Primarily home-based cognitive-behavioral therapy improved irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at least as much as conventional CBT, cut clinician time by 60%, and significantly outperformed educational sessions in a multicenter clinical trial reported in the July issue of Gastroenterology.

Acutely, primarily home-based CBT produced a mean 61% improvement in self-reported symptoms on the IBS version of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, versus 44% for the educational control group (P less than .05), wrote Jeffrey M. Lackner, PsyD, of the State University of New York at Buffalo and his associates. Blinded gastroenterologists reported improvements of 56% and 40%, respectively (P less than .05). The superiority of the minimal-contact CBT program held up at 6 months and equivalence tests found it “at least as effective as standard CBT,” the researchers wrote.

IBS is a major area of unmet clinical need that costs the United States some $28 billion annually. Clinicians and patients lack both reliable biomarkers and “uniformly effective” therapies, the investigators noted. In recent years, severe adverse events have greatly restricted the availability of otherwise promising Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies, such as Lotronex (alosetron hydrochlorine), which has been linked to ischemic colitis and fatal cases of ruptured bowel, and Zelnorm (tegaserod maleate), which has been associated with myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina.

In contrast, face-to-face CBT is safe, efficacious, and guideline recommended for IBS. However, uptake is limited by cost, stigma, geography, and a shortage of certified providers, the researchers noted. They enrolled 436 patients with IBS based on Rome III criteria and randomly assigned them to one of three interventions. The standard CBT group received 10 weekly, 60-minute, face-to-face CBT sessions on brain-gut interactions, symptom triggers and monitoring, muscle relaxation, worry control, problem-solving, and relapse prevention. The primarily home-based CBT group covered the same topics but attended only four clinic sessions and was provided home study materials. Finally, the education group attended four sessions with background information on IBS and the role of stress, diet, and exercise.

Baseline characteristics were comparable among groups, as were dropout rates (9% overall). In all, 89% of patients completed at least 8 of 10 standard cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions or at least three of four home-based CBT or educational sessions. Six months after the interventions ended, primarily home-based CBT continued to outperform education (blinded gastroenterologist-reported improvements, 58.4% and 44.8%, respectively; P = .05 for difference between groups).

Equivalence tests indicated that the minimal-CBT intervention was at least as effective as standard CBT, and improvements were not primarily the result of concomitant medications, according to the researchers. Nonetheless, only 42% of patients who benefited from CBT achieved remission, defined as no or mild IBS symptoms on the gastroenterologist-administered Clinical Global Impressions Scale. Unremitted patients might benefit from combining CBT with medical therapies that target both “central and peripheral mechanisms of IBS,” the investigators said.

The three interventions produced comparable acute and longer-term improvements on the IBS Symptom Severity Scale, which emphasizes sensory symptoms and therefore might be a less sensitive endpoint than the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, the researchers noted. Nonetheless, CBT produced some of the strongest absolute symptomatic improvements ever reported for IBS. “To put these data in context, treatment response of FDA-approved pharmacological agents using global IBS symptom improvement scales range from 17% to 40%,” the researchers wrote.

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lackner JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Apr 24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.063.

Primarily home-based cognitive-behavioral therapy improved irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at least as much as conventional CBT, cut clinician time by 60%, and significantly outperformed educational sessions in a multicenter clinical trial reported in the July issue of Gastroenterology.

Acutely, primarily home-based CBT produced a mean 61% improvement in self-reported symptoms on the IBS version of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, versus 44% for the educational control group (P less than .05), wrote Jeffrey M. Lackner, PsyD, of the State University of New York at Buffalo and his associates. Blinded gastroenterologists reported improvements of 56% and 40%, respectively (P less than .05). The superiority of the minimal-contact CBT program held up at 6 months and equivalence tests found it “at least as effective as standard CBT,” the researchers wrote.

IBS is a major area of unmet clinical need that costs the United States some $28 billion annually. Clinicians and patients lack both reliable biomarkers and “uniformly effective” therapies, the investigators noted. In recent years, severe adverse events have greatly restricted the availability of otherwise promising Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies, such as Lotronex (alosetron hydrochlorine), which has been linked to ischemic colitis and fatal cases of ruptured bowel, and Zelnorm (tegaserod maleate), which has been associated with myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina.

