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, and coauthors.

Compared with immediate hypersensitivity reactions, occurring within 4 hours of vaccination, such as anaphylaxis and urticaria, they concluded that “these delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions are not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination,” and they proposed that they be named “COVID vaccine arm.”

Dr. Freeman reported no disclosures. Dr. Lipner also had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Little reported receiving a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science and a Women’s Health Career Development Award from the Dermatology Foundation while the study was conducted; another author reported equity in Johnson & Johnson in his spouse’s retirement fund outside the submitted work.
 

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Debulking large exophytic basal cell carcinomas prior to hedgehog inhibitor therapy might improve outcomes, according to Allison Vidimos, MD, a Mohs surgeon and chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

She and her colleagues have noticed an accelerated and durable response to hedgehog inhibitors after debulking and are studying cell signaling before and after debulking to better understand the issue.

Dr. Vidimos shared a remarkable case to illustrate the point during a clinical pearls talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

An 82-year-old woman presented with a crusted, hemorrhagic, nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that had overgrown over nearly her entire nose and left lower eyelid. A recurrence of a previous BCC, the tumor had been growing for a decade and had invaded her nasal bones but not the periorbital tissue.

An outside surgeon suggested a full rhinectomy and removal of the lower eyelid, but the woman refused.

Dr. Vidimos decided to treat her with vismodegib, but prior to doing so, she debulked the tumor to help with the pain and bleeding. She did not curette the portion of tumor extending through the ala into the nasal vestibule. “I let the vismodegib take care of that,” she said.

After 9 months, the tumor was virtually gone, with no recurrence after 3 years. Surgical debulking prior to hedgehog inhibition “reduces the tumor burden and may increase the efficacy and shorten the course of therapy,” Dr. Vidimos said.

The hedgehog inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib Odomzo are both approved for treating locally advanced BCC, with a complete response of 31% of locally advanced disease with vismodegib, according to one report.

But monotherapy is limited by intolerable side effects, most commonly muscle spasms, alopecia, and dysgeusia. To minimize the impact, Dr. Vidimos generally puts patients on treatment with Monday through Friday dosing and gives them the weekends off, a schedule she and her colleagues have reported works as well as daily dosing.

Still, many patients discontinue the drugs because of the side effects. Hedgehog inhibitors are also expensive and responses aren’t always durable. To increase efficacy and shorten the course of therapy, “we need alternative treatment strategies,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Up-front tumor debulking is one such strategy. Altered cell signaling pathways associated with tissue remodeling might improve response, and debulking may reduce the genetic heterogeneity of tumor cells, rendering remaining cells less resistant to hedgehog inhibition, she explained.

“It is exciting to see how tumor debulking may reduce tumor burden and heterogeneity, and thus lead to a durable response in extensive tumors,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who heard the presentation. “More investigation is needed to reproduce these results, but this approach may lead to improved outcomes with targeted therapies,” he said in an interview.

Combination therapy with other agents is another option, and there also seems to be a synergistic effect with radiation, with hedgehog inhibitors increasing cellular response to radiation therapy, Dr. Vidimos said.

Hedgehog inhibitors can also be used to shrink tumors before surgery. One small series found a 27% decrease in the area of the tumor after 3 to 6 months of preoperative vismodegib.

Dr. Vidimos shared another case to illustrate the point.

A 64-year-old woman fainted and presented to the ED with a hemoglobin of 3.2 mg/dL because of chronic blood loss from an ulcerated BCC on her upper back. The lesion measured 25 cm by 9 cm, and was 3.5 cm deep with no bone involvement. The woman was addicted to opioids by the time she presented.

She was started on vismodegib; the ulcer shrunk considerably after 6 months, and the woman underwent a resection. Only one small focus of BCC was found across 78 specimens submitted to Dr. Vidimos for Mohs reading.

Resection was followed by a muscle flap repair and radiation. At 5 and a half years, there is no evidence of disease; the only sign that the lesion had been there was a scar running along the woman’s upper spine.

The approach “was very successful for a very aggressive and worrisome tumor,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Dr. Vidimos did not have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Debulking large exophytic basal cell carcinomas prior to hedgehog inhibitor therapy might improve outcomes, according to Allison Vidimos, MD, a Mohs surgeon and chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

She and her colleagues have noticed an accelerated and durable response to hedgehog inhibitors after debulking and are studying cell signaling before and after debulking to better understand the issue.

