THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

The federal government is taking “steps in the right direction” to help control this pandemic, but there have been many hard lessons learned, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The report’s authors call for “coordinated federal leadership to improve the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is among 10 recommendations that address what AAMC views as systemic inadequacies in the nation’s COVID-19 response that can help advise policy makers on how to better prepare for the next pandemic.

The recommendations are:

• The White House must lead the charge and ensure coordination among departments and agencies.
• The federal government must engage industry and research universities at the outset, commit to purchasing needed supplies and therapeutics in advance.
• The federal government must ensure an effective supply chain for critical goods and materials.
• Congress must appropriate needed funding to meet public health needs.
• Federal and state governments must relax regulatory restrictions on clinical care during a national emergency.
• Both government and the private sector must invest in needed data infrastructure.
• Federal and state policies must increase supply and well-being of physicians and other health professionals.
• Congress must continue to commit to basic and clinical research.
• Federal government should expand and improve health insurance coverage.
• Stakeholders must commit to improving equity and patient-centered care through community engagement.

Current crisis ‘avoidable’

Although the Biden administration’s COVID-19 strategy is moving in the right direction, says Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the AAMC Research and Action Institute, the branch of the association that prepared the report, “the severity of this phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was avoidable.”

According to the report, only the federal government can provide the level of coordination that is needed across states and international borders to fight the virus successfully. “The response should not rely on a piecemeal approach that varies by locality and region.”

In the absence of clear federal leadership during the pandemic’s earlier phase, the report states, “key policies were either absent or conflicting across states, counties, and municipalities. Without federal direction and coordination, states were forced to compete against each other (and, sometimes, against the federal government) for supplies.”

As a recent Kaiser Health News report shows, the states are still falling short on the COVID-19 front: For example, at least 26 states have restricted the ability of their public health authorities to take action against COVID in various ways.

In an interview, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agrees on the need for the federal government to lead the COVID fight.

Noting that the cooperation of states with each other and with the national government is voluntary, Dr. Schaffner asserted that “subcontracting [the COVID response] to the states doesn’t work. That results in chaos and a crazy quilt of responses that persists to this day.”
 

Inadequate control of COVID effort

Within the federal government, the AAMC report maintains, the White House must be directly in charge of coordinating the fight against the pandemic. The AAMC calls for the establishment of a top-level office or a coordinating team to lead the COVID effort, similar to what was done during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak.

Earlier this year, President Biden appointed Jeffrey Zients as White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, succeeding Deborah Birx, MD, in that role. Dr. Grover was asked in an interview why that doesn’t meet AAMC’s requirements.

“Jeff and his team are doing a good job,” Dr. Grover said. “But the reason I think we could be doing a better job is that the messaging has not been consistent across agencies and across the federal government.”

“Jeff may not have the authority to overrule individual decisions and to ensure that all decisions are integrated across organizations. Maybe that is happening, but it’s not clear to those of us who are not in the meetings every day. At a minimum, we’ve got to get the messaging right, and it needs to be more transparent.”

Dr. Grover cites a recent press conference by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the national strategy for vaccine booster shots. “No one from the FDA was there,” he said. “Theoretically, [the] FDA has signed off on boosters, but their scientists were caught off guard. The administration’s messaging needs to be consistent, and that would be more likely if someone were in charge of these agencies overall,” Dr. Grover said.

Dr. Schaffner said he prefers not to comment on this point, “but I won’t argue with the observation.”
 

Supplies still not adequate

In light of the medical supply shortages that have plagued the COVID-19 response, the AAMC report recommends that the federal government ensure an effective supply chain for all critical goods and materials, starting with the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), which was created in 1999 to supplement state and local medical supplies during public health emergencies.

“The SNS should enable the nation to support care for a minimum number of critically ill patients until the federal government can assure an adequate functional supply chain for a short period of time,” the AAMC report states.

The SNS was not replenished after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and wasn’t prepared for the COVID-19 emergency, according to the report. “Despite having built up the supply over the last year, the nation is just one major outbreak or incident away from another monumental shortage of very basic needs such as gloves, masks, and gowns.”