In contrast, face-to-face CBT is safe, efficacious, and guideline recommended for IBS. However, uptake is limited by cost, stigma, geography, and a shortage of certified providers, the researchers noted. They enrolled 436 patients with IBS based on Rome III criteria and randomly assigned them to one of three interventions. The standard CBT group received 10 weekly, 60-minute, face-to-face CBT sessions on brain-gut interactions, symptom triggers and monitoring, muscle relaxation, worry control, problem-solving, and relapse prevention. The primarily home-based CBT group covered the same topics but attended only four clinic sessions and was provided home study materials. Finally, the education group attended four sessions with background information on IBS and the role of stress, diet, and exercise.

Baseline characteristics were comparable among groups, as were dropout rates (9% overall). In all, 89% of patients completed at least 8 of 10 standard cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions or at least three of four home-based CBT or educational sessions. Six months after the interventions ended, primarily home-based CBT continued to outperform education (blinded gastroenterologist-reported improvements, 58.4% and 44.8%, respectively; P = .05 for difference between groups).

Equivalence tests indicated that the minimal-CBT intervention was at least as effective as standard CBT, and improvements were not primarily the result of concomitant medications, according to the researchers. Nonetheless, only 42% of patients who benefited from CBT achieved remission, defined as no or mild IBS symptoms on the gastroenterologist-administered Clinical Global Impressions Scale. Unremitted patients might benefit from combining CBT with medical therapies that target both “central and peripheral mechanisms of IBS,” the investigators said.

The three interventions produced comparable acute and longer-term improvements on the IBS Symptom Severity Scale, which emphasizes sensory symptoms and therefore might be a less sensitive endpoint than the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, the researchers noted. Nonetheless, CBT produced some of the strongest absolute symptomatic improvements ever reported for IBS. “To put these data in context, treatment response of FDA-approved pharmacological agents using global IBS symptom improvement scales range from 17% to 40%,” the researchers wrote.

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lackner JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Apr 24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.063.

Primarily home-based cognitive-behavioral therapy improved irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at least as much as conventional CBT, cut clinician time by 60%, and significantly outperformed educational sessions in a multicenter clinical trial reported in the July issue of Gastroenterology.

Acutely, primarily home-based CBT produced a mean 61% improvement in self-reported symptoms on the IBS version of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, versus 44% for the educational control group (P less than .05), wrote Jeffrey M. Lackner, PsyD, of the State University of New York at Buffalo and his associates. Blinded gastroenterologists reported improvements of 56% and 40%, respectively (P less than .05). The superiority of the minimal-contact CBT program held up at 6 months and equivalence tests found it “at least as effective as standard CBT,” the researchers wrote.

IBS is a major area of unmet clinical need that costs the United States some $28 billion annually. Clinicians and patients lack both reliable biomarkers and “uniformly effective” therapies, the investigators noted. In recent years, severe adverse events have greatly restricted the availability of otherwise promising Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies, such as Lotronex (alosetron hydrochlorine), which has been linked to ischemic colitis and fatal cases of ruptured bowel, and Zelnorm (tegaserod maleate), which has been associated with myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina.

In contrast, face-to-face CBT is safe, efficacious, and guideline recommended for IBS. However, uptake is limited by cost, stigma, geography, and a shortage of certified providers, the researchers noted. They enrolled 436 patients with IBS based on Rome III criteria and randomly assigned them to one of three interventions. The standard CBT group received 10 weekly, 60-minute, face-to-face CBT sessions on brain-gut interactions, symptom triggers and monitoring, muscle relaxation, worry control, problem-solving, and relapse prevention. The primarily home-based CBT group covered the same topics but attended only four clinic sessions and was provided home study materials. Finally, the education group attended four sessions with background information on IBS and the role of stress, diet, and exercise.

Baseline characteristics were comparable among groups, as were dropout rates (9% overall). In all, 89% of patients completed at least 8 of 10 standard cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions or at least three of four home-based CBT or educational sessions. Six months after the interventions ended, primarily home-based CBT continued to outperform education (blinded gastroenterologist-reported improvements, 58.4% and 44.8%, respectively; P = .05 for difference between groups).