Dr. Vidimos shared a remarkable case to illustrate the point during a clinical pearls talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

An 82-year-old woman presented with a crusted, hemorrhagic, nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that had overgrown over nearly her entire nose and left lower eyelid. A recurrence of a previous BCC, the tumor had been growing for a decade and had invaded her nasal bones but not the periorbital tissue.

An outside surgeon suggested a full rhinectomy and removal of the lower eyelid, but the woman refused.

Dr. Vidimos decided to treat her with vismodegib, but prior to doing so, she debulked the tumor to help with the pain and bleeding. She did not curette the portion of tumor extending through the ala into the nasal vestibule. “I let the vismodegib take care of that,” she said.

After 9 months, the tumor was virtually gone, with no recurrence after 3 years. Surgical debulking prior to hedgehog inhibition “reduces the tumor burden and may increase the efficacy and shorten the course of therapy,” Dr. Vidimos said.

The hedgehog inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib Odomzo are both approved for treating locally advanced BCC, with a complete response of 31% of locally advanced disease with vismodegib, according to one report.

But monotherapy is limited by intolerable side effects, most commonly muscle spasms, alopecia, and dysgeusia. To minimize the impact, Dr. Vidimos generally puts patients on treatment with Monday through Friday dosing and gives them the weekends off, a schedule she and her colleagues have reported works as well as daily dosing.

Still, many patients discontinue the drugs because of the side effects. Hedgehog inhibitors are also expensive and responses aren’t always durable. To increase efficacy and shorten the course of therapy, “we need alternative treatment strategies,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Up-front tumor debulking is one such strategy. Altered cell signaling pathways associated with tissue remodeling might improve response, and debulking may reduce the genetic heterogeneity of tumor cells, rendering remaining cells less resistant to hedgehog inhibition, she explained.

“It is exciting to see how tumor debulking may reduce tumor burden and heterogeneity, and thus lead to a durable response in extensive tumors,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who heard the presentation. “More investigation is needed to reproduce these results, but this approach may lead to improved outcomes with targeted therapies,” he said in an interview.

Combination therapy with other agents is another option, and there also seems to be a synergistic effect with radiation, with hedgehog inhibitors increasing cellular response to radiation therapy, Dr. Vidimos said.

Hedgehog inhibitors can also be used to shrink tumors before surgery. One small series found a 27% decrease in the area of the tumor after 3 to 6 months of preoperative vismodegib.

Dr. Vidimos shared another case to illustrate the point.

A 64-year-old woman fainted and presented to the ED with a hemoglobin of 3.2 mg/dL because of chronic blood loss from an ulcerated BCC on her upper back. The lesion measured 25 cm by 9 cm, and was 3.5 cm deep with no bone involvement. The woman was addicted to opioids by the time she presented.

She was started on vismodegib; the ulcer shrunk considerably after 6 months, and the woman underwent a resection. Only one small focus of BCC was found across 78 specimens submitted to Dr. Vidimos for Mohs reading.

Resection was followed by a muscle flap repair and radiation. At 5 and a half years, there is no evidence of disease; the only sign that the lesion had been there was a scar running along the woman’s upper spine.

The approach “was very successful for a very aggressive and worrisome tumor,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Dr. Vidimos did not have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Debulking large exophytic basal cell carcinomas prior to hedgehog inhibitor therapy might improve outcomes, according to Allison Vidimos, MD, a Mohs surgeon and chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

She and her colleagues have noticed an accelerated and durable response to hedgehog inhibitors after debulking and are studying cell signaling before and after debulking to better understand the issue.

Dr. Vidimos shared a remarkable case to illustrate the point during a clinical pearls talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

An 82-year-old woman presented with a crusted, hemorrhagic, nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that had overgrown over nearly her entire nose and left lower eyelid. A recurrence of a previous BCC, the tumor had been growing for a decade and had invaded her nasal bones but not the periorbital tissue.

An outside surgeon suggested a full rhinectomy and removal of the lower eyelid, but the woman refused.

Dr. Vidimos decided to treat her with vismodegib, but prior to doing so, she debulked the tumor to help with the pain and bleeding. She did not curette the portion of tumor extending through the ala into the nasal vestibule. “I let the vismodegib take care of that,” she said.

After 9 months, the tumor was virtually gone, with no recurrence after 3 years. Surgical debulking prior to hedgehog inhibition “reduces the tumor burden and may increase the efficacy and shorten the course of therapy,” Dr. Vidimos said.

The hedgehog inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib Odomzo are both approved for treating locally advanced BCC, with a complete response of 31% of locally advanced disease with vismodegib, according to one report.

But monotherapy is limited by intolerable side effects, most commonly muscle spasms, alopecia, and dysgeusia. To minimize the impact, Dr. Vidimos generally puts patients on treatment with Monday through Friday dosing and gives them the weekends off, a schedule she and her colleagues have reported works as well as daily dosing.

Still, many patients discontinue the drugs because of the side effects. Hedgehog inhibitors are also expensive and responses aren’t always durable. To increase efficacy and shorten the course of therapy, “we need alternative treatment strategies,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Up-front tumor debulking is one such strategy. Altered cell signaling pathways associated with tissue remodeling might improve response, and debulking may reduce the genetic heterogeneity of tumor cells, rendering remaining cells less resistant to hedgehog inhibition, she explained.

“It is exciting to see how tumor debulking may reduce tumor burden and heterogeneity, and thus lead to a durable response in extensive tumors,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who heard the presentation. “More investigation is needed to reproduce these results, but this approach may lead to improved outcomes with targeted therapies,” he said in an interview.

Combination therapy with other agents is another option, and there also seems to be a synergistic effect with radiation, with hedgehog inhibitors increasing cellular response to radiation therapy, Dr. Vidimos said.

Hedgehog inhibitors can also be used to shrink tumors before surgery. One small series found a 27% decrease in the area of the tumor after 3 to 6 months of preoperative vismodegib.

Dr. Vidimos shared another case to illustrate the point.

A 64-year-old woman fainted and presented to the ED with a hemoglobin of 3.2 mg/dL because of chronic blood loss from an ulcerated BCC on her upper back. The lesion measured 25 cm by 9 cm, and was 3.5 cm deep with no bone involvement. The woman was addicted to opioids by the time she presented.

She was started on vismodegib; the ulcer shrunk considerably after 6 months, and the woman underwent a resection. Only one small focus of BCC was found across 78 specimens submitted to Dr. Vidimos for Mohs reading.

Resection was followed by a muscle flap repair and radiation. At 5 and a half years, there is no evidence of disease; the only sign that the lesion had been there was a scar running along the woman’s upper spine.

The approach “was very successful for a very aggressive and worrisome tumor,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Dr. Vidimos did not have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

The decline in the number of cosmetic procedures performed in 2020, compared with 2019, very closely matched the amount of the time lost to physicians because of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

There were an estimated 15.6 million cosmetic procedures performed in 2020, compared with 18.4 million in 2019, a drop of 15.2%. Meanwhile, society members reported that they stopped performing elective surgery for an average of 8.1 weeks, which works out to 15.6% of a 52-week year, the ASPS said in its annual statistics report.

“The pandemic isn’t over, but thanks to vaccines, a new normal is starting to define itself – and some surgeons’ offices that were closed or offered only limited services within the last year are seeing higher demand,” Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, immediate past president of the ASPS, said in a written statement.

Minimally invasive procedures, which made up the majority of cosmetic procedures in 2020, dropped by a slightly higher 16%, compared with 14% on the surgical side. “Injectables continued to be the most sought-after treatments in 2020,” the ASPS said, with survey respondents citing “a significant uptick in demand during the coronavirus pandemic.”

OnabotuliumtoxinA injection, the most popular form of minimally invasive procedure, was down by 13% from 2019, while use of soft-tissue fillers fell by 11%. Laser skin resurfacing was third in popularity and had the smallest drop, just 8%, among the top five from 2019 to 2020, the ASPS data show.

The drop in volume for chemical peels was large enough (33%), to move it from third place in 2019 to fourth in 2020, and a slightly less than average drop of 12% moved intense pulsed-light treatments from sixth place in 2019 to fifth in 2020, switching places with laser hair removal (down 28%), the ASPS reported.

Among the surgical procedures, rhinoplasty was the most popular in 2020, as it was in 2019, after dropping by just 3%. Blepharoplasty was down by 8% from 2019, but two other common procedures, liposuction and breast augmentation, fell by 20% and 33%, respectively, the ASPS said.

[email protected]

The decline in the number of cosmetic procedures performed in 2020, compared with 2019, very closely matched the amount of the time lost to physicians because of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

There were an estimated 15.6 million cosmetic procedures performed in 2020, compared with 18.4 million in 2019, a drop of 15.2%. Meanwhile, society members reported that they stopped performing elective surgery for an average of 8.1 weeks, which works out to 15.6% of a 52-week year, the ASPS said in its annual statistics report.

“The pandemic isn’t over, but thanks to vaccines, a new normal is starting to define itself – and some surgeons’ offices that were closed or offered only limited services within the last year are seeing higher demand,” Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, immediate past president of the ASPS, said in a written statement.

Minimally invasive procedures, which made up the majority of cosmetic procedures in 2020, dropped by a slightly higher 16%, compared with 14% on the surgical side. “Injectables continued to be the most sought-after treatments in 2020,” the ASPS said, with survey respondents citing “a significant uptick in demand during the coronavirus pandemic.”

OnabotuliumtoxinA injection, the most popular form of minimally invasive procedure, was down by 13% from 2019, while use of soft-tissue fillers fell by 11%. Laser skin resurfacing was third in popularity and had the smallest drop, just 8%, among the top five from 2019 to 2020, the ASPS data show.

The drop in volume for chemical peels was large enough (33%), to move it from third place in 2019 to fourth in 2020, and a slightly less than average drop of 12% moved intense pulsed-light treatments from sixth place in 2019 to fifth in 2020, switching places with laser hair removal (down 28%), the ASPS reported.

Among the surgical procedures, rhinoplasty was the most popular in 2020, as it was in 2019, after dropping by just 3%. Blepharoplasty was down by 8% from 2019, but two other common procedures, liposuction and breast augmentation, fell by 20% and 33%, respectively, the ASPS said.

[email protected]

The decline in the number of cosmetic procedures performed in 2020, compared with 2019, very closely matched the amount of the time lost to physicians because of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

There were an estimated 15.6 million cosmetic procedures performed in 2020, compared with 18.4 million in 2019, a drop of 15.2%. Meanwhile, society members reported that they stopped performing elective surgery for an average of 8.1 weeks, which works out to 15.6% of a 52-week year, the ASPS said in its annual statistics report.

“The pandemic isn’t over, but thanks to vaccines, a new normal is starting to define itself – and some surgeons’ offices that were closed or offered only limited services within the last year are seeing higher demand,” Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, immediate past president of the ASPS, said in a written statement.

Minimally invasive procedures, which made up the majority of cosmetic procedures in 2020, dropped by a slightly higher 16%, compared with 14% on the surgical side. “Injectables continued to be the most sought-after treatments in 2020,” the ASPS said, with survey respondents citing “a significant uptick in demand during the coronavirus pandemic.”

OnabotuliumtoxinA injection, the most popular form of minimally invasive procedure, was down by 13% from 2019, while use of soft-tissue fillers fell by 11%. Laser skin resurfacing was third in popularity and had the smallest drop, just 8%, among the top five from 2019 to 2020, the ASPS data show.

The drop in volume for chemical peels was large enough (33%), to move it from third place in 2019 to fourth in 2020, and a slightly less than average drop of 12% moved intense pulsed-light treatments from sixth place in 2019 to fifth in 2020, switching places with laser hair removal (down 28%), the ASPS reported.

Among the surgical procedures, rhinoplasty was the most popular in 2020, as it was in 2019, after dropping by just 3%. Blepharoplasty was down by 8% from 2019, but two other common procedures, liposuction and breast augmentation, fell by 20% and 33%, respectively, the ASPS said.

[email protected]

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

Printing meds per patient

tomspentys/Unsplash

What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.

Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.

Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.

Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.

Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
 

It’s hip to be Pfizered

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?

Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.

There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.

For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).

And yes, we are checking on that last one.
 

Allergies stink!

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.

That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.

Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.

Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.

Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
 

Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites

Photo by Jesse Casana

Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.

Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.

Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.

We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
 

Printing meds per patient

tomspentys/Unsplash

What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.

Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.

Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.

Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.

Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
 

It’s hip to be Pfizered

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?

Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.

There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.

For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).

And yes, we are checking on that last one.
 

Allergies stink!

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.

That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.

Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.

Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.

Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
 

Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites

Photo by Jesse Casana

Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.

Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.

Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.

We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
 

Printing meds per patient

tomspentys/Unsplash

What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.

Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.

Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.

Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.

Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
 

It’s hip to be Pfizered

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?

Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.

There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.

For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).

And yes, we are checking on that last one.
 

Allergies stink!

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.

That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.

Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.

Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.

Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
 

Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites

Photo by Jesse Casana

Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.

Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.

Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.

We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
 

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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