Dr. Grover said the national stockpile now has more gowns and gloves than it did at the pandemic’s start. But he’s concerned about what might happen if a new type of pathogen emerged. “If we were to face the same kind of COVID surge we’re now facing in the unvaccinated communities more broadly across the U.S. – for example, if we got another variant that was even more infectious or deadly – I’m not sure we’d be prepared.”
 

Just-in-time purchasing

Hospitals were caught short when COVID struck because of their just-in-time supply chain approach, which relied on punctual deliveries of new supplies and equipment, the report states. Of course, when demand soared and every provider was competing for scarce supplies, that didn’t happen.

Now, Dr. Grover pointed out, there is still no central system to keep track of where PPE, ventilators, oxygen tanks, and other critical items are in the supply chains of hospitals and physician practices.

So, even if policymakers determined that the nation should use both the SNS and private locations to stockpile enough supplies to care for a certain number of patients for a period of time, there wouldn’t be any way to determine what was on hand or where it was stored.

Moreover, while hospitals have built up their stockpiles to prepare for new COVID surges, he expects them to go back to just-in-time purchasing when the pandemic wanes. Although health care organizations want to take good care of patients, they have financial and physical constraints on how many supplies they can store, Dr. Grover said.
 

Testing conundrum

An analogous challenge exists for companies that make COVID-19 tests, Dr. Grover said. “The testing companies don’t want to produce more than they’re going to be able to sell. They’re a for-profit industry.” Partly as a result, the nation has never had as many tests as it needs, according to the report.

To solve this problem, the report authors suggest that the federal government take an approach similar to that of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS), which used advance funding and vaccine prepurchases to spur development.

“The CDC is unlikely to meet testing demands in future outbreaks and pandemics using existing public health lab partnerships, even under the best conditions. Industry was reluctant to mass produce testing kits for fear demand would fail to materialize; an OWS-like advance purchasing strategy and investment in private production could have reduced the spread of COVID-19 and will be critical in mitigating a future outbreak or pandemic.”
 

Public health infrastructure

The report also calls for Congress to appropriate “robust and continuous funding for public health infrastructure … Chronic underfunding of public health has hurt the nation’s emergency preparedness framework and contributes to health inequity.”

This applies not only to federal funding but also to state and local funding, which has primarily been allocated on a crisis-response basis, the report states.

Dr. Grover is glad that the fiscal 2022 budget legislation includes $15 billion to finance this infrastructure, but that’s only a start, he said.

Dr. Schaffner stresses the importance of improving the IT infrastructure of public health agencies. “We need a better, higher-quality mechanism for quickly gathering critical data from doctors’ offices and hospitals and sending that information through a public health stream so it can be gathered.”

“Today, data come in at the national level, sometimes slowly, sometimes in fragmented fashion, from different jurisdictions around the country, and it’s very difficult to make secure statements and plan effectively.”

Dr. Schaffner agrees with the report’s emphasis on the need for long-term planning to prepare for the next pandemic but is pessimistic about the odds of it occurring.

“This challenges us as Americans. We have notoriously short attention spans. And we like to put difficult things behind us and look to the future,” he said.

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

The federal government is taking “steps in the right direction” to help control this pandemic, but there have been many hard lessons learned, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The report’s authors call for “coordinated federal leadership to improve the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is among 10 recommendations that address what AAMC views as systemic inadequacies in the nation’s COVID-19 response that can help advise policy makers on how to better prepare for the next pandemic.

The recommendations are:

• The White House must lead the charge and ensure coordination among departments and agencies.
• The federal government must engage industry and research universities at the outset, commit to purchasing needed supplies and therapeutics in advance.
• The federal government must ensure an effective supply chain for critical goods and materials.
• Congress must appropriate needed funding to meet public health needs.
• Federal and state governments must relax regulatory restrictions on clinical care during a national emergency.
• Both government and the private sector must invest in needed data infrastructure.
• Federal and state policies must increase supply and well-being of physicians and other health professionals.
• Congress must continue to commit to basic and clinical research.
• Federal government should expand and improve health insurance coverage.
• Stakeholders must commit to improving equity and patient-centered care through community engagement.

Current crisis ‘avoidable’

Although the Biden administration’s COVID-19 strategy is moving in the right direction, says Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the AAMC Research and Action Institute, the branch of the association that prepared the report, “the severity of this phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was avoidable.”