Equivalence tests indicated that the minimal-CBT intervention was at least as effective as standard CBT, and improvements were not primarily the result of concomitant medications, according to the researchers. Nonetheless, only 42% of patients who benefited from CBT achieved remission, defined as no or mild IBS symptoms on the gastroenterologist-administered Clinical Global Impressions Scale. Unremitted patients might benefit from combining CBT with medical therapies that target both “central and peripheral mechanisms of IBS,” the investigators said.

The three interventions produced comparable acute and longer-term improvements on the IBS Symptom Severity Scale, which emphasizes sensory symptoms and therefore might be a less sensitive endpoint than the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, the researchers noted. Nonetheless, CBT produced some of the strongest absolute symptomatic improvements ever reported for IBS. “To put these data in context, treatment response of FDA-approved pharmacological agents using global IBS symptom improvement scales range from 17% to 40%,” the researchers wrote.

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lackner JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Apr 24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.063.

Research shows the ocean’s cod population is diminishing to dangerously low levels. In response, several countries (the United States, Iceland, and others) have instituted a resource allocation system termed “catch share,” where each fisherman is allotted an annual number of fish. Shares can be leased, bought, and traded. Consequently, there has been horizontal and vertical consolidation within the industry and huge fishing corporations have emerged while independent small-boat fishermen have virtually disappeared. Once consolidation occurred, venture capital entered the market. Parallels to what is happening to independent medical practices should not be ignored.

We have closed the book on DDW^® 2018. Researchers presented new and innovative studies that will directly affect our practices. I was honored to give the “Best of AGA – DDW” lecture where I chose only seven of hundreds of abstracts to present. All DDW lectures are located at https://watch.ondemand.org/ddw. GI & Hepatology News will highlight several high-impact presentations in this and subsequent issues.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

Research shows the ocean’s cod population is diminishing to dangerously low levels. In response, several countries (the United States, Iceland, and others) have instituted a resource allocation system termed “catch share,” where each fisherman is allotted an annual number of fish. Shares can be leased, bought, and traded. Consequently, there has been horizontal and vertical consolidation within the industry and huge fishing corporations have emerged while independent small-boat fishermen have virtually disappeared. Once consolidation occurred, venture capital entered the market. Parallels to what is happening to independent medical practices should not be ignored.

We have closed the book on DDW^® 2018. Researchers presented new and innovative studies that will directly affect our practices. I was honored to give the “Best of AGA – DDW” lecture where I chose only seven of hundreds of abstracts to present. All DDW lectures are located at https://watch.ondemand.org/ddw. GI & Hepatology News will highlight several high-impact presentations in this and subsequent issues.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

Research shows the ocean’s cod population is diminishing to dangerously low levels. In response, several countries (the United States, Iceland, and others) have instituted a resource allocation system termed “catch share,” where each fisherman is allotted an annual number of fish. Shares can be leased, bought, and traded. Consequently, there has been horizontal and vertical consolidation within the industry and huge fishing corporations have emerged while independent small-boat fishermen have virtually disappeared. Once consolidation occurred, venture capital entered the market. Parallels to what is happening to independent medical practices should not be ignored.

We have closed the book on DDW^® 2018. Researchers presented new and innovative studies that will directly affect our practices. I was honored to give the “Best of AGA – DDW” lecture where I chose only seven of hundreds of abstracts to present. All DDW lectures are located at https://watch.ondemand.org/ddw. GI & Hepatology News will highlight several high-impact presentations in this and subsequent issues.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

Older age, male sex, smoking, longer segment length, and low-grade dysplasia were significant risk factors for progression of Barrett’s esophagus in a meta-analysis of 20 studies.

“Individuals with these features should undergo more intensive surveillance or endoscopic therapy,” Rajesh Krishnamoorthi, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and his associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Smoking is a modifiable risk factor for cancer prevention in patients with BE.”

“Currently, gastrointestinal societies’ guidelines on BE surveillance are solely based on dysplasia grade and do not take into account any of the other risk factors,” the reviewers concluded. Their findings could form the backbone of a risk score that identifies high-risk BE patients with baseline low-grade dysplasia or nondysplastic BE “who would benefit from intensive surveillance or endoscopic therapy.”

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is on the rise and fewer than one in five patients survive 5 years past diagnosis. Endoscopic surveillance for esophageal adenocarcinoma is recommended in Barrett’s esophagus, but only about one in 10 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients has a preceding BE diagnosis. “This ostensible discrepancy has raised concerns about the effectiveness of current screening and surveillance programs,” the reviewers noted. Studies also have yielded conflicting evidence about the value of endoscopic surveillance as currently performed. To help prioritize BE patients for surveillance, the reviewers searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science from inception through May 2016 for cohort studies of risk factors for progression of BE among patients with either no dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia.

The 20 studies covered 1,231 BE progression events among 74,943 patients. In separate pooled estimates, progression of BE correlated significantly with older age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01–1.05), male sex (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.5), current or former smoking (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.09-2.0), and greater BE segment length (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.16-1.36). Results tended to be homogeneous among studies, said the reviewers. Low-grade dysplasia correlated strongly with progression (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.6-7.0), while use of proton pump inhibitors (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32–0.96) and statins (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.73) showed the opposite trend. “Alcohol use and obesity did not associate with risk of progression,” the reviewers added.

Thirteen studies in the meta-analysis were from Europe, six were from the United States, and one was from Australia. Ten were multicenter studies, 13 were deemed high-quality, three were deemed medium-quality, and four were deemed low-quality. The reviewers were unable to assess dose-response relationships for relevant factors, such as alcohol, tobacco, and medications, and not all studies accounted for potential confounding.

Only four studies included multivariate analyses to control for the confounding effects of age, sex, and BE characteristics (length and dysplasia). When the reviewers analyzed only these studies, older age and smoking no longer predicted BE progression. Use of proton pump inhibitors remained protective, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) became protective, while statin use lost significance.

The reviewers disclosed no external funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Krishnamoorthi R, et al. Clinical Gastroenterol and Hepatol. 2017 Nov 30. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.044

Older age, male sex, smoking, longer segment length, and low-grade dysplasia were significant risk factors for progression of Barrett’s esophagus in a meta-analysis of 20 studies.

“Individuals with these features should undergo more intensive surveillance or endoscopic therapy,” Rajesh Krishnamoorthi, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and his associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Smoking is a modifiable risk factor for cancer prevention in patients with BE.”

“Currently, gastrointestinal societies’ guidelines on BE surveillance are solely based on dysplasia grade and do not take into account any of the other risk factors,” the reviewers concluded. Their findings could form the backbone of a risk score that identifies high-risk BE patients with baseline low-grade dysplasia or nondysplastic BE “who would benefit from intensive surveillance or endoscopic therapy.”

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is on the rise and fewer than one in five patients survive 5 years past diagnosis. Endoscopic surveillance for esophageal adenocarcinoma is recommended in Barrett’s esophagus, but only about one in 10 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients has a preceding BE diagnosis. “This ostensible discrepancy has raised concerns about the effectiveness of current screening and surveillance programs,” the reviewers noted. Studies also have yielded conflicting evidence about the value of endoscopic surveillance as currently performed. To help prioritize BE patients for surveillance, the reviewers searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science from inception through May 2016 for cohort studies of risk factors for progression of BE among patients with either no dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia.

The 20 studies covered 1,231 BE progression events among 74,943 patients. In separate pooled estimates, progression of BE correlated significantly with older age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01–1.05), male sex (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.5), current or former smoking (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.09-2.0), and greater BE segment length (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.16-1.36). Results tended to be homogeneous among studies, said the reviewers. Low-grade dysplasia correlated strongly with progression (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.6-7.0), while use of proton pump inhibitors (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32–0.96) and statins (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.73) showed the opposite trend. “Alcohol use and obesity did not associate with risk of progression,” the reviewers added.

Thirteen studies in the meta-analysis were from Europe, six were from the United States, and one was from Australia. Ten were multicenter studies, 13 were deemed high-quality, three were deemed medium-quality, and four were deemed low-quality. The reviewers were unable to assess dose-response relationships for relevant factors, such as alcohol, tobacco, and medications, and not all studies accounted for potential confounding.

Only four studies included multivariate analyses to control for the confounding effects of age, sex, and BE characteristics (length and dysplasia). When the reviewers analyzed only these studies, older age and smoking no longer predicted BE progression. Use of proton pump inhibitors remained protective, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) became protective, while statin use lost significance.

The reviewers disclosed no external funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Krishnamoorthi R, et al. Clinical Gastroenterol and Hepatol. 2017 Nov 30. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.044

Older age, male sex, smoking, longer segment length, and low-grade dysplasia were significant risk factors for progression of Barrett’s esophagus in a meta-analysis of 20 studies.

“Individuals with these features should undergo more intensive surveillance or endoscopic therapy,” Rajesh Krishnamoorthi, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and his associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Smoking is a modifiable risk factor for cancer prevention in patients with BE.”

“Currently, gastrointestinal societies’ guidelines on BE surveillance are solely based on dysplasia grade and do not take into account any of the other risk factors,” the reviewers concluded. Their findings could form the backbone of a risk score that identifies high-risk BE patients with baseline low-grade dysplasia or nondysplastic BE “who would benefit from intensive surveillance or endoscopic therapy.”

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is on the rise and fewer than one in five patients survive 5 years past diagnosis. Endoscopic surveillance for esophageal adenocarcinoma is recommended in Barrett’s esophagus, but only about one in 10 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients has a preceding BE diagnosis. “This ostensible discrepancy has raised concerns about the effectiveness of current screening and surveillance programs,” the reviewers noted. Studies also have yielded conflicting evidence about the value of endoscopic surveillance as currently performed. To help prioritize BE patients for surveillance, the reviewers searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science from inception through May 2016 for cohort studies of risk factors for progression of BE among patients with either no dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia.

The 20 studies covered 1,231 BE progression events among 74,943 patients. In separate pooled estimates, progression of BE correlated significantly with older age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01–1.05), male sex (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.5), current or former smoking (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.09-2.0), and greater BE segment length (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.16-1.36). Results tended to be homogeneous among studies, said the reviewers. Low-grade dysplasia correlated strongly with progression (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.6-7.0), while use of proton pump inhibitors (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32–0.96) and statins (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.73) showed the opposite trend. “Alcohol use and obesity did not associate with risk of progression,” the reviewers added.

Thirteen studies in the meta-analysis were from Europe, six were from the United States, and one was from Australia. Ten were multicenter studies, 13 were deemed high-quality, three were deemed medium-quality, and four were deemed low-quality. The reviewers were unable to assess dose-response relationships for relevant factors, such as alcohol, tobacco, and medications, and not all studies accounted for potential confounding.

Only four studies included multivariate analyses to control for the confounding effects of age, sex, and BE characteristics (length and dysplasia). When the reviewers analyzed only these studies, older age and smoking no longer predicted BE progression. Use of proton pump inhibitors remained protective, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) became protective, while statin use lost significance.

The reviewers disclosed no external funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Krishnamoorthi R, et al. Clinical Gastroenterol and Hepatol. 2017 Nov 30. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.044

Click here to access the July 2018 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• Vertebral Artery Dissection Due to Mixed Martial Arts Choke Hold
• Using Stroke Order Sets to Improve Compliance With Quality Measures for Stroke Admissions
• Screening and Treating HCV in the VA: Achieving Excellence Using Lean and System Redesign
• Transgender Care in the Primary Care Setting
• Pharmacist-Led ED Antimicrobial Surveillance
• Risks vs Benefits for SGLT2 Inhibitor Medications
• Caring Under a Microscope
• Tedizolid Use in Immunocompromised Patients

Click here to access the July 2018 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• Vertebral Artery Dissection Due to Mixed Martial Arts Choke Hold
• Using Stroke Order Sets to Improve Compliance With Quality Measures for Stroke Admissions
• Screening and Treating HCV in the VA: Achieving Excellence Using Lean and System Redesign
• Transgender Care in the Primary Care Setting
• Pharmacist-Led ED Antimicrobial Surveillance
• Risks vs Benefits for SGLT2 Inhibitor Medications
• Caring Under a Microscope
• Tedizolid Use in Immunocompromised Patients

Click here to access the July 2018 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• Vertebral Artery Dissection Due to Mixed Martial Arts Choke Hold
• Using Stroke Order Sets to Improve Compliance With Quality Measures for Stroke Admissions
• Screening and Treating HCV in the VA: Achieving Excellence Using Lean and System Redesign
• Transgender Care in the Primary Care Setting
• Pharmacist-Led ED Antimicrobial Surveillance
• Risks vs Benefits for SGLT2 Inhibitor Medications
• Caring Under a Microscope
• Tedizolid Use in Immunocompromised Patients

I am a nurse practitioner living in the South; I am also a concealed carry permit holder and an NRA pistol instructor who competes. I own an AR15; it is not an assault rifle—it’s just a rifle. 

I often see articles about the “ease” of purchasing a gun, but this is just not true. Even with the laxer gun control of the South, obtaining a concealed carry license entails going through both the FBI and local police, a review of mental health rec­ords, a long questionnaire, and an eight-hour class that involves shooting. So, yes, I can purchase a gun in 30 minutes—but only because I’ve already been through this process.

If I wanted to purchase a gun without a permit, I would have to go to the courthouse and be fingerprinted and run through the system before I could get a one-time purchase permit. I could not get a permit if I had a mental illness, had ever been arrested or accused of domestic violence, etc.

My heart breaks every time a mass shooting, like the one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, happens. Guns have been around in our area for many, many years. High school kids used to mount a shotgun in a rack on the top of their truck to hunt before school; they didn’t think of using it to hurt a person. I believe the problems we face today are multifaceted: a lack of parenting, absent fathers, people not getting the mental health services they need, and HIPAA! Mental health professionals are afraid to call authorities for fear of being sued.

I truly believe we need to stop politicizing this issue. Let’s quit blaming the guns themselves and work on real solutions. For example, parents have an obligation to lock up all firearms! Kids should never have access to guns from their own home. In my house, when we have visitors—even if they are adults—we lock our guns in our safe. Security at our schools should mimic that at courthouses, with metal detectors, armed security personnel, and limited entrance/exit areas.

Deborah Johnson, FNP-C
Kinston, NC

I am a nurse practitioner living in the South; I am also a concealed carry permit holder and an NRA pistol instructor who competes. I own an AR15; it is not an assault rifle—it’s just a rifle. 

I often see articles about the “ease” of purchasing a gun, but this is just not true. Even with the laxer gun control of the South, obtaining a concealed carry license entails going through both the FBI and local police, a review of mental health rec­ords, a long questionnaire, and an eight-hour class that involves shooting. So, yes, I can purchase a gun in 30 minutes—but only because I’ve already been through this process.

If I wanted to purchase a gun without a permit, I would have to go to the courthouse and be fingerprinted and run through the system before I could get a one-time purchase permit. I could not get a permit if I had a mental illness, had ever been arrested or accused of domestic violence, etc.

My heart breaks every time a mass shooting, like the one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, happens. Guns have been around in our area for many, many years. High school kids used to mount a shotgun in a rack on the top of their truck to hunt before school; they didn’t think of using it to hurt a person. I believe the problems we face today are multifaceted: a lack of parenting, absent fathers, people not getting the mental health services they need, and HIPAA! Mental health professionals are afraid to call authorities for fear of being sued.

I truly believe we need to stop politicizing this issue. Let’s quit blaming the guns themselves and work on real solutions. For example, parents have an obligation to lock up all firearms! Kids should never have access to guns from their own home. In my house, when we have visitors—even if they are adults—we lock our guns in our safe. Security at our schools should mimic that at courthouses, with metal detectors, armed security personnel, and limited entrance/exit areas.

Deborah Johnson, FNP-C
Kinston, NC

I am a nurse practitioner living in the South; I am also a concealed carry permit holder and an NRA pistol instructor who competes. I own an AR15; it is not an assault rifle—it’s just a rifle. 

I often see articles about the “ease” of purchasing a gun, but this is just not true. Even with the laxer gun control of the South, obtaining a concealed carry license entails going through both the FBI and local police, a review of mental health rec­ords, a long questionnaire, and an eight-hour class that involves shooting. So, yes, I can purchase a gun in 30 minutes—but only because I’ve already been through this process.

If I wanted to purchase a gun without a permit, I would have to go to the courthouse and be fingerprinted and run through the system before I could get a one-time purchase permit. I could not get a permit if I had a mental illness, had ever been arrested or accused of domestic violence, etc.

My heart breaks every time a mass shooting, like the one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, happens. Guns have been around in our area for many, many years. High school kids used to mount a shotgun in a rack on the top of their truck to hunt before school; they didn’t think of using it to hurt a person. I believe the problems we face today are multifaceted: a lack of parenting, absent fathers, people not getting the mental health services they need, and HIPAA! Mental health professionals are afraid to call authorities for fear of being sued.

I truly believe we need to stop politicizing this issue. Let’s quit blaming the guns themselves and work on real solutions. For example, parents have an obligation to lock up all firearms! Kids should never have access to guns from their own home. In my house, when we have visitors—even if they are adults—we lock our guns in our safe. Security at our schools should mimic that at courthouses, with metal detectors, armed security personnel, and limited entrance/exit areas.

Deborah Johnson, FNP-C
Kinston, NC

For children with Crohn’s disease, fecal calprotectin levels below 300 mcg indicated mucosal healing, while values below 100 mcg signified deep healing in a multicenter, 151-patient study.

Sensitivity was 80% for mucosal healing and 71% for deep healing, while specificities were 81% and 92%, respectively, said Inbar Nakar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with her associates. In line with prior studies, adding C-reactive protein (CRP) to fecal calprotectin improved neither sensitivity or specificity, the researchers wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Bowel healing is a crucial goal in Crohn’s disease (CD). Because pediatric transmural healing had not been studied, the researchers analyzed data from the ImageKids study, a multicenter effort to develop magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) measures for CD patients aged 6-18 years. Participants averaged 14 years old with a standard deviation of 2 years. Assessments included MRE, complete ileocolonoscopic evaluation, CRP, and fecal calprotectin. The researchers defined mucosal healing as a Simple Endoscopic Severity Index in Crohn’s Disease score below 3, transmural healing as an MRE visual analog score below 20 mm, and deep healing as transmural plus mucosal healing.

Nearly one-third of patients had healing only in the mucosa or the bowel wall, but not both; 6% had mucosal healing but transmural inflammation, and 25% of children had transmural healing but mucosal inflammation. In addition, 14% of children had deep healing, and 55% of children had both mucosal and transmural inflammation. Those findings highlight “the discrepancy between mucosal and transmural inflammation and the importance of evaluating the disease by both ileocolonoscopy and imaging,” the researchers wrote.

Median calprotectin levels varied significantly by healing status (P less than .001). They were lowest (10 mcg/g) for deep healing, followed by either transmural or mucosal inflammation, and were highest (median, 810 mcg/g) when children had both mucosal and transmural inflammation. Calprotectin in children with deep healing had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.89- 0.98). In contrast, CRP level identified children with deep healing with an AUROC value of only 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.90).

Although “calprotectin level is driven primarily by mucosal healing, [it] is still superior to CRP,” the investigators concluded. “Although a calprotectin cutoff [less than] 300 mcg/g predicted mucosal healing, a lower cutoff of [less than] 100 mcg/g may be more suitable to predict deep healing.” However, they emphasized that fecal calprotectin level is only moderately accurate in predicting mucosal or transmural healing in children with CD. They advised physicians to “be familiar with the predictive values of each cutoff before incorporating them in clinical decision making.”

An educational grant from AbbVie funded the ImageKids study. AbbVie was not otherwise involved in the study. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. There were no other disclosures.

SOURCE: Nakar I et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.01.024.

For children with Crohn’s disease, fecal calprotectin levels below 300 mcg indicated mucosal healing, while values below 100 mcg signified deep healing in a multicenter, 151-patient study.

Sensitivity was 80% for mucosal healing and 71% for deep healing, while specificities were 81% and 92%, respectