User login
The Official Newspaper of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery
Hong Kong zygomycosis deaths pinned to dirty hospital laundry
Contaminated laundry led to an outbreak of cutaneous and pulmonary zygomycosis that killed three immunocompromised patients and sickened three others at Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong.
The contamination was traced to a contract laundry service that was, in short, a microbe Disneyland. It was hot and humid, with sealed windows, dim lights, and a thick layer of dust on just about everything. Washers weren’t hot enough to kill spores; washed items were packed while warm and moist; and dirty linens rich with organic material were transported with clean ones (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 13. doi:10.1093/cid/civ1006).
Of 195 environmental samples, 119 (61%) were positive for Zygomycetes, as well as 100% of air samples. Freshly laundered items – including clothes and bedding – had bacteria counts of 1,028 colony forming units (CFU)/100 cm2, far exceeding the “hygienically clean” standard of 20 CFU/100 cm2 set by U.S. healthcare textile certification requirements.
Queen Mary didn’t regularly audit its linens for cleanliness and microbe counts. “Our findings [suggest] that such standards should be adopted to prevent similar outbreaks,” said the investigators, led by Dr. Vincent Cheng, an infection control officer at Queen Mary, one of Hong Kong’s largest hospitals and a teaching hospital for the University of Hong Kong.
It has since switched to a new laundry service.
The outbreak ran from June 2 to July 18, 2015, during Hong Kong’s hot and humid season, which didn’t help matters.
The six patients were 42-74 years old; one had interstitial lung disease and the rest were either cancer or transplant patients. Infection was due to the spore-forming mold Rhizopus microsporus. Two pulmonary and one cutaneous infection patient died.
Length of stay was the most significant risk factor for infection; the mean interval from admission to diagnosis was more than 2 months.
“Pulmonary zygomycosis due to contaminated hospital linens has never been reported.” Clinicians need to “maintain a high index of suspicion for early diagnosis and treatment of zygomycosis in immunosuppressed patients,” the investigators said.
The U.S. recently had a cutaneous outbreak in Louisiana; hospital linens contaminated with Rhizopus species killed five immunocompromised children there in 2015.
“Invasive zygomycosis is an emerging infection that is increasingly reported in immunosuppressed hosts;” previously reported sources include adhesive bandages, wooden tongue depressors, ostomy bags, damaged water circuitry, adjacent building construction activity, and, as Queen Mary reported previously, contaminated allopurinol tablets.
Detecting the problem isn’t easy. None of the Replicate Organism Detection and Counting contact plates at Queen Mary recovered zygomycetes from the contaminated linen items. It took sponge swapping to find it; “without the use of sponge swab and selective culture medium, the causative agents in this outbreak would have been overlooked,” the investigators said.
Hong Kong government services helped support the work. The authors did not have any financial conflicts of interest.
Contaminated laundry led to an outbreak of cutaneous and pulmonary zygomycosis that killed three immunocompromised patients and sickened three others at Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong.
The contamination was traced to a contract laundry service that was, in short, a microbe Disneyland. It was hot and humid, with sealed windows, dim lights, and a thick layer of dust on just about everything. Washers weren’t hot enough to kill spores; washed items were packed while warm and moist; and dirty linens rich with organic material were transported with clean ones (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 13. doi:10.1093/cid/civ1006).
Of 195 environmental samples, 119 (61%) were positive for Zygomycetes, as well as 100% of air samples. Freshly laundered items – including clothes and bedding – had bacteria counts of 1,028 colony forming units (CFU)/100 cm2, far exceeding the “hygienically clean” standard of 20 CFU/100 cm2 set by U.S. healthcare textile certification requirements.
Queen Mary didn’t regularly audit its linens for cleanliness and microbe counts. “Our findings [suggest] that such standards should be adopted to prevent similar outbreaks,” said the investigators, led by Dr. Vincent Cheng, an infection control officer at Queen Mary, one of Hong Kong’s largest hospitals and a teaching hospital for the University of Hong Kong.
It has since switched to a new laundry service.
The outbreak ran from June 2 to July 18, 2015, during Hong Kong’s hot and humid season, which didn’t help matters.
The six patients were 42-74 years old; one had interstitial lung disease and the rest were either cancer or transplant patients. Infection was due to the spore-forming mold Rhizopus microsporus. Two pulmonary and one cutaneous infection patient died.
Length of stay was the most significant risk factor for infection; the mean interval from admission to diagnosis was more than 2 months.
“Pulmonary zygomycosis due to contaminated hospital linens has never been reported.” Clinicians need to “maintain a high index of suspicion for early diagnosis and treatment of zygomycosis in immunosuppressed patients,” the investigators said.
The U.S. recently had a cutaneous outbreak in Louisiana; hospital linens contaminated with Rhizopus species killed five immunocompromised children there in 2015.
“Invasive zygomycosis is an emerging infection that is increasingly reported in immunosuppressed hosts;” previously reported sources include adhesive bandages, wooden tongue depressors, ostomy bags, damaged water circuitry, adjacent building construction activity, and, as Queen Mary reported previously, contaminated allopurinol tablets.
Detecting the problem isn’t easy. None of the Replicate Organism Detection and Counting contact plates at Queen Mary recovered zygomycetes from the contaminated linen items. It took sponge swapping to find it; “without the use of sponge swab and selective culture medium, the causative agents in this outbreak would have been overlooked,” the investigators said.
Hong Kong government services helped support the work. The authors did not have any financial conflicts of interest.
Contaminated laundry led to an outbreak of cutaneous and pulmonary zygomycosis that killed three immunocompromised patients and sickened three others at Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong.
The contamination was traced to a contract laundry service that was, in short, a microbe Disneyland. It was hot and humid, with sealed windows, dim lights, and a thick layer of dust on just about everything. Washers weren’t hot enough to kill spores; washed items were packed while warm and moist; and dirty linens rich with organic material were transported with clean ones (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 13. doi:10.1093/cid/civ1006).
Of 195 environmental samples, 119 (61%) were positive for Zygomycetes, as well as 100% of air samples. Freshly laundered items – including clothes and bedding – had bacteria counts of 1,028 colony forming units (CFU)/100 cm2, far exceeding the “hygienically clean” standard of 20 CFU/100 cm2 set by U.S. healthcare textile certification requirements.
Queen Mary didn’t regularly audit its linens for cleanliness and microbe counts. “Our findings [suggest] that such standards should be adopted to prevent similar outbreaks,” said the investigators, led by Dr. Vincent Cheng, an infection control officer at Queen Mary, one of Hong Kong’s largest hospitals and a teaching hospital for the University of Hong Kong.
It has since switched to a new laundry service.
The outbreak ran from June 2 to July 18, 2015, during Hong Kong’s hot and humid season, which didn’t help matters.
The six patients were 42-74 years old; one had interstitial lung disease and the rest were either cancer or transplant patients. Infection was due to the spore-forming mold Rhizopus microsporus. Two pulmonary and one cutaneous infection patient died.
Length of stay was the most significant risk factor for infection; the mean interval from admission to diagnosis was more than 2 months.
“Pulmonary zygomycosis due to contaminated hospital linens has never been reported.” Clinicians need to “maintain a high index of suspicion for early diagnosis and treatment of zygomycosis in immunosuppressed patients,” the investigators said.
The U.S. recently had a cutaneous outbreak in Louisiana; hospital linens contaminated with Rhizopus species killed five immunocompromised children there in 2015.
“Invasive zygomycosis is an emerging infection that is increasingly reported in immunosuppressed hosts;” previously reported sources include adhesive bandages, wooden tongue depressors, ostomy bags, damaged water circuitry, adjacent building construction activity, and, as Queen Mary reported previously, contaminated allopurinol tablets.
Detecting the problem isn’t easy. None of the Replicate Organism Detection and Counting contact plates at Queen Mary recovered zygomycetes from the contaminated linen items. It took sponge swapping to find it; “without the use of sponge swab and selective culture medium, the causative agents in this outbreak would have been overlooked,” the investigators said.
Hong Kong government services helped support the work. The authors did not have any financial conflicts of interest.
FROM CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Key clinical point: Clinicians need to maintain a high index of suspicion for early diagnosis and treatment of zygomycosis in immunosuppressed patients,
Major finding: Of 195 environmental samples at the contaminated laundry, 119 (61%) were positive for Zygomycetes, as well as 100% of air samples.
Data source: Epidemiological study in Hong Kong.
Disclosures: Hong Kong government services helped support the work. The authors do not have any financial conflicts of interest.
Noncompete clauses: Be wary, negotiate early
Noncompete clauses can severely limit a doctor’s business options and create serious financial challenges, so negotiate with employers early and watch out for tricky contract terms that could stifle future opportunities.
That is the advice from health law experts around the country. They point out that when it comes to noncompete clauses – employment contract language that limits where physicians can practice after employment ends or is terminated – doctors should pay close attention, especially to the following:
Geographical limitations
Distance requirements within noncompete provisions are a top issue that can trip up doctors, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., health law attorney Mark S. Kopson said. The clause typically specifies that a physician cannot practice within a certain radius of the former employer. However, if an employer has three offices for instance, that 10-mile radius can quickly become a 30-mile radius or more depending how the provision is worded. Mr. Kopson recalled a recent client who practiced for 5 years in one office and was transferred to an office in another town for 30 days. He was then terminated, and his employer attempted to enforce contract terms that would prevent him from practicing within a 10-mile radius of both offices. A court determined that the employer was acting in bad faith and sought an unfair competitive advantage.
“But No. 1, you don’t want to have to go to court,” Mr. Kopson said. “And No. 2, you can have the best lawyer, but once it’s in the hands of the judge or the jury, anything can happen. That’s why you really want to do the work on this up front.”
When negotiating noncompete clauses, be cognizant of where distances are being measured from and around, the legal experts stress. Also, be clear with employers about what defines a reasonable distance, based on the geographic spread of their patient base.
“What’s reasonable for a family practice physician is probably not going to be reasonable for a pediatric neurosurgeon, as they draw their patients from varying distances,” he said. “Also, negotiate to ensure that the length of time of the restriction is reasonable. Taking into account, both the distance and time period, the physician must still be able to earn a living.”
Time frame restrictions
Negotiate the shortest duration that you can, advises Greenbelt, Md., labor and employment attorney Jay P. Holland. Noncompete provisions typically limit a doctor from practicing around a certain radius for 1-5 years, but some employers may try to enforce longer time periods.
“Consider your career and lifestyle goals carefully prior to entering into a noncompete,” Mr. Holland said. “The first approach should always be an attempt to exclude the noncompete from your prospective agreement if you are joining a practice. If a noncompete is unavoidable, then strive to make it the least onerous possible. Ask yourself prior to signing an agreement, ‘If I were to leave this practice, what are the restrictions I could live with? Are the restrictions reasonable?’ ”
Knowing your state’s law is key. State regulation of noncompete provisions widely differ. States such as California broadly hold that noncompete contracts are per se invalid – even if narrowly tailored – unless necessary to protect trade secrets. States such as Maryland allow the provisions only if area and duration restrictions are reasonable and do not impose undue hardship on employees. Three states – Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts – have laws that strictly prohibit noncompete clauses in physician contracts.
“Most other states will generally enforce noncompete clauses so long as their terms are reasonable in light of the interests of the employer, the employee, and the general public,” Mr. Holland said. “Therefore, noncompete clauses should be no greater in scope than is necessary to protect the business or goodwill of the employer.”
Patient retention problems
Watch out for contract language referring to “trade secrets,” adds Los Angeles health law attorney Andrew H. Selesnick. Trade secret clauses are often lengthy and typically state that physicians cannot use or retain information from the employer that is considered confidential. Because patient lists are usually considered confidential, these terms could potentially prohibit patients from following their doctor.
“If you want to leave and take your patients with you, there may be some trade secret implications associated with that,” Mr. Selesnick said. “The ability to be able to move patients is significant and can have significant financial impacts. Know what you’re getting into.”
If bringing patients with them to a new practice, doctors should make sure the employment agreement excludes these patients from any nonsolicitation provision at the time the doctor leaves, notes Mr. Holland. Include language that states physicians can retain patients they originally brought to the practice when they depart without violating the agreement.
Make sure to review any proposed noncompete clauses in relation to proposed termination provisions, Mr. Kopson said. Doctors should negotiate language that ensures noncompete obligations will be null and void if physicians are terminated without cause (if such terminations are permitted by the contract), or if the employer breaches the contract.
Seeking the advice of an experienced contract attorney before signing a noncompete clause can save doctors significant time, money, and heartache in the long run, Mr. Kopson notes.
“The biggest risk is signing a contract that has such a clause with an expectation that it will not be enforced,” he said. “If [clauses are] properly drafted, they’re going to be binding. If you get the help up front, it’s going to be a lot less expensive than having your life turned upside down because you’re stuck with a noncompete that has bad terms in it.”
Unreasonable terms
Once signed, getting out of non-compete clauses can be tricky, Mr. Selesnick said. However, doctors can usually escape them if they can prove the terms are unreasonable.
“You can get out of them, especially if they’re very restrictive and say you can’t practice within an area that may prevent you from earning your livelihood,” Mr. Selesnick said. “Courts [generally] think that employees should be able to leave and be able to get a job elsewhere, even if it’s across the street.”
Courts are typically more favorable to physician-employees than independent contractors when it comes to noncompete clauses, Mr. Selesnick said. Independent contractors are generally viewed as having more power over their work than physician-employees. They may have a tougher time convincing a court that such provisions will harm their employment options.
When seeking to enforce a disputed noncompete agreement, employers frequently will request a court-ordered temporary restraining order or injunction to enforce the clause, Mr. Holland said. Judges consider general principles of fairness and equity, and balance the relative harm to the employer and the employee, when deciding whether to issue the injunction. The employee-physician can also try to beat the employer to the courthouse steps by filing a “declaratory judgment” lawsuit that seeks guidance from the court on the contract’s enforceability.
“Typically, employers attempt to do that which is in their best economic interest,” Mr. Holland said. “If a proposal can be negotiated where the employer’s economic well-being is not threatened, then the employer should have a strong interest in a compromise.”
On Twitter @legal_med
Noncompete clauses can severely limit a doctor’s business options and create serious financial challenges, so negotiate with employers early and watch out for tricky contract terms that could stifle future opportunities.
That is the advice from health law experts around the country. They point out that when it comes to noncompete clauses – employment contract language that limits where physicians can practice after employment ends or is terminated – doctors should pay close attention, especially to the following:
Geographical limitations
Distance requirements within noncompete provisions are a top issue that can trip up doctors, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., health law attorney Mark S. Kopson said. The clause typically specifies that a physician cannot practice within a certain radius of the former employer. However, if an employer has three offices for instance, that 10-mile radius can quickly become a 30-mile radius or more depending how the provision is worded. Mr. Kopson recalled a recent client who practiced for 5 years in one office and was transferred to an office in another town for 30 days. He was then terminated, and his employer attempted to enforce contract terms that would prevent him from practicing within a 10-mile radius of both offices. A court determined that the employer was acting in bad faith and sought an unfair competitive advantage.
“But No. 1, you don’t want to have to go to court,” Mr. Kopson said. “And No. 2, you can have the best lawyer, but once it’s in the hands of the judge or the jury, anything can happen. That’s why you really want to do the work on this up front.”
When negotiating noncompete clauses, be cognizant of where distances are being measured from and around, the legal experts stress. Also, be clear with employers about what defines a reasonable distance, based on the geographic spread of their patient base.
“What’s reasonable for a family practice physician is probably not going to be reasonable for a pediatric neurosurgeon, as they draw their patients from varying distances,” he said. “Also, negotiate to ensure that the length of time of the restriction is reasonable. Taking into account, both the distance and time period, the physician must still be able to earn a living.”
Time frame restrictions
Negotiate the shortest duration that you can, advises Greenbelt, Md., labor and employment attorney Jay P. Holland. Noncompete provisions typically limit a doctor from practicing around a certain radius for 1-5 years, but some employers may try to enforce longer time periods.
“Consider your career and lifestyle goals carefully prior to entering into a noncompete,” Mr. Holland said. “The first approach should always be an attempt to exclude the noncompete from your prospective agreement if you are joining a practice. If a noncompete is unavoidable, then strive to make it the least onerous possible. Ask yourself prior to signing an agreement, ‘If I were to leave this practice, what are the restrictions I could live with? Are the restrictions reasonable?’ ”
Knowing your state’s law is key. State regulation of noncompete provisions widely differ. States such as California broadly hold that noncompete contracts are per se invalid – even if narrowly tailored – unless necessary to protect trade secrets. States such as Maryland allow the provisions only if area and duration restrictions are reasonable and do not impose undue hardship on employees. Three states – Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts – have laws that strictly prohibit noncompete clauses in physician contracts.
“Most other states will generally enforce noncompete clauses so long as their terms are reasonable in light of the interests of the employer, the employee, and the general public,” Mr. Holland said. “Therefore, noncompete clauses should be no greater in scope than is necessary to protect the business or goodwill of the employer.”
Patient retention problems
Watch out for contract language referring to “trade secrets,” adds Los Angeles health law attorney Andrew H. Selesnick. Trade secret clauses are often lengthy and typically state that physicians cannot use or retain information from the employer that is considered confidential. Because patient lists are usually considered confidential, these terms could potentially prohibit patients from following their doctor.
“If you want to leave and take your patients with you, there may be some trade secret implications associated with that,” Mr. Selesnick said. “The ability to be able to move patients is significant and can have significant financial impacts. Know what you’re getting into.”
If bringing patients with them to a new practice, doctors should make sure the employment agreement excludes these patients from any nonsolicitation provision at the time the doctor leaves, notes Mr. Holland. Include language that states physicians can retain patients they originally brought to the practice when they depart without violating the agreement.
Make sure to review any proposed noncompete clauses in relation to proposed termination provisions, Mr. Kopson said. Doctors should negotiate language that ensures noncompete obligations will be null and void if physicians are terminated without cause (if such terminations are permitted by the contract), or if the employer breaches the contract.
Seeking the advice of an experienced contract attorney before signing a noncompete clause can save doctors significant time, money, and heartache in the long run, Mr. Kopson notes.
“The biggest risk is signing a contract that has such a clause with an expectation that it will not be enforced,” he said. “If [clauses are] properly drafted, they’re going to be binding. If you get the help up front, it’s going to be a lot less expensive than having your life turned upside down because you’re stuck with a noncompete that has bad terms in it.”
Unreasonable terms
Once signed, getting out of non-compete clauses can be tricky, Mr. Selesnick said. However, doctors can usually escape them if they can prove the terms are unreasonable.
“You can get out of them, especially if they’re very restrictive and say you can’t practice within an area that may prevent you from earning your livelihood,” Mr. Selesnick said. “Courts [generally] think that employees should be able to leave and be able to get a job elsewhere, even if it’s across the street.”
Courts are typically more favorable to physician-employees than independent contractors when it comes to noncompete clauses, Mr. Selesnick said. Independent contractors are generally viewed as having more power over their work than physician-employees. They may have a tougher time convincing a court that such provisions will harm their employment options.
When seeking to enforce a disputed noncompete agreement, employers frequently will request a court-ordered temporary restraining order or injunction to enforce the clause, Mr. Holland said. Judges consider general principles of fairness and equity, and balance the relative harm to the employer and the employee, when deciding whether to issue the injunction. The employee-physician can also try to beat the employer to the courthouse steps by filing a “declaratory judgment” lawsuit that seeks guidance from the court on the contract’s enforceability.
“Typically, employers attempt to do that which is in their best economic interest,” Mr. Holland said. “If a proposal can be negotiated where the employer’s economic well-being is not threatened, then the employer should have a strong interest in a compromise.”
On Twitter @legal_med
Noncompete clauses can severely limit a doctor’s business options and create serious financial challenges, so negotiate with employers early and watch out for tricky contract terms that could stifle future opportunities.
That is the advice from health law experts around the country. They point out that when it comes to noncompete clauses – employment contract language that limits where physicians can practice after employment ends or is terminated – doctors should pay close attention, especially to the following:
Geographical limitations
Distance requirements within noncompete provisions are a top issue that can trip up doctors, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., health law attorney Mark S. Kopson said. The clause typically specifies that a physician cannot practice within a certain radius of the former employer. However, if an employer has three offices for instance, that 10-mile radius can quickly become a 30-mile radius or more depending how the provision is worded. Mr. Kopson recalled a recent client who practiced for 5 years in one office and was transferred to an office in another town for 30 days. He was then terminated, and his employer attempted to enforce contract terms that would prevent him from practicing within a 10-mile radius of both offices. A court determined that the employer was acting in bad faith and sought an unfair competitive advantage.
“But No. 1, you don’t want to have to go to court,” Mr. Kopson said. “And No. 2, you can have the best lawyer, but once it’s in the hands of the judge or the jury, anything can happen. That’s why you really want to do the work on this up front.”
When negotiating noncompete clauses, be cognizant of where distances are being measured from and around, the legal experts stress. Also, be clear with employers about what defines a reasonable distance, based on the geographic spread of their patient base.
“What’s reasonable for a family practice physician is probably not going to be reasonable for a pediatric neurosurgeon, as they draw their patients from varying distances,” he said. “Also, negotiate to ensure that the length of time of the restriction is reasonable. Taking into account, both the distance and time period, the physician must still be able to earn a living.”
Time frame restrictions
Negotiate the shortest duration that you can, advises Greenbelt, Md., labor and employment attorney Jay P. Holland. Noncompete provisions typically limit a doctor from practicing around a certain radius for 1-5 years, but some employers may try to enforce longer time periods.
“Consider your career and lifestyle goals carefully prior to entering into a noncompete,” Mr. Holland said. “The first approach should always be an attempt to exclude the noncompete from your prospective agreement if you are joining a practice. If a noncompete is unavoidable, then strive to make it the least onerous possible. Ask yourself prior to signing an agreement, ‘If I were to leave this practice, what are the restrictions I could live with? Are the restrictions reasonable?’ ”
Knowing your state’s law is key. State regulation of noncompete provisions widely differ. States such as California broadly hold that noncompete contracts are per se invalid – even if narrowly tailored – unless necessary to protect trade secrets. States such as Maryland allow the provisions only if area and duration restrictions are reasonable and do not impose undue hardship on employees. Three states – Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts – have laws that strictly prohibit noncompete clauses in physician contracts.
“Most other states will generally enforce noncompete clauses so long as their terms are reasonable in light of the interests of the employer, the employee, and the general public,” Mr. Holland said. “Therefore, noncompete clauses should be no greater in scope than is necessary to protect the business or goodwill of the employer.”
Patient retention problems
Watch out for contract language referring to “trade secrets,” adds Los Angeles health law attorney Andrew H. Selesnick. Trade secret clauses are often lengthy and typically state that physicians cannot use or retain information from the employer that is considered confidential. Because patient lists are usually considered confidential, these terms could potentially prohibit patients from following their doctor.
“If you want to leave and take your patients with you, there may be some trade secret implications associated with that,” Mr. Selesnick said. “The ability to be able to move patients is significant and can have significant financial impacts. Know what you’re getting into.”
If bringing patients with them to a new practice, doctors should make sure the employment agreement excludes these patients from any nonsolicitation provision at the time the doctor leaves, notes Mr. Holland. Include language that states physicians can retain patients they originally brought to the practice when they depart without violating the agreement.
Make sure to review any proposed noncompete clauses in relation to proposed termination provisions, Mr. Kopson said. Doctors should negotiate language that ensures noncompete obligations will be null and void if physicians are terminated without cause (if such terminations are permitted by the contract), or if the employer breaches the contract.
Seeking the advice of an experienced contract attorney before signing a noncompete clause can save doctors significant time, money, and heartache in the long run, Mr. Kopson notes.
“The biggest risk is signing a contract that has such a clause with an expectation that it will not be enforced,” he said. “If [clauses are] properly drafted, they’re going to be binding. If you get the help up front, it’s going to be a lot less expensive than having your life turned upside down because you’re stuck with a noncompete that has bad terms in it.”
Unreasonable terms
Once signed, getting out of non-compete clauses can be tricky, Mr. Selesnick said. However, doctors can usually escape them if they can prove the terms are unreasonable.
“You can get out of them, especially if they’re very restrictive and say you can’t practice within an area that may prevent you from earning your livelihood,” Mr. Selesnick said. “Courts [generally] think that employees should be able to leave and be able to get a job elsewhere, even if it’s across the street.”
Courts are typically more favorable to physician-employees than independent contractors when it comes to noncompete clauses, Mr. Selesnick said. Independent contractors are generally viewed as having more power over their work than physician-employees. They may have a tougher time convincing a court that such provisions will harm their employment options.
When seeking to enforce a disputed noncompete agreement, employers frequently will request a court-ordered temporary restraining order or injunction to enforce the clause, Mr. Holland said. Judges consider general principles of fairness and equity, and balance the relative harm to the employer and the employee, when deciding whether to issue the injunction. The employee-physician can also try to beat the employer to the courthouse steps by filing a “declaratory judgment” lawsuit that seeks guidance from the court on the contract’s enforceability.
“Typically, employers attempt to do that which is in their best economic interest,” Mr. Holland said. “If a proposal can be negotiated where the employer’s economic well-being is not threatened, then the employer should have a strong interest in a compromise.”
On Twitter @legal_med
Save the Date: Focus on Thoracic: Lung and Esophageal Cancer
March 19-20, 2016
Hilton Shanghai Hongqiao
Shanghai, China
Program Directors
Haiquan S. Chen
G. Alec Patterson
David J. Sugarbaker
Overview
Lung and esophageal disease remain a global concern as two of the deadliest issues facing patients and thoracic surgeons. The 2016 AATS Focus on Thoracic Surgery: Lung and Esophageal Cancer meeting will concentrate on the complex nature of treating both lung and esophageal disease while also discussing innovative approaches to enhancing patient care.
The two-day program features a mixture of lectures, relevant case studies, panel discussions and videos. The faculty includes local and internationally recognized experts in lung and esophageal disease, ensuring that attendees will receive insights from a broad spectrum of leaders in thoracic surgery.
March 19-20, 2016
Hilton Shanghai Hongqiao
Shanghai, China
Program Directors
Haiquan S. Chen
G. Alec Patterson
David J. Sugarbaker
Overview
Lung and esophageal disease remain a global concern as two of the deadliest issues facing patients and thoracic surgeons. The 2016 AATS Focus on Thoracic Surgery: Lung and Esophageal Cancer meeting will concentrate on the complex nature of treating both lung and esophageal disease while also discussing innovative approaches to enhancing patient care.
The two-day program features a mixture of lectures, relevant case studies, panel discussions and videos. The faculty includes local and internationally recognized experts in lung and esophageal disease, ensuring that attendees will receive insights from a broad spectrum of leaders in thoracic surgery.
March 19-20, 2016
Hilton Shanghai Hongqiao
Shanghai, China
Program Directors
Haiquan S. Chen
G. Alec Patterson
David J. Sugarbaker
Overview
Lung and esophageal disease remain a global concern as two of the deadliest issues facing patients and thoracic surgeons. The 2016 AATS Focus on Thoracic Surgery: Lung and Esophageal Cancer meeting will concentrate on the complex nature of treating both lung and esophageal disease while also discussing innovative approaches to enhancing patient care.
The two-day program features a mixture of lectures, relevant case studies, panel discussions and videos. The faculty includes local and internationally recognized experts in lung and esophageal disease, ensuring that attendees will receive insights from a broad spectrum of leaders in thoracic surgery.
Save the Date: AATS Surgical Patient Safety Course
June 24-25, 2016
Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel
Boston, MA
Co-Directors
Thoralf M. Sundt, III, MD
Steven Yule, PhD
Program Committee
David J. Bunnell, PA-C, APACVS
David C. Fitzgerald, CCP, AMSECT
Jake Jaquiss, MD
M. Blair Marshall, MD
Shannon Pengel, RN
Kenneth Shann, CCP, LP, AMSECT
Marco Zenati, MD
Course Goal — The course provides members of the surgical care team with an introduction to the principles of patient safety and error management and provides them with practical tools that can be implemented in their care environment.
Target Audience — Recognizing that surgical safety is the product of the collective efforts of the entire care team, this course is directed at nurses and nurse practitioners, physician assistants, perfusionists, anesthesiologists, critical care physicians and surgeons. While the central focus is on cardiothoracic surgical care, the principles are universal and are applicable to all surgical specialties, making the course worthwhile for anyone involved in delivering surgical care.
Note: Approved by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery for Maintenance of Certification
Course Description — Improving patient care remains a constant mission for all members of the surgical team. The inaugural AATS Surgical Patient Safety Course has been designed to promote a culture of safety and reduce preventable patient harm by engaging, educating and equipping members of the cardiothoracic surgical team in the multidimensional approach to patient safety. Featuring didactic and interactive presentations and focused workshops, the course will provide attendees with the essential knowledge, skills and attitudes about patient safety that can improve care in the present and future.
June 24-25, 2016
Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel
Boston, MA
Co-Directors
Thoralf M. Sundt, III, MD
Steven Yule, PhD
Program Committee
David J. Bunnell, PA-C, APACVS
David C. Fitzgerald, CCP, AMSECT
Jake Jaquiss, MD
M. Blair Marshall, MD
Shannon Pengel, RN
Kenneth Shann, CCP, LP, AMSECT
Marco Zenati, MD
Course Goal — The course provides members of the surgical care team with an introduction to the principles of patient safety and error management and provides them with practical tools that can be implemented in their care environment.
Target Audience — Recognizing that surgical safety is the product of the collective efforts of the entire care team, this course is directed at nurses and nurse practitioners, physician assistants, perfusionists, anesthesiologists, critical care physicians and surgeons. While the central focus is on cardiothoracic surgical care, the principles are universal and are applicable to all surgical specialties, making the course worthwhile for anyone involved in delivering surgical care.
Note: Approved by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery for Maintenance of Certification
Course Description — Improving patient care remains a constant mission for all members of the surgical team. The inaugural AATS Surgical Patient Safety Course has been designed to promote a culture of safety and reduce preventable patient harm by engaging, educating and equipping members of the cardiothoracic surgical team in the multidimensional approach to patient safety. Featuring didactic and interactive presentations and focused workshops, the course will provide attendees with the essential knowledge, skills and attitudes about patient safety that can improve care in the present and future.
June 24-25, 2016
Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel
Boston, MA
Co-Directors
Thoralf M. Sundt, III, MD
Steven Yule, PhD
Program Committee
David J. Bunnell, PA-C, APACVS
David C. Fitzgerald, CCP, AMSECT
Jake Jaquiss, MD
M. Blair Marshall, MD
Shannon Pengel, RN
Kenneth Shann, CCP, LP, AMSECT
Marco Zenati, MD
Course Goal — The course provides members of the surgical care team with an introduction to the principles of patient safety and error management and provides them with practical tools that can be implemented in their care environment.
Target Audience — Recognizing that surgical safety is the product of the collective efforts of the entire care team, this course is directed at nurses and nurse practitioners, physician assistants, perfusionists, anesthesiologists, critical care physicians and surgeons. While the central focus is on cardiothoracic surgical care, the principles are universal and are applicable to all surgical specialties, making the course worthwhile for anyone involved in delivering surgical care.
Note: Approved by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery for Maintenance of Certification
Course Description — Improving patient care remains a constant mission for all members of the surgical team. The inaugural AATS Surgical Patient Safety Course has been designed to promote a culture of safety and reduce preventable patient harm by engaging, educating and equipping members of the cardiothoracic surgical team in the multidimensional approach to patient safety. Featuring didactic and interactive presentations and focused workshops, the course will provide attendees with the essential knowledge, skills and attitudes about patient safety that can improve care in the present and future.
AATS Week Registration & Housing Now Open
Aortic Symposium
May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY
Course Directors
Joseph S. Coselli
Steven L. Lansman
Registration and Housing Information
96th Annual Meeting
May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD
President & Annual Meeting Chair
Joseph S. Coselli
Annual Meeting Co-Chairs
Charles D. Fraser
David R. Jones
Annual Meeting Registration PackagesAllied Health Package: Registration for the Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposium and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016, for only $400, after which the fee goes up to $500.
Resident/Fellow and Medical Student Package: Registration for the Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposium and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday).
Register before March 25, 2016, and attend for no charge. After that date, the fee is $300.
Saturday Courses and Sunday Symposium Registration: Register for a Saturday course and/or a Sunday symposium and have access to all other courses/symposia that same day. Note: Registration for the Saturday courses and/or Sunday symposium is separate from the Annual Meeting fee.
Aortic Symposium
May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY
Course Directors
Joseph S. Coselli
Steven L. Lansman
Registration and Housing Information
96th Annual Meeting
May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD
President & Annual Meeting Chair
Joseph S. Coselli
Annual Meeting Co-Chairs
Charles D. Fraser
David R. Jones
Annual Meeting Registration PackagesAllied Health Package: Registration for the Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposium and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016, for only $400, after which the fee goes up to $500.
Resident/Fellow and Medical Student Package: Registration for the Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposium and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday).
Register before March 25, 2016, and attend for no charge. After that date, the fee is $300.
Saturday Courses and Sunday Symposium Registration: Register for a Saturday course and/or a Sunday symposium and have access to all other courses/symposia that same day. Note: Registration for the Saturday courses and/or Sunday symposium is separate from the Annual Meeting fee.
Aortic Symposium
May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY
Course Directors
Joseph S. Coselli
Steven L. Lansman
Registration and Housing Information
96th Annual Meeting
May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD
President & Annual Meeting Chair
Joseph S. Coselli
Annual Meeting Co-Chairs
Charles D. Fraser
David R. Jones
Annual Meeting Registration PackagesAllied Health Package: Registration for the Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposium and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016, for only $400, after which the fee goes up to $500.
Resident/Fellow and Medical Student Package: Registration for the Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposium and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday).
Register before March 25, 2016, and attend for no charge. After that date, the fee is $300.
Saturday Courses and Sunday Symposium Registration: Register for a Saturday course and/or a Sunday symposium and have access to all other courses/symposia that same day. Note: Registration for the Saturday courses and/or Sunday symposium is separate from the Annual Meeting fee.
The palliative path: Talking with elderly patients facing emergency surgery
An expert panel has developed a communication framework to improve treatment of older, seriously ill patients who have surgical emergencies, which has been published online in Annals of Surgery.
A substantial portion of older patients who undergo emergency surgeries already have serious life-limiting illnesses such as cardiopulmonary disease, renal failure, liver failure, dementia, severe neurological impairment, or malignancy. The advisory panel based its work on the premise that surgery in these circumstances can lead to significant further morbidity, health care utilization, functional decline, prolonged hospital stay or institutionalization, and death, with attendant physical discomfort and psychological distress at the end of these patients’ lives.
Surgeons consulted in the emergency setting for these patients are hampered by patients unable to communicate well because they are in extremis, by surrogates who are unprepared for their role, and by time constraints, lack of familiarity with the patient, poor understanding of the illness by patients and families, prognostic uncertainty, and inadequate advance care planning. In addition, “many surgeons lack skills to engage in conversations about end-of-life care, or are too unfamiliar with palliative options to discuss them well,” or feel obligated to maintain postoperative life support despite the patient’s wishes, said Dr. Zara Cooper, of Ariadne Labs and the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and her associates.
To address these issues and assist surgeons in caring for such patients, an expert panel of 23 national leaders in acute care surgery, general surgery, surgical oncology, palliative medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, anesthesia, and health care innovation was convened at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The focus of the panel’s recommendations was a structured communications framework prototype to facilitate shared decision-making in these difficult circumstances.
Among the panel’s recommendations for surgeons were the following priorities:
• Review the medical record and consult the treatment team to fully understand the patient’s current condition, comorbidities, expected illness trajectory, and preferences for end-of-life care.
• Assess functional performance as part of the routine history and physical to fully understand the patient’s fitness for surgery.
• Formulate a prognosis regarding the patient’s overall health both with and without surgery.
The panel offered a set of principles and specific elements for the meeting with the patient and family:
• The surgeon should begin by introducing himself or herself; according to reports in the literature, physicians fail to do this approximately half of the time.
• Pay attention to nonverbal communication, such as eye contact and physical contact, as this is critical to building rapport. Immediately address pain, anxiety, and other indicators of distress, to maximize the patients’ and the families’ engagement in subsequent medical discussions. “Although adequate analgesia may render a patient unable to make their own decisions, surrogates are more likely to make appropriate decisions when they feel their loved one is comfortable,” the panel noted.
• Allow pauses and silences to occur. Let the patient and the family process information and their own emotions.
• Elicit the patients’ or the surrogates’ understanding of the illness and their views of the patients’ likely trajectory, correcting any inaccuracies. This substantially influences their decisions regarding the aggressiveness of subsequent treatments.
• Inform the patient and family of the life-threatening nature of the patient’s acute condition and its potential impact on the rest of his or her life, including the possibility of prolonged life support, ICU stay, burdensome treatment, and loss of independence. Use accepted techniques for breaking bad news, and check to be sure the patient understands what was conveyed.
• At this point, the surgeon should synthesize and summarize the information from the patient, the family, and the medical record, then pause to give them time to process the information and to assess their emotional state. It is helpful to label and respond to the patient’s emotions at this juncture, and to build empathy with statements such as “I know this is difficult news, and I wish it were different.”
• Describe the benefits, burdens, and range of likely outcomes if surgery is undertaken and if it is not. The surgeon should use nonmedical language to describe symptoms, and should convey his or her expectations regarding length of hospitalization, need for and duration of life support, burdensome symptoms, discharge to an institution, and functional recovery.
• Surgeons should be able to communicate palliative options possible either in combination with surgery or instead of surgery. Palliative care can aid in managing advanced symptoms, providing psychosocial support for patients and caregivers, facilitating interdisciplinary communication, and facilitating medical decisions and care transitions.
• Avoid describing surgical procedures as “doing everything” and palliative care as “doing nothing.” This can make patients and families “feel abandoned, fearful, isolated, and angry, and fails to encompass palliative care’s practices of proactive communication, aggressive symptom management, and timely emotional support to alleviate suffering and affirm quality of life,” the panel said.
• Surgeons should explicitly support the patients’ medical decisions, whether or not they choose surgery.
The panel also cited a few factors that would assist surgeons in following these recommendations. First, surgeons must recognize the importance of communicating well with seriously ill older patients and acknowledge that this is a crucial clinical skill for them to cultivate. They must also recognize that palliative care is vital to delivering high-quality surgical care. Surgeons should consider discharging patients to hospice, which can improve pain and symptom management, improve patient and family satisfaction with care, and avoid unwanted hospitalization or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
“There are a number of major barriers to introducing palliative care in these situations. One is an education problem - the perception on the part of patients and clinicians, and surgeons in particular, that palliative care is only limited to end-of-life care, which it is not. It is a misperception of what palliative care means in this equation - that palliative care and hospice are the same thing, which they absolutely are not,”said Dr. Cooper in an interview.
”The definition of palliative care has evolved over the past decade and the focus of palliative care is on quality of life and alleviating symptoms. End-of-life palliative care is part of that, and as patients get closer to the end of life, symptom management and quality of life become more focal than life-prolonging treatment... But for patients with chronic and serious illness, there has to be a role for palliative care because we know that when patients feel better, they tend to live longer. And when patients feel their emotional concerns and physical needs are being addressed, they tend to do better. Patients families have improved satisfaction when their loved one receives palliative care,” she noted.”
However, the number of palliative providers is completely inadequate to meet the needs of the number of seriously ill patients, she said. And a lot of hospital-based palliative care is by necessity limited to end-of-life care because of a lack of palliative resources.
Dr. Atul Gawande, a coauthor of the panel recommendations, wrote a best-selling book, Being Mortal (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014) addressing the shortcomings and potential remaking of medical care in the context of age-related frailty, grave illness, and death. Dr. Cooper noted that there is a growing sentiment among the general public that they want to have their quality of life addressed in the type of medical care they receive. She said that Dr. Gawande’s book tapped into the perception of a lack of recognition of personhood of seriously ill patients.
“We often focus on diagnosis and we don’t have the ‘bandwidth’ to focus on the person carrying that diagnosis, and our patients and focus on the person carrying that diagnosis, but our patients and their families are demanding different types of care. So, ultimately, the patients will be the ones to push us to do better for them.”
The next steps to further developing a widely used and validated communication framework would be to create educational opportunities for clinicians to develop clinical skills in communication with seriously ill patients and palliative care, and to study the impact of these initiatives on improving outcomes most relevant to older patient. This work was supported by the Ariadne Labs, a Joint Center for Health System Innovation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Cooper and her associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
An expert panel has developed a communication framework to improve treatment of older, seriously ill patients who have surgical emergencies, which has been published online in Annals of Surgery.
A substantial portion of older patients who undergo emergency surgeries already have serious life-limiting illnesses such as cardiopulmonary disease, renal failure, liver failure, dementia, severe neurological impairment, or malignancy. The advisory panel based its work on the premise that surgery in these circumstances can lead to significant further morbidity, health care utilization, functional decline, prolonged hospital stay or institutionalization, and death, with attendant physical discomfort and psychological distress at the end of these patients’ lives.
Surgeons consulted in the emergency setting for these patients are hampered by patients unable to communicate well because they are in extremis, by surrogates who are unprepared for their role, and by time constraints, lack of familiarity with the patient, poor understanding of the illness by patients and families, prognostic uncertainty, and inadequate advance care planning. In addition, “many surgeons lack skills to engage in conversations about end-of-life care, or are too unfamiliar with palliative options to discuss them well,” or feel obligated to maintain postoperative life support despite the patient’s wishes, said Dr. Zara Cooper, of Ariadne Labs and the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and her associates.
To address these issues and assist surgeons in caring for such patients, an expert panel of 23 national leaders in acute care surgery, general surgery, surgical oncology, palliative medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, anesthesia, and health care innovation was convened at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The focus of the panel’s recommendations was a structured communications framework prototype to facilitate shared decision-making in these difficult circumstances.
Among the panel’s recommendations for surgeons were the following priorities:
• Review the medical record and consult the treatment team to fully understand the patient’s current condition, comorbidities, expected illness trajectory, and preferences for end-of-life care.
• Assess functional performance as part of the routine history and physical to fully understand the patient’s fitness for surgery.
• Formulate a prognosis regarding the patient’s overall health both with and without surgery.
The panel offered a set of principles and specific elements for the meeting with the patient and family:
• The surgeon should begin by introducing himself or herself; according to reports in the literature, physicians fail to do this approximately half of the time.
• Pay attention to nonverbal communication, such as eye contact and physical contact, as this is critical to building rapport. Immediately address pain, anxiety, and other indicators of distress, to maximize the patients’ and the families’ engagement in subsequent medical discussions. “Although adequate analgesia may render a patient unable to make their own decisions, surrogates are more likely to make appropriate decisions when they feel their loved one is comfortable,” the panel noted.
• Allow pauses and silences to occur. Let the patient and the family process information and their own emotions.
• Elicit the patients’ or the surrogates’ understanding of the illness and their views of the patients’ likely trajectory, correcting any inaccuracies. This substantially influences their decisions regarding the aggressiveness of subsequent treatments.
• Inform the patient and family of the life-threatening nature of the patient’s acute condition and its potential impact on the rest of his or her life, including the possibility of prolonged life support, ICU stay, burdensome treatment, and loss of independence. Use accepted techniques for breaking bad news, and check to be sure the patient understands what was conveyed.
• At this point, the surgeon should synthesize and summarize the information from the patient, the family, and the medical record, then pause to give them time to process the information and to assess their emotional state. It is helpful to label and respond to the patient’s emotions at this juncture, and to build empathy with statements such as “I know this is difficult news, and I wish it were different.”
• Describe the benefits, burdens, and range of likely outcomes if surgery is undertaken and if it is not. The surgeon should use nonmedical language to describe symptoms, and should convey his or her expectations regarding length of hospitalization, need for and duration of life support, burdensome symptoms, discharge to an institution, and functional recovery.
• Surgeons should be able to communicate palliative options possible either in combination with surgery or instead of surgery. Palliative care can aid in managing advanced symptoms, providing psychosocial support for patients and caregivers, facilitating interdisciplinary communication, and facilitating medical decisions and care transitions.
• Avoid describing surgical procedures as “doing everything” and palliative care as “doing nothing.” This can make patients and families “feel abandoned, fearful, isolated, and angry, and fails to encompass palliative care’s practices of proactive communication, aggressive symptom management, and timely emotional support to alleviate suffering and affirm quality of life,” the panel said.
• Surgeons should explicitly support the patients’ medical decisions, whether or not they choose surgery.
The panel also cited a few factors that would assist surgeons in following these recommendations. First, surgeons must recognize the importance of communicating well with seriously ill older patients and acknowledge that this is a crucial clinical skill for them to cultivate. They must also recognize that palliative care is vital to delivering high-quality surgical care. Surgeons should consider discharging patients to hospice, which can improve pain and symptom management, improve patient and family satisfaction with care, and avoid unwanted hospitalization or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
“There are a number of major barriers to introducing palliative care in these situations. One is an education problem - the perception on the part of patients and clinicians, and surgeons in particular, that palliative care is only limited to end-of-life care, which it is not. It is a misperception of what palliative care means in this equation - that palliative care and hospice are the same thing, which they absolutely are not,”said Dr. Cooper in an interview.
”The definition of palliative care has evolved over the past decade and the focus of palliative care is on quality of life and alleviating symptoms. End-of-life palliative care is part of that, and as patients get closer to the end of life, symptom management and quality of life become more focal than life-prolonging treatment... But for patients with chronic and serious illness, there has to be a role for palliative care because we know that when patients feel better, they tend to live longer. And when patients feel their emotional concerns and physical needs are being addressed, they tend to do better. Patients families have improved satisfaction when their loved one receives palliative care,” she noted.”
However, the number of palliative providers is completely inadequate to meet the needs of the number of seriously ill patients, she said. And a lot of hospital-based palliative care is by necessity limited to end-of-life care because of a lack of palliative resources.
Dr. Atul Gawande, a coauthor of the panel recommendations, wrote a best-selling book, Being Mortal (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014) addressing the shortcomings and potential remaking of medical care in the context of age-related frailty, grave illness, and death. Dr. Cooper noted that there is a growing sentiment among the general public that they want to have their quality of life addressed in the type of medical care they receive. She said that Dr. Gawande’s book tapped into the perception of a lack of recognition of personhood of seriously ill patients.
“We often focus on diagnosis and we don’t have the ‘bandwidth’ to focus on the person carrying that diagnosis, and our patients and focus on the person carrying that diagnosis, but our patients and their families are demanding different types of care. So, ultimately, the patients will be the ones to push us to do better for them.”
The next steps to further developing a widely used and validated communication framework would be to create educational opportunities for clinicians to develop clinical skills in communication with seriously ill patients and palliative care, and to study the impact of these initiatives on improving outcomes most relevant to older patient. This work was supported by the Ariadne Labs, a Joint Center for Health System Innovation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Cooper and her associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
An expert panel has developed a communication framework to improve treatment of older, seriously ill patients who have surgical emergencies, which has been published online in Annals of Surgery.
A substantial portion of older patients who undergo emergency surgeries already have serious life-limiting illnesses such as cardiopulmonary disease, renal failure, liver failure, dementia, severe neurological impairment, or malignancy. The advisory panel based its work on the premise that surgery in these circumstances can lead to significant further morbidity, health care utilization, functional decline, prolonged hospital stay or institutionalization, and death, with attendant physical discomfort and psychological distress at the end of these patients’ lives.
Surgeons consulted in the emergency setting for these patients are hampered by patients unable to communicate well because they are in extremis, by surrogates who are unprepared for their role, and by time constraints, lack of familiarity with the patient, poor understanding of the illness by patients and families, prognostic uncertainty, and inadequate advance care planning. In addition, “many surgeons lack skills to engage in conversations about end-of-life care, or are too unfamiliar with palliative options to discuss them well,” or feel obligated to maintain postoperative life support despite the patient’s wishes, said Dr. Zara Cooper, of Ariadne Labs and the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and her associates.
To address these issues and assist surgeons in caring for such patients, an expert panel of 23 national leaders in acute care surgery, general surgery, surgical oncology, palliative medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, anesthesia, and health care innovation was convened at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The focus of the panel’s recommendations was a structured communications framework prototype to facilitate shared decision-making in these difficult circumstances.
Among the panel’s recommendations for surgeons were the following priorities:
• Review the medical record and consult the treatment team to fully understand the patient’s current condition, comorbidities, expected illness trajectory, and preferences for end-of-life care.
• Assess functional performance as part of the routine history and physical to fully understand the patient’s fitness for surgery.
• Formulate a prognosis regarding the patient’s overall health both with and without surgery.
The panel offered a set of principles and specific elements for the meeting with the patient and family:
• The surgeon should begin by introducing himself or herself; according to reports in the literature, physicians fail to do this approximately half of the time.
• Pay attention to nonverbal communication, such as eye contact and physical contact, as this is critical to building rapport. Immediately address pain, anxiety, and other indicators of distress, to maximize the patients’ and the families’ engagement in subsequent medical discussions. “Although adequate analgesia may render a patient unable to make their own decisions, surrogates are more likely to make appropriate decisions when they feel their loved one is comfortable,” the panel noted.
• Allow pauses and silences to occur. Let the patient and the family process information and their own emotions.
• Elicit the patients’ or the surrogates’ understanding of the illness and their views of the patients’ likely trajectory, correcting any inaccuracies. This substantially influences their decisions regarding the aggressiveness of subsequent treatments.
• Inform the patient and family of the life-threatening nature of the patient’s acute condition and its potential impact on the rest of his or her life, including the possibility of prolonged life support, ICU stay, burdensome treatment, and loss of independence. Use accepted techniques for breaking bad news, and check to be sure the patient understands what was conveyed.
• At this point, the surgeon should synthesize and summarize the information from the patient, the family, and the medical record, then pause to give them time to process the information and to assess their emotional state. It is helpful to label and respond to the patient’s emotions at this juncture, and to build empathy with statements such as “I know this is difficult news, and I wish it were different.”
• Describe the benefits, burdens, and range of likely outcomes if surgery is undertaken and if it is not. The surgeon should use nonmedical language to describe symptoms, and should convey his or her expectations regarding length of hospitalization, need for and duration of life support, burdensome symptoms, discharge to an institution, and functional recovery.
• Surgeons should be able to communicate palliative options possible either in combination with surgery or instead of surgery. Palliative care can aid in managing advanced symptoms, providing psychosocial support for patients and caregivers, facilitating interdisciplinary communication, and facilitating medical decisions and care transitions.
• Avoid describing surgical procedures as “doing everything” and palliative care as “doing nothing.” This can make patients and families “feel abandoned, fearful, isolated, and angry, and fails to encompass palliative care’s practices of proactive communication, aggressive symptom management, and timely emotional support to alleviate suffering and affirm quality of life,” the panel said.
• Surgeons should explicitly support the patients’ medical decisions, whether or not they choose surgery.
The panel also cited a few factors that would assist surgeons in following these recommendations. First, surgeons must recognize the importance of communicating well with seriously ill older patients and acknowledge that this is a crucial clinical skill for them to cultivate. They must also recognize that palliative care is vital to delivering high-quality surgical care. Surgeons should consider discharging patients to hospice, which can improve pain and symptom management, improve patient and family satisfaction with care, and avoid unwanted hospitalization or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
“There are a number of major barriers to introducing palliative care in these situations. One is an education problem - the perception on the part of patients and clinicians, and surgeons in particular, that palliative care is only limited to end-of-life care, which it is not. It is a misperception of what palliative care means in this equation - that palliative care and hospice are the same thing, which they absolutely are not,”said Dr. Cooper in an interview.
”The definition of palliative care has evolved over the past decade and the focus of palliative care is on quality of life and alleviating symptoms. End-of-life palliative care is part of that, and as patients get closer to the end of life, symptom management and quality of life become more focal than life-prolonging treatment... But for patients with chronic and serious illness, there has to be a role for palliative care because we know that when patients feel better, they tend to live longer. And when patients feel their emotional concerns and physical needs are being addressed, they tend to do better. Patients families have improved satisfaction when their loved one receives palliative care,” she noted.”
However, the number of palliative providers is completely inadequate to meet the needs of the number of seriously ill patients, she said. And a lot of hospital-based palliative care is by necessity limited to end-of-life care because of a lack of palliative resources.
Dr. Atul Gawande, a coauthor of the panel recommendations, wrote a best-selling book, Being Mortal (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014) addressing the shortcomings and potential remaking of medical care in the context of age-related frailty, grave illness, and death. Dr. Cooper noted that there is a growing sentiment among the general public that they want to have their quality of life addressed in the type of medical care they receive. She said that Dr. Gawande’s book tapped into the perception of a lack of recognition of personhood of seriously ill patients.
“We often focus on diagnosis and we don’t have the ‘bandwidth’ to focus on the person carrying that diagnosis, and our patients and focus on the person carrying that diagnosis, but our patients and their families are demanding different types of care. So, ultimately, the patients will be the ones to push us to do better for them.”
The next steps to further developing a widely used and validated communication framework would be to create educational opportunities for clinicians to develop clinical skills in communication with seriously ill patients and palliative care, and to study the impact of these initiatives on improving outcomes most relevant to older patient. This work was supported by the Ariadne Labs, a Joint Center for Health System Innovation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Cooper and her associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM ANNALS OF SURGERY
Meta-analysis backs SPRINT findings, argues for lower BP targets
In high-risk patients, blood pressure lowering is associated with significant reductions in vascular events for a range of comorbidities and baseline blood pressures, said the authors of a meta-analysis of 123 randomized controlled trials published in the last 50 years.
Each 10–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure was associated with a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular disease events (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.83), a 17% reduction in coronary heart disease (95% CI, 0.78-0.88), a 27% reduction in stroke (95% CI, 0.68-0.77), and a 28% reduction in heart failure (95% CI, 0.67-0.78), based on the meta-analysis published Dec. 23 by the Lancet.
The exception was a lack of overall benefit of blood pressure lowering for renal failure events, a finding consistent with a previous meta-analysis of moderate versus intensive blood pressure reduction.
“Lowering of blood pressure into what has been regarded the normotensive range should therefore be routinely considered for the prevention of cardiovascular disease among those deemed to be of sufficient absolute risk,” wrote Dena Ettehad of the George Institute for Global Health, Oxford, and coauthors.
“Revision is urgently needed to recent blood pressure lowering guidelines that have relaxed the blood pressure lowering thresholds,” they added.
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of blood pressure lowering treatment, involving a total of 613,815 participants and a minimum of 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each study arm.
The analysis indicated that a 10–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure achieved an overall 13% reduction in all-cause mortality (95% CI, 0.84-0.91) but had no significant impact on the risk of renal failure events.
These effects remained similar even when the effects were compared between strata of mean baseline systolic blood pressure, baseline coronary heart disease, or baseline cardiovascular disease (Lancet 2015 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8).
“In stratified analyses, we saw no strong evidence that proportional effects were diminished in trials that included people with lower baseline systolic blood pressure (less than 130 mm Hg), and major cardiovascular events were clearly reduced in high-risk patients with various baseline comorbidities,” the investigators wrote.
“Both of these major findings – the efficacy of blood pressure lowering below 130 mm Hg and the similar proportional effects in high-risk populations – are consistent with and extend the findings of the SPRINT trial,” they said.
The authors did note greater proportional reductions in the risk of stroke in populations without a history of cerebrovascular disease, compared with those with a history.
Populations without diabetes had significantly greater proportional reductions in risk, compared with those with diabetes, while populations without chronic kidney disease had greater proportional reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular disease events, compared with those with chronic kidney disease.
The five classes of antihypertensives were generally as effective as each other in reducing the risk of major outcomes.
The authors noted that, while there were small but significant differences between drug classes for outcomes, these effects may have been the result of differences in control regimens or the concurrent use of multiple drug classes in many trials.
Two authors were supported by the National Institute of Health Research, one by the Clarendon Fund, and one by the Rhodes Trust. The George Institute is supported by the Oxford Martin School. Two authors declared grants from Servier, and one also declared investments for the development of a polypill. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
The finding from this meta-analysis that there is no increased risk of any outcome with systolic blood pressure lowering shows that a J-shaped relationship could not be substantiated and that the treatment effects were unlikely to be attenuated in trials that included participants with low systolic blood pressures at baseline, particularly those with less than 130 mm Hg.
Since data are accumulating against the J-shaped relationship, and because energetic lowering of blood pressure seems safe and beneficial to patients, there is no reason not to apply this approach to high-risk patients.
Dr. Stéphane Laurent and Dr. Pierre Boutouyrie are with the department of pharmacology at European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris. These comments were taken from an accompanying editorial (Lancet 2015 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01344-6). Dr. Boutouyrie declared grants and personal fees from Servier. Dr. Laurent had no conflicts of interest to declare.
The finding from this meta-analysis that there is no increased risk of any outcome with systolic blood pressure lowering shows that a J-shaped relationship could not be substantiated and that the treatment effects were unlikely to be attenuated in trials that included participants with low systolic blood pressures at baseline, particularly those with less than 130 mm Hg.
Since data are accumulating against the J-shaped relationship, and because energetic lowering of blood pressure seems safe and beneficial to patients, there is no reason not to apply this approach to high-risk patients.
Dr. Stéphane Laurent and Dr. Pierre Boutouyrie are with the department of pharmacology at European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris. These comments were taken from an accompanying editorial (Lancet 2015 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01344-6). Dr. Boutouyrie declared grants and personal fees from Servier. Dr. Laurent had no conflicts of interest to declare.
The finding from this meta-analysis that there is no increased risk of any outcome with systolic blood pressure lowering shows that a J-shaped relationship could not be substantiated and that the treatment effects were unlikely to be attenuated in trials that included participants with low systolic blood pressures at baseline, particularly those with less than 130 mm Hg.
Since data are accumulating against the J-shaped relationship, and because energetic lowering of blood pressure seems safe and beneficial to patients, there is no reason not to apply this approach to high-risk patients.
Dr. Stéphane Laurent and Dr. Pierre Boutouyrie are with the department of pharmacology at European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris. These comments were taken from an accompanying editorial (Lancet 2015 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01344-6). Dr. Boutouyrie declared grants and personal fees from Servier. Dr. Laurent had no conflicts of interest to declare.
In high-risk patients, blood pressure lowering is associated with significant reductions in vascular events for a range of comorbidities and baseline blood pressures, said the authors of a meta-analysis of 123 randomized controlled trials published in the last 50 years.
Each 10–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure was associated with a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular disease events (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.83), a 17% reduction in coronary heart disease (95% CI, 0.78-0.88), a 27% reduction in stroke (95% CI, 0.68-0.77), and a 28% reduction in heart failure (95% CI, 0.67-0.78), based on the meta-analysis published Dec. 23 by the Lancet.
The exception was a lack of overall benefit of blood pressure lowering for renal failure events, a finding consistent with a previous meta-analysis of moderate versus intensive blood pressure reduction.
“Lowering of blood pressure into what has been regarded the normotensive range should therefore be routinely considered for the prevention of cardiovascular disease among those deemed to be of sufficient absolute risk,” wrote Dena Ettehad of the George Institute for Global Health, Oxford, and coauthors.
“Revision is urgently needed to recent blood pressure lowering guidelines that have relaxed the blood pressure lowering thresholds,” they added.
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of blood pressure lowering treatment, involving a total of 613,815 participants and a minimum of 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each study arm.
The analysis indicated that a 10–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure achieved an overall 13% reduction in all-cause mortality (95% CI, 0.84-0.91) but had no significant impact on the risk of renal failure events.
These effects remained similar even when the effects were compared between strata of mean baseline systolic blood pressure, baseline coronary heart disease, or baseline cardiovascular disease (Lancet 2015 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8).
“In stratified analyses, we saw no strong evidence that proportional effects were diminished in trials that included people with lower baseline systolic blood pressure (less than 130 mm Hg), and major cardiovascular events were clearly reduced in high-risk patients with various baseline comorbidities,” the investigators wrote.
“Both of these major findings – the efficacy of blood pressure lowering below 130 mm Hg and the similar proportional effects in high-risk populations – are consistent with and extend the findings of the SPRINT trial,” they said.
The authors did note greater proportional reductions in the risk of stroke in populations without a history of cerebrovascular disease, compared with those with a history.
Populations without diabetes had significantly greater proportional reductions in risk, compared with those with diabetes, while populations without chronic kidney disease had greater proportional reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular disease events, compared with those with chronic kidney disease.
The five classes of antihypertensives were generally as effective as each other in reducing the risk of major outcomes.
The authors noted that, while there were small but significant differences between drug classes for outcomes, these effects may have been the result of differences in control regimens or the concurrent use of multiple drug classes in many trials.
Two authors were supported by the National Institute of Health Research, one by the Clarendon Fund, and one by the Rhodes Trust. The George Institute is supported by the Oxford Martin School. Two authors declared grants from Servier, and one also declared investments for the development of a polypill. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
In high-risk patients, blood pressure lowering is associated with significant reductions in vascular events for a range of comorbidities and baseline blood pressures, said the authors of a meta-analysis of 123 randomized controlled trials published in the last 50 years.
Each 10–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure was associated with a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular disease events (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.83), a 17% reduction in coronary heart disease (95% CI, 0.78-0.88), a 27% reduction in stroke (95% CI, 0.68-0.77), and a 28% reduction in heart failure (95% CI, 0.67-0.78), based on the meta-analysis published Dec. 23 by the Lancet.
The exception was a lack of overall benefit of blood pressure lowering for renal failure events, a finding consistent with a previous meta-analysis of moderate versus intensive blood pressure reduction.
“Lowering of blood pressure into what has been regarded the normotensive range should therefore be routinely considered for the prevention of cardiovascular disease among those deemed to be of sufficient absolute risk,” wrote Dena Ettehad of the George Institute for Global Health, Oxford, and coauthors.
“Revision is urgently needed to recent blood pressure lowering guidelines that have relaxed the blood pressure lowering thresholds,” they added.
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of blood pressure lowering treatment, involving a total of 613,815 participants and a minimum of 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each study arm.
The analysis indicated that a 10–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure achieved an overall 13% reduction in all-cause mortality (95% CI, 0.84-0.91) but had no significant impact on the risk of renal failure events.
These effects remained similar even when the effects were compared between strata of mean baseline systolic blood pressure, baseline coronary heart disease, or baseline cardiovascular disease (Lancet 2015 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8).
“In stratified analyses, we saw no strong evidence that proportional effects were diminished in trials that included people with lower baseline systolic blood pressure (less than 130 mm Hg), and major cardiovascular events were clearly reduced in high-risk patients with various baseline comorbidities,” the investigators wrote.
“Both of these major findings – the efficacy of blood pressure lowering below 130 mm Hg and the similar proportional effects in high-risk populations – are consistent with and extend the findings of the SPRINT trial,” they said.
The authors did note greater proportional reductions in the risk of stroke in populations without a history of cerebrovascular disease, compared with those with a history.
Populations without diabetes had significantly greater proportional reductions in risk, compared with those with diabetes, while populations without chronic kidney disease had greater proportional reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular disease events, compared with those with chronic kidney disease.
The five classes of antihypertensives were generally as effective as each other in reducing the risk of major outcomes.
The authors noted that, while there were small but significant differences between drug classes for outcomes, these effects may have been the result of differences in control regimens or the concurrent use of multiple drug classes in many trials.
Two authors were supported by the National Institute of Health Research, one by the Clarendon Fund, and one by the Rhodes Trust. The George Institute is supported by the Oxford Martin School. Two authors declared grants from Servier, and one also declared investments for the development of a polypill. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
FROM THE LANCET
Key clinical point: Blood pressure lowering is associated with significant reductions in vascular events in patients with a range of comorbidities and baseline blood pressures.
Major finding: Each 10–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure is associated with a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular disease events.
Data source: A meta-analysis of 123 randomized controlled trials of blood pressure lowering treatment, involving a total of 613,815 participants.
Disclosures: Two authors were supported by the National Institute of Health Research, one by the Clarendon Fund, and one by the Rhodes Trust. The George Institute is supported by the Oxford Martin School. Two authors declared grants from Servier, and one also declared investments for the development of a polypill. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Treatment failure reduced in Barrett’s esophagus with endoscopic mucosal resection
The use of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) before radiofrequency ablation significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure among patients with Barrett’s esophagus–associated intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) and dysplasia, according to new data published in the American Journal of Surgical Pathology.
Complete eradication of IMC/dysplasia on the first follow-up endoscopy after treatment was achieved in 86% of patients, while durable eradication, defined as a complete recurrence that persisted until the last follow-up, was achieved in 78% of patients. However, there was significant variation between the different study sites (P = .03) and outcomes were significantly impacted by the baseline extent of IMC and the use of EMR prior to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy.
In addition, almost a quarter of all patients developed treatment-related strictures, usually in the setting of multiple EMRs, and recurrence occurred as a malignant stricture in one patient.
Radiofrequency ablation used with or without EMR, is a safe, effective, and durable treatment option for the treatment of dysplasia associated with Barrett’s esophagus. However, studies that have assessed the predictors of treatment failure in Barrett’s esophagus-associated intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) are limited.
In this study, Dr. Agoston T. Agoston of the department of pathology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues investigated the rate of Barrett’s esophagus–associated IMC eradication when using RFA, with or without EMR, in a multicenter setting. In addition, they attempted to identify clinical and pathologic predictors of treatment failure.
“We anticipate that these data will have significant implications for a personalized treatment approach to patients with BE [Barrett’s esophagus]–associated IMC,” wrote the authors.
They conducted a retrospective review of medical records from four tertiary care academic medical centers, and identified 78 patients who underwent RFA with or without EMR as the primary treatment for biopsy-proven IMC.
Some notable baseline differences were observed in patient characteristics at the different study sites, including baseline Barrett’s esophagus segment length (P = .06), baseline nodularity (P = .08), and percentage of tissue involved by IMC at pretreatment endoscopy and biopsy (P = .01).
Over a mean follow-up time of 26.4 months (range, 2-116 months), 86% of patients achieved complete eradication and 78% durable eradication of IMC/dysplasia.
Within the cohort, 11 patients failed to achieve complete eradication, and of the 67 patients who initially did, 6 patients (9.0%) had a subsequent recurrence of neoplasia (3.91 recurrences per 100 patient-years). This extrapolated to an overall rate of 22% for treatment failure (17/78 patients). Of the 17 patients who failed the treatment, 3 subsequently underwent esophagectomy, 1 received palliative measures in the setting of advanced neurological disease, and 1 patient is currently undergoing a repeat ablation procedure with curative intent.
Dr. Agoston and his team also identified 2 clinicopathologic factors that were significantly associated with treatment failure, and both remained significant on univariate and multivariate analysis. The first was that the use of EMR prior to RFA was associated with a significantly reduced risk for treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.48; P = .001), and the second was that the extent of IMC involving at least 50% of the columnar metaplastic area was associated with a significantly increased risk for treatment failure (HR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.53-11.7; P = .005).
They also observed similar results when the analysis of extent of IMC as a predictor was restricted to a subset of 43 cases in which the diagnosis of IMC was made on EMR specimens only (HR, 10.8; 95% CI, 2.30-50.8; P = .003).
“In conclusion, we have identified endoscopic and pathologic factors associated with treatment success in patients with BE-associated IMC treated with RFA with or without EMR,” they wrote. “Utilization of these predictors can help in identifying patients with a high probability of success and also those patients with a higher risk for treatment failure for whom a more aggressive initial approach may be justified” (Am J Surg Pathol. 2015 Dec 5. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000566).
Dr. Rothstein and Dr. Abrams have received research support previously from Barrx/ Covidien and C2 Therapeutics/Covidien, respectively. None of the other authors reported significant conflicts of interest.
The use of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) before radiofrequency ablation significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure among patients with Barrett’s esophagus–associated intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) and dysplasia, according to new data published in the American Journal of Surgical Pathology.
Complete eradication of IMC/dysplasia on the first follow-up endoscopy after treatment was achieved in 86% of patients, while durable eradication, defined as a complete recurrence that persisted until the last follow-up, was achieved in 78% of patients. However, there was significant variation between the different study sites (P = .03) and outcomes were significantly impacted by the baseline extent of IMC and the use of EMR prior to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy.
In addition, almost a quarter of all patients developed treatment-related strictures, usually in the setting of multiple EMRs, and recurrence occurred as a malignant stricture in one patient.
Radiofrequency ablation used with or without EMR, is a safe, effective, and durable treatment option for the treatment of dysplasia associated with Barrett’s esophagus. However, studies that have assessed the predictors of treatment failure in Barrett’s esophagus-associated intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) are limited.
In this study, Dr. Agoston T. Agoston of the department of pathology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues investigated the rate of Barrett’s esophagus–associated IMC eradication when using RFA, with or without EMR, in a multicenter setting. In addition, they attempted to identify clinical and pathologic predictors of treatment failure.
“We anticipate that these data will have significant implications for a personalized treatment approach to patients with BE [Barrett’s esophagus]–associated IMC,” wrote the authors.
They conducted a retrospective review of medical records from four tertiary care academic medical centers, and identified 78 patients who underwent RFA with or without EMR as the primary treatment for biopsy-proven IMC.
Some notable baseline differences were observed in patient characteristics at the different study sites, including baseline Barrett’s esophagus segment length (P = .06), baseline nodularity (P = .08), and percentage of tissue involved by IMC at pretreatment endoscopy and biopsy (P = .01).
Over a mean follow-up time of 26.4 months (range, 2-116 months), 86% of patients achieved complete eradication and 78% durable eradication of IMC/dysplasia.
Within the cohort, 11 patients failed to achieve complete eradication, and of the 67 patients who initially did, 6 patients (9.0%) had a subsequent recurrence of neoplasia (3.91 recurrences per 100 patient-years). This extrapolated to an overall rate of 22% for treatment failure (17/78 patients). Of the 17 patients who failed the treatment, 3 subsequently underwent esophagectomy, 1 received palliative measures in the setting of advanced neurological disease, and 1 patient is currently undergoing a repeat ablation procedure with curative intent.
Dr. Agoston and his team also identified 2 clinicopathologic factors that were significantly associated with treatment failure, and both remained significant on univariate and multivariate analysis. The first was that the use of EMR prior to RFA was associated with a significantly reduced risk for treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.48; P = .001), and the second was that the extent of IMC involving at least 50% of the columnar metaplastic area was associated with a significantly increased risk for treatment failure (HR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.53-11.7; P = .005).
They also observed similar results when the analysis of extent of IMC as a predictor was restricted to a subset of 43 cases in which the diagnosis of IMC was made on EMR specimens only (HR, 10.8; 95% CI, 2.30-50.8; P = .003).
“In conclusion, we have identified endoscopic and pathologic factors associated with treatment success in patients with BE-associated IMC treated with RFA with or without EMR,” they wrote. “Utilization of these predictors can help in identifying patients with a high probability of success and also those patients with a higher risk for treatment failure for whom a more aggressive initial approach may be justified” (Am J Surg Pathol. 2015 Dec 5. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000566).
Dr. Rothstein and Dr. Abrams have received research support previously from Barrx/ Covidien and C2 Therapeutics/Covidien, respectively. None of the other authors reported significant conflicts of interest.
The use of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) before radiofrequency ablation significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure among patients with Barrett’s esophagus–associated intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) and dysplasia, according to new data published in the American Journal of Surgical Pathology.
Complete eradication of IMC/dysplasia on the first follow-up endoscopy after treatment was achieved in 86% of patients, while durable eradication, defined as a complete recurrence that persisted until the last follow-up, was achieved in 78% of patients. However, there was significant variation between the different study sites (P = .03) and outcomes were significantly impacted by the baseline extent of IMC and the use of EMR prior to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy.
In addition, almost a quarter of all patients developed treatment-related strictures, usually in the setting of multiple EMRs, and recurrence occurred as a malignant stricture in one patient.
Radiofrequency ablation used with or without EMR, is a safe, effective, and durable treatment option for the treatment of dysplasia associated with Barrett’s esophagus. However, studies that have assessed the predictors of treatment failure in Barrett’s esophagus-associated intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) are limited.
In this study, Dr. Agoston T. Agoston of the department of pathology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues investigated the rate of Barrett’s esophagus–associated IMC eradication when using RFA, with or without EMR, in a multicenter setting. In addition, they attempted to identify clinical and pathologic predictors of treatment failure.
“We anticipate that these data will have significant implications for a personalized treatment approach to patients with BE [Barrett’s esophagus]–associated IMC,” wrote the authors.
They conducted a retrospective review of medical records from four tertiary care academic medical centers, and identified 78 patients who underwent RFA with or without EMR as the primary treatment for biopsy-proven IMC.
Some notable baseline differences were observed in patient characteristics at the different study sites, including baseline Barrett’s esophagus segment length (P = .06), baseline nodularity (P = .08), and percentage of tissue involved by IMC at pretreatment endoscopy and biopsy (P = .01).
Over a mean follow-up time of 26.4 months (range, 2-116 months), 86% of patients achieved complete eradication and 78% durable eradication of IMC/dysplasia.
Within the cohort, 11 patients failed to achieve complete eradication, and of the 67 patients who initially did, 6 patients (9.0%) had a subsequent recurrence of neoplasia (3.91 recurrences per 100 patient-years). This extrapolated to an overall rate of 22% for treatment failure (17/78 patients). Of the 17 patients who failed the treatment, 3 subsequently underwent esophagectomy, 1 received palliative measures in the setting of advanced neurological disease, and 1 patient is currently undergoing a repeat ablation procedure with curative intent.
Dr. Agoston and his team also identified 2 clinicopathologic factors that were significantly associated with treatment failure, and both remained significant on univariate and multivariate analysis. The first was that the use of EMR prior to RFA was associated with a significantly reduced risk for treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.48; P = .001), and the second was that the extent of IMC involving at least 50% of the columnar metaplastic area was associated with a significantly increased risk for treatment failure (HR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.53-11.7; P = .005).
They also observed similar results when the analysis of extent of IMC as a predictor was restricted to a subset of 43 cases in which the diagnosis of IMC was made on EMR specimens only (HR, 10.8; 95% CI, 2.30-50.8; P = .003).
“In conclusion, we have identified endoscopic and pathologic factors associated with treatment success in patients with BE-associated IMC treated with RFA with or without EMR,” they wrote. “Utilization of these predictors can help in identifying patients with a high probability of success and also those patients with a higher risk for treatment failure for whom a more aggressive initial approach may be justified” (Am J Surg Pathol. 2015 Dec 5. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000566).
Dr. Rothstein and Dr. Abrams have received research support previously from Barrx/ Covidien and C2 Therapeutics/Covidien, respectively. None of the other authors reported significant conflicts of interest.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY
Key clinical point: The use of EMR before radiofrequency ablation significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure for IMC associated with Barrett’s esophagus.
Major finding: The overall rate of complete and durable IMC eradication in Barrett’s esophagus was 86% and 78%, respectively, during a mean follow-up of about 2 years, but was significantly impacted by the baseline extent of IMC and the use of EMR.
Data source: A retrospective review of data from four tertiary care academic medical centers that included 78 patients and was conducted to determine the rate of IMC eradication when using RFA and EMR.
Disclosures: Dr. Rothstein and Dr. Abrams have received research support previously from Barrx/ Covidien and C2 Therapeutics/Covidien, respectively. None of the other authors reported significant conflicts of interest.
Budget deal with NIH, CDC funding boost clears Congress
A budget deal that includes increases in funding to both the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quickly passed through Congress and is expected to be signed by President Obama.
The omnibus budget agreement, announced Dec. 15, cleared the House on Dec. 18 by a 316-113 vote, with five representatives not voting. The agreement was quickly passed the same day in the Senate by a 65-33 vote. If signed, the budget bill would fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2016.
The agreement would boost funding to the NIH by $2 billion, bringing the total budget to $32 billion. It would increase funding for the CDC by about $308 million, bringing the 2016 budget to $7.2 billion.
The bill would cut $30 million from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality budget and keep the budgets at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at their fiscal 2015 levels.
Absent from the bill are any changes to the Meaningful Use program, as well as any cuts to Planned Parenthood funding.
A budget deal that includes increases in funding to both the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quickly passed through Congress and is expected to be signed by President Obama.
The omnibus budget agreement, announced Dec. 15, cleared the House on Dec. 18 by a 316-113 vote, with five representatives not voting. The agreement was quickly passed the same day in the Senate by a 65-33 vote. If signed, the budget bill would fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2016.
The agreement would boost funding to the NIH by $2 billion, bringing the total budget to $32 billion. It would increase funding for the CDC by about $308 million, bringing the 2016 budget to $7.2 billion.
The bill would cut $30 million from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality budget and keep the budgets at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at their fiscal 2015 levels.
Absent from the bill are any changes to the Meaningful Use program, as well as any cuts to Planned Parenthood funding.
A budget deal that includes increases in funding to both the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quickly passed through Congress and is expected to be signed by President Obama.
The omnibus budget agreement, announced Dec. 15, cleared the House on Dec. 18 by a 316-113 vote, with five representatives not voting. The agreement was quickly passed the same day in the Senate by a 65-33 vote. If signed, the budget bill would fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2016.
The agreement would boost funding to the NIH by $2 billion, bringing the total budget to $32 billion. It would increase funding for the CDC by about $308 million, bringing the 2016 budget to $7.2 billion.
The bill would cut $30 million from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality budget and keep the budgets at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at their fiscal 2015 levels.
Absent from the bill are any changes to the Meaningful Use program, as well as any cuts to Planned Parenthood funding.
Physician Compare: Expanded data cause concern
Potentially inaccurate data posted on the federal Physician Compare website could misinform patients and lead to incorrect assumptions about the quality of care individual doctors provide.
With the most recent update of Physician Compare, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for the first time has posted individual physician performance scores on the 40,000 individual health care professionals who are part of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS).
“Given the widespread accuracy issues with the 2014 PQRS calculations, the newly released information is premature,” American Medical Association President Steven J. Stack said in a statement. “The data inaccuracies and difficulties with CMS’s processes grew over the last couple of months and, while CMS has acknowledged these problems, it has failed to address the underlying issues. Most importantly, consumers visiting the Physician Compare website are likely to get a false impression that it provides accurate quality information for all physicians, when in fact, due to significant data problems, the newly added information covers only about 40,000 physicians.”
Although the concept of Physician Compare makes sense, the CMS needs to resolve data inconsistencies and improve how the information is being presented before posting new information to the site, said Dr. Wanda Filer, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). Performance scores on each measure are displayed on Physician Compare as stars followed by a percent, with each star representing 20%.
“A star rating system is too simplistic to provide for informed decisions [and] doesn’t reflect the complexity or context of care that undergirds those measures,” Dr. Filer said in an interview. “Given that complexity, it is likely that inaccurate data will be attributed to a physician’s care.”
In an effort to reduce inaccuracies, the AAFP had called for an extended period – from the current 30 days to 90 – for physicians to review their data before the data are published, Dr. Filer said.
She added that the CMS takes too long to communicate with physicians about their performance scores. Doctors do not receive reports for 6-9 months, reducing the opportunity for them to improve their performance before the next reporting period, she said.
“CMS needs to provide feedback to physicians much sooner so improvement can take place before their data are posted on the next Physician Compare,” Dr. Filer said. “Moreover, CMS must do a better job educating physicians about this website and their opportunity to review and correct any accuracies in what is reported.”
In addition to posting new PQRS measures on Physician Compare, the CMS also has posted 2014 data from group practices that report patient experience measures through the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) for PQRS survey. The CAHPS survey measures Medicare patients’ feedback about their care experiences. Updated performance scores for accountable care organizations, including clinical quality of care and patient experience measures for Shared Savings Program ACOs and 20 Pioneer ACOs were also added.
The reporting of the new data may be welcome for some physicians or group practices that are achieving high scores under quality-reporting programs, noted Philadelphia health law attorney Karl A. Thallner Jr.
“However, a physician who does not participate or who does not have high scores may feel that the reported data does not provide an accurate picture of the quality of care that he/she provides to patients, and therefore may be misleading to consumers,” Mr. Thallner said in an interview. “Also, physicians may not report data consistently, making differences between physicians less relevant.”
On Twitter@legal_med
Potentially inaccurate data posted on the federal Physician Compare website could misinform patients and lead to incorrect assumptions about the quality of care individual doctors provide.
With the most recent update of Physician Compare, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for the first time has posted individual physician performance scores on the 40,000 individual health care professionals who are part of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS).
“Given the widespread accuracy issues with the 2014 PQRS calculations, the newly released information is premature,” American Medical Association President Steven J. Stack said in a statement. “The data inaccuracies and difficulties with CMS’s processes grew over the last couple of months and, while CMS has acknowledged these problems, it has failed to address the underlying issues. Most importantly, consumers visiting the Physician Compare website are likely to get a false impression that it provides accurate quality information for all physicians, when in fact, due to significant data problems, the newly added information covers only about 40,000 physicians.”
Although the concept of Physician Compare makes sense, the CMS needs to resolve data inconsistencies and improve how the information is being presented before posting new information to the site, said Dr. Wanda Filer, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). Performance scores on each measure are displayed on Physician Compare as stars followed by a percent, with each star representing 20%.
“A star rating system is too simplistic to provide for informed decisions [and] doesn’t reflect the complexity or context of care that undergirds those measures,” Dr. Filer said in an interview. “Given that complexity, it is likely that inaccurate data will be attributed to a physician’s care.”
In an effort to reduce inaccuracies, the AAFP had called for an extended period – from the current 30 days to 90 – for physicians to review their data before the data are published, Dr. Filer said.
She added that the CMS takes too long to communicate with physicians about their performance scores. Doctors do not receive reports for 6-9 months, reducing the opportunity for them to improve their performance before the next reporting period, she said.
“CMS needs to provide feedback to physicians much sooner so improvement can take place before their data are posted on the next Physician Compare,” Dr. Filer said. “Moreover, CMS must do a better job educating physicians about this website and their opportunity to review and correct any accuracies in what is reported.”
In addition to posting new PQRS measures on Physician Compare, the CMS also has posted 2014 data from group practices that report patient experience measures through the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) for PQRS survey. The CAHPS survey measures Medicare patients’ feedback about their care experiences. Updated performance scores for accountable care organizations, including clinical quality of care and patient experience measures for Shared Savings Program ACOs and 20 Pioneer ACOs were also added.
The reporting of the new data may be welcome for some physicians or group practices that are achieving high scores under quality-reporting programs, noted Philadelphia health law attorney Karl A. Thallner Jr.
“However, a physician who does not participate or who does not have high scores may feel that the reported data does not provide an accurate picture of the quality of care that he/she provides to patients, and therefore may be misleading to consumers,” Mr. Thallner said in an interview. “Also, physicians may not report data consistently, making differences between physicians less relevant.”
On Twitter@legal_med
Potentially inaccurate data posted on the federal Physician Compare website could misinform patients and lead to incorrect assumptions about the quality of care individual doctors provide.
With the most recent update of Physician Compare, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for the first time has posted individual physician performance scores on the 40,000 individual health care professionals who are part of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS).
“Given the widespread accuracy issues with the 2014 PQRS calculations, the newly released information is premature,” American Medical Association President Steven J. Stack said in a statement. “The data inaccuracies and difficulties with CMS’s processes grew over the last couple of months and, while CMS has acknowledged these problems, it has failed to address the underlying issues. Most importantly, consumers visiting the Physician Compare website are likely to get a false impression that it provides accurate quality information for all physicians, when in fact, due to significant data problems, the newly added information covers only about 40,000 physicians.”
Although the concept of Physician Compare makes sense, the CMS needs to resolve data inconsistencies and improve how the information is being presented before posting new information to the site, said Dr. Wanda Filer, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). Performance scores on each measure are displayed on Physician Compare as stars followed by a percent, with each star representing 20%.
“A star rating system is too simplistic to provide for informed decisions [and] doesn’t reflect the complexity or context of care that undergirds those measures,” Dr. Filer said in an interview. “Given that complexity, it is likely that inaccurate data will be attributed to a physician’s care.”
In an effort to reduce inaccuracies, the AAFP had called for an extended period – from the current 30 days to 90 – for physicians to review their data before the data are published, Dr. Filer said.
She added that the CMS takes too long to communicate with physicians about their performance scores. Doctors do not receive reports for 6-9 months, reducing the opportunity for them to improve their performance before the next reporting period, she said.
“CMS needs to provide feedback to physicians much sooner so improvement can take place before their data are posted on the next Physician Compare,” Dr. Filer said. “Moreover, CMS must do a better job educating physicians about this website and their opportunity to review and correct any accuracies in what is reported.”
In addition to posting new PQRS measures on Physician Compare, the CMS also has posted 2014 data from group practices that report patient experience measures through the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) for PQRS survey. The CAHPS survey measures Medicare patients’ feedback about their care experiences. Updated performance scores for accountable care organizations, including clinical quality of care and patient experience measures for Shared Savings Program ACOs and 20 Pioneer ACOs were also added.
The reporting of the new data may be welcome for some physicians or group practices that are achieving high scores under quality-reporting programs, noted Philadelphia health law attorney Karl A. Thallner Jr.
“However, a physician who does not participate or who does not have high scores may feel that the reported data does not provide an accurate picture of the quality of care that he/she provides to patients, and therefore may be misleading to consumers,” Mr. Thallner said in an interview. “Also, physicians may not report data consistently, making differences between physicians less relevant.”
On Twitter@legal_med