According to the report, only the federal government can provide the level of coordination that is needed across states and international borders to fight the virus successfully. “The response should not rely on a piecemeal approach that varies by locality and region.”

In the absence of clear federal leadership during the pandemic’s earlier phase, the report states, “key policies were either absent or conflicting across states, counties, and municipalities. Without federal direction and coordination, states were forced to compete against each other (and, sometimes, against the federal government) for supplies.”

As a recent Kaiser Health News report shows, the states are still falling short on the COVID-19 front: For example, at least 26 states have restricted the ability of their public health authorities to take action against COVID in various ways.

In an interview, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agrees on the need for the federal government to lead the COVID fight.

Noting that the cooperation of states with each other and with the national government is voluntary, Dr. Schaffner asserted that “subcontracting [the COVID response] to the states doesn’t work. That results in chaos and a crazy quilt of responses that persists to this day.”
 

Inadequate control of COVID effort

Within the federal government, the AAMC report maintains, the White House must be directly in charge of coordinating the fight against the pandemic. The AAMC calls for the establishment of a top-level office or a coordinating team to lead the COVID effort, similar to what was done during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak.

Earlier this year, President Biden appointed Jeffrey Zients as White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, succeeding Deborah Birx, MD, in that role. Dr. Grover was asked in an interview why that doesn’t meet AAMC’s requirements.

“Jeff and his team are doing a good job,” Dr. Grover said. “But the reason I think we could be doing a better job is that the messaging has not been consistent across agencies and across the federal government.”

“Jeff may not have the authority to overrule individual decisions and to ensure that all decisions are integrated across organizations. Maybe that is happening, but it’s not clear to those of us who are not in the meetings every day. At a minimum, we’ve got to get the messaging right, and it needs to be more transparent.”

Dr. Grover cites a recent press conference by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the national strategy for vaccine booster shots. “No one from the FDA was there,” he said. “Theoretically, [the] FDA has signed off on boosters, but their scientists were caught off guard. The administration’s messaging needs to be consistent, and that would be more likely if someone were in charge of these agencies overall,” Dr. Grover said.

Dr. Schaffner said he prefers not to comment on this point, “but I won’t argue with the observation.”
 

Supplies still not adequate

In light of the medical supply shortages that have plagued the COVID-19 response, the AAMC report recommends that the federal government ensure an effective supply chain for all critical goods and materials, starting with the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), which was created in 1999 to supplement state and local medical supplies during public health emergencies.

“The SNS should enable the nation to support care for a minimum number of critically ill patients until the federal government can assure an adequate functional supply chain for a short period of time,” the AAMC report states.

The SNS was not replenished after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and wasn’t prepared for the COVID-19 emergency, according to the report. “Despite having built up the supply over the last year, the nation is just one major outbreak or incident away from another monumental shortage of very basic needs such as gloves, masks, and gowns.”

Dr. Grover said the national stockpile now has more gowns and gloves than it did at the pandemic’s start. But he’s concerned about what might happen if a new type of pathogen emerged. “If we were to face the same kind of COVID surge we’re now facing in the unvaccinated communities more broadly across the U.S. – for example, if we got another variant that was even more infectious or deadly – I’m not sure we’d be prepared.”
 

Just-in-time purchasing

Hospitals were caught short when COVID struck because of their just-in-time supply chain approach, which relied on punctual deliveries of new supplies and equipment, the report states. Of course, when demand soared and every provider was competing for scarce supplies, that didn’t happen.

Now, Dr. Grover pointed out, there is still no central system to keep track of where PPE, ventilators, oxygen tanks, and other critical items are in the supply chains of hospitals and physician practices.

So, even if policymakers determined that the nation should use both the SNS and private locations to stockpile enough supplies to care for a certain number of patients for a period of time, there wouldn’t be any way to determine what was on hand or where it was stored.

Moreover, while hospitals have built up their stockpiles to prepare for new COVID surges, he expects them to go back to just-in-time purchasing when the pandemic wanes. Although health care organizations want to take good care of patients, they have financial and physical constraints on how many supplies they can store, Dr. Grover said.
 

Testing conundrum

An analogous challenge exists for companies that make COVID-19 tests, Dr. Grover said. “The testing companies don’t want to produce more than they’re going to be able to sell. They’re a for-profit industry.” Partly as a result, the nation has never had as many tests as it needs, according to the report.

To solve this problem, the report authors suggest that the federal government take an approach similar to that of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS), which used advance funding and vaccine prepurchases to spur development.

“The CDC is unlikely to meet testing demands in future outbreaks and pandemics using existing public health lab partnerships, even under the best conditions. Industry was reluctant to mass produce testing kits for fear demand would fail to materialize; an OWS-like advance purchasing strategy and investment in private production could have reduced the spread of COVID-19 and will be critical in mitigating a future outbreak or pandemic.”
 

Public health infrastructure

The report also calls for Congress to appropriate “robust and continuous funding for public health infrastructure … Chronic underfunding of public health has hurt the nation’s emergency preparedness framework and contributes to health inequity.”

This applies not only to federal funding but also to state and local funding, which has primarily been allocated on a crisis-response basis, the report states.

Dr. Grover is glad that the fiscal 2022 budget legislation includes $15 billion to finance this infrastructure, but that’s only a start, he said.

Dr. Schaffner stresses the importance of improving the IT infrastructure of public health agencies. “We need a better, higher-quality mechanism for quickly gathering critical data from doctors’ offices and hospitals and sending that information through a public health stream so it can be gathered.”

“Today, data come in at the national level, sometimes slowly, sometimes in fragmented fashion, from different jurisdictions around the country, and it’s very difficult to make secure statements and plan effectively.”

Dr. Schaffner agrees with the report’s emphasis on the need for long-term planning to prepare for the next pandemic but is pessimistic about the odds of it occurring.

“This challenges us as Americans. We have notoriously short attention spans. And we like to put difficult things behind us and look to the future,” he said.

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

The federal government is taking “steps in the right direction” to help control this pandemic, but there have been many hard lessons learned, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The report’s authors call for “coordinated federal leadership to improve the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is among 10 recommendations that address what AAMC views as systemic inadequacies in the nation’s COVID-19 response that can help advise policy makers on how to better prepare for the next pandemic.

The recommendations are:

• The White House must lead the charge and ensure coordination among departments and agencies.
• The federal government must engage industry and research universities at the outset, commit to purchasing needed supplies and therapeutics in advance.
• The federal government must ensure an effective supply chain for critical goods and materials.
• Congress must appropriate needed funding to meet public health needs.
• Federal and state governments must relax regulatory restrictions on clinical care during a national emergency.
• Both government and the private sector must invest in needed data infrastructure.
• Federal and state policies must increase supply and well-being of physicians and other health professionals.
• Congress must continue to commit to basic and clinical research.
• Federal government should expand and improve health insurance coverage.
• Stakeholders must commit to improving equity and patient-centered care through community engagement.

Current crisis ‘avoidable’

Although the Biden administration’s COVID-19 strategy is moving in the right direction, says Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the AAMC Research and Action Institute, the branch of the association that prepared the report, “the severity of this phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was avoidable.”

According to the report, only the federal government can provide the level of coordination that is needed across states and international borders to fight the virus successfully. “The response should not rely on a piecemeal approach that varies by locality and region.”

In the absence of clear federal leadership during the pandemic’s earlier phase, the report states, “key policies were either absent or conflicting across states, counties, and municipalities. Without federal direction and coordination, states were forced to compete against each other (and, sometimes, against the federal government) for supplies.”

As a recent Kaiser Health News report shows, the states are still falling short on the COVID-19 front: For example, at least 26 states have restricted the ability of their public health authorities to take action against COVID in various ways.

In an interview, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agrees on the need for the federal government to lead the COVID fight.

Noting that the cooperation of states with each other and with the national government is voluntary, Dr. Schaffner asserted that “subcontracting [the COVID response] to the states doesn’t work. That results in chaos and a crazy quilt of responses that persists to this day.”
 

Inadequate control of COVID effort

Within the federal government, the AAMC report maintains, the White House must be directly in charge of coordinating the fight against the pandemic. The AAMC calls for the establishment of a top-level office or a coordinating team to lead the COVID effort, similar to what was done during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak.

Earlier this year, President Biden appointed Jeffrey Zients as White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, succeeding Deborah Birx, MD, in that role. Dr. Grover was asked in an interview why that doesn’t meet AAMC’s requirements.

“Jeff and his team are doing a good job,” Dr. Grover said. “But the reason I think we could be doing a better job is that the messaging has not been consistent across agencies and across the federal government.”

“Jeff may not have the authority to overrule individual decisions and to ensure that all decisions are integrated across organizations. Maybe that is happening, but it’s not clear to those of us who are not in the meetings every day. At a minimum, we’ve got to get the messaging right, and it needs to be more transparent.”

Dr. Grover cites a recent press conference by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the national strategy for vaccine booster shots. “No one from the FDA was there,” he said. “Theoretically, [the] FDA has signed off on boosters, but their scientists were caught off guard. The administration’s messaging needs to be consistent, and that would be more likely if someone were in charge of these agencies overall,” Dr. Grover said.

Dr. Schaffner said he prefers not to comment on this point, “but I won’t argue with the observation.”
 

Supplies still not adequate

In light of the medical supply shortages that have plagued the COVID-19 response, the AAMC report recommends that the federal government ensure an effective supply chain for all critical goods and materials, starting with the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), which was created in 1999 to supplement state and local medical supplies during public health emergencies.

“The SNS should enable the nation to support care for a minimum number of critically ill patients until the federal government can assure an adequate functional supply chain for a short period of time,” the AAMC report states.

The SNS was not replenished after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and wasn’t prepared for the COVID-19 emergency, according to the report. “Despite having built up the supply over the last year, the nation is just one major outbreak or incident away from another monumental shortage of very basic needs such as gloves, masks, and gowns.”

Dr. Grover said the national stockpile now has more gowns and gloves than it did at the pandemic’s start. But he’s concerned about what might happen if a new type of pathogen emerged. “If we were to face the same kind of COVID surge we’re now facing in the unvaccinated communities more broadly across the U.S. – for example, if we got another variant that was even more infectious or deadly – I’m not sure we’d be prepared.”
 

Just-in-time purchasing

Hospitals were caught short when COVID struck because of their just-in-time supply chain approach, which relied on punctual deliveries of new supplies and equipment, the report states. Of course, when demand soared and every provider was competing for scarce supplies, that didn’t happen.

Now, Dr. Grover pointed out, there is still no central system to keep track of where PPE, ventilators, oxygen tanks, and other critical items are in the supply chains of hospitals and physician practices.

So, even if policymakers determined that the nation should use both the SNS and private locations to stockpile enough supplies to care for a certain number of patients for a period of time, there wouldn’t be any way to determine what was on hand or where it was stored.

Moreover, while hospitals have built up their stockpiles to prepare for new COVID surges, he expects them to go back to just-in-time purchasing when the pandemic wanes. Although health care organizations want to take good care of patients, they have financial and physical constraints on how many supplies they can store, Dr. Grover said.
 

Testing conundrum

An analogous challenge exists for companies that make COVID-19 tests, Dr. Grover said. “The testing companies don’t want to produce more than they’re going to be able to sell. They’re a for-profit industry.” Partly as a result, the nation has never had as many tests as it needs, according to the report.

To solve this problem, the report authors suggest that the federal government take an approach similar to that of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS), which used advance funding and vaccine prepurchases to spur development.

“The CDC is unlikely to meet testing demands in future outbreaks and pandemics using existing public health lab partnerships, even under the best conditions. Industry was reluctant to mass produce testing kits for fear demand would fail to materialize; an OWS-like advance purchasing strategy and investment in private production could have reduced the spread of COVID-19 and will be critical in mitigating a future outbreak or pandemic.”
 

Public health infrastructure

The report also calls for Congress to appropriate “robust and continuous funding for public health infrastructure … Chronic underfunding of public health has hurt the nation’s emergency preparedness framework and contributes to health inequity.”

This applies not only to federal funding but also to state and local funding, which has primarily been allocated on a crisis-response basis, the report states.

Dr. Grover is glad that the fiscal 2022 budget legislation includes $15 billion to finance this infrastructure, but that’s only a start, he said.

Dr. Schaffner stresses the importance of improving the IT infrastructure of public health agencies. “We need a better, higher-quality mechanism for quickly gathering critical data from doctors’ offices and hospitals and sending that information through a public health stream so it can be gathered.”

“Today, data come in at the national level, sometimes slowly, sometimes in fragmented fashion, from different jurisdictions around the country, and it’s very difficult to make secure statements and plan effectively.”

Dr. Schaffner agrees with the report’s emphasis on the need for long-term planning to prepare for the next pandemic but is pessimistic about the odds of it occurring.

“This challenges us as Americans. We have notoriously short attention spans. And we like to put difficult things behind us and look to the future,” he said.

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

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials of patients with resectable head and neck cancer finds that immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors administered before or with chemotherapy or radiotherapy was generally well tolerated and efficacious among patients.

The findings, published Sept. 2 in JAMA Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, are noteworthy because the need for effective treatments in head and neck cancers is critical. It is the sixth most common malignancy in the world largely because of tobacco use and alcohol consumption and long-term outcomes are generally poor.

Currently, the standard care for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) includes the surgical removal of the tumor followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Despite new treatments, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab for platinum-refractory advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), there are high rates of recurrence.

“The emerging approach of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for solid cancers has set the ground for the integration of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors into the neoadjuvant setting of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment,” wrote the authors of the review which was led by Nidal Muhanna, MD, PhD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University. “The results [of this analysis] demonstrated favorable outcomes and acceptable tolerance of the administration of neoadjuvant PD-1\PD-L1 inhibitors.”

The analysis included 10 studies

The review included 10 cohort studies and randomized clinical trials of 344 patients who were undergoing treatment for HNSCC between 2015 and 2021. In eight studies, patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and in two studies, patients received combined immunotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

The overall pathological response rate was 9.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.1%-18.9%) for primary tumors treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy or, 2.9% (95% CI, 0%-9.5%) for the pathological complete response rate (with a range of 0%-16.7%).

Treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy was ultimately found to be statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). Plus, favorable associations for treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy were found with nodal pathological complete response. In two studies cited in the analysis, combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy and/or radiation before surgery had an overall pathological complete response rate of 53%.

The major pathologic response in which less than 10% of the tumor remained after treatment varied greatly between 2.9% and 31.0% in five studies. The mean major pathologic response in these cases was 9.7%, which suggested a statistically significant association. A major pathologic response for lymph nodes was described in three studies as statistically significant for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

In terms of adverse events, 8.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-23.2%) of patients were treated for autoimmune colitis, duodenal hemorrhage, mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and syncope.

Combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy continues to be evaluated in clinical trials (NCT03721757, NCT03635164, and NCT03618134). “Whether these combinations have synergistic effects or provide any therapeutic benefit, compared with single-agent therapy is still under investigation. It has been hypothesized that chemotherapy preceding the administration of neoadjuvant immunotherapy may increase antigen presentation by dendritic cells and enhance immune activation against the tumor, which can potentially increase therapeutic efficacy,” the authors wrote.

Other ongoing clinical trials will report survival data in the upcoming years. One of these trials is the IMSTAR-HN, a phase 3 clinical trial assessing neoadjuvant nivolumab with and without ipilimumab as first-line treatment with curative intent for HNSCC. It will report disease-free survival, overall survival, and progression-free survival outcomes.

The authors reported no disclosures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials of patients with resectable head and neck cancer finds that immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors administered before or with chemotherapy or radiotherapy was generally well tolerated and efficacious among patients.

The findings, published Sept. 2 in JAMA Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, are noteworthy because the need for effective treatments in head and neck cancers is critical. It is the sixth most common malignancy in the world largely because of tobacco use and alcohol consumption and long-term outcomes are generally poor.

Currently, the standard care for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) includes the surgical removal of the tumor followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Despite new treatments, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab for platinum-refractory advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), there are high rates of recurrence.

“The emerging approach of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for solid cancers has set the ground for the integration of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors into the neoadjuvant setting of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment,” wrote the authors of the review which was led by Nidal Muhanna, MD, PhD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University. “The results [of this analysis] demonstrated favorable outcomes and acceptable tolerance of the administration of neoadjuvant PD-1\PD-L1 inhibitors.”

The analysis included 10 studies

The review included 10 cohort studies and randomized clinical trials of 344 patients who were undergoing treatment for HNSCC between 2015 and 2021. In eight studies, patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and in two studies, patients received combined immunotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

The overall pathological response rate was 9.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.1%-18.9%) for primary tumors treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy or, 2.9% (95% CI, 0%-9.5%) for the pathological complete response rate (with a range of 0%-16.7%).

Treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy was ultimately found to be statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). Plus, favorable associations for treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy were found with nodal pathological complete response. In two studies cited in the analysis, combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy and/or radiation before surgery had an overall pathological complete response rate of 53%.

The major pathologic response in which less than 10% of the tumor remained after treatment varied greatly between 2.9% and 31.0% in five studies. The mean major pathologic response in these cases was 9.7%, which suggested a statistically significant association. A major pathologic response for lymph nodes was described in three studies as statistically significant for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

In terms of adverse events, 8.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-23.2%) of patients were treated for autoimmune colitis, duodenal hemorrhage, mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and syncope.

Combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy continues to be evaluated in clinical trials (NCT03721757, NCT03635164, and NCT03618134). “Whether these combinations have synergistic effects or provide any therapeutic benefit, compared with single-agent therapy is still under investigation. It has been hypothesized that chemotherapy preceding the administration of neoadjuvant immunotherapy may increase antigen presentation by dendritic cells and enhance immune activation against the tumor, which can potentially increase therapeutic efficacy,” the authors wrote.

Other ongoing clinical trials will report survival data in the upcoming years. One of these trials is the IMSTAR-HN, a phase 3 clinical trial assessing neoadjuvant nivolumab with and without ipilimumab as first-line treatment with curative intent for HNSCC. It will report disease-free survival, overall survival, and progression-free survival outcomes.

The authors reported no disclosures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials of patients with resectable head and neck cancer finds that immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors administered before or with chemotherapy or radiotherapy was generally well tolerated and efficacious among patients.

The findings, published Sept. 2 in JAMA Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, are noteworthy because the need for effective treatments in head and neck cancers is critical. It is the sixth most common malignancy in the world largely because of tobacco use and alcohol consumption and long-term outcomes are generally poor.

Currently, the standard care for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) includes the surgical removal of the tumor followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Despite new treatments, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab for platinum-refractory advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), there are high rates of recurrence.

“The emerging approach of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for solid cancers has set the ground for the integration of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors into the neoadjuvant setting of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment,” wrote the authors of the review which was led by Nidal Muhanna, MD, PhD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University. “The results [of this analysis] demonstrated favorable outcomes and acceptable tolerance of the administration of neoadjuvant PD-1\PD-L1 inhibitors.”

The analysis included 10 studies

The review included 10 cohort studies and randomized clinical trials of 344 patients who were undergoing treatment for HNSCC between 2015 and 2021. In eight studies, patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and in two studies, patients received combined immunotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

The overall pathological response rate was 9.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.1%-18.9%) for primary tumors treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy or, 2.9% (95% CI, 0%-9.5%) for the pathological complete response rate (with a range of 0%-16.7%).

Treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy was ultimately found to be statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). Plus, favorable associations for treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy were found with nodal pathological complete response. In two studies cited in the analysis, combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy and/or radiation before surgery had an overall pathological complete response rate of 53%.

The major pathologic response in which less than 10% of the tumor remained after treatment varied greatly between 2.9% and 31.0% in five studies. The mean major pathologic response in these cases was 9.7%, which suggested a statistically significant association. A major pathologic response for lymph nodes was described in three studies as statistically significant for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

In terms of adverse events, 8.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-23.2%) of patients were treated for autoimmune colitis, duodenal hemorrhage, mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and syncope.

Combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy continues to be evaluated in clinical trials (NCT03721757, NCT03635164, and NCT03618134). “Whether these combinations have synergistic effects or provide any therapeutic benefit, compared with single-agent therapy is still under investigation. It has been hypothesized that chemotherapy preceding the administration of neoadjuvant immunotherapy may increase antigen presentation by dendritic cells and enhance immune activation against the tumor, which can potentially increase therapeutic efficacy,” the authors wrote.

Other ongoing clinical trials will report survival data in the upcoming years. One of these trials is the IMSTAR-HN, a phase 3 clinical trial assessing neoadjuvant nivolumab with and without ipilimumab as first-line treatment with curative intent for HNSCC. It will report disease-free survival, overall survival, and progression-free survival outcomes.

The authors reported no disclosures.

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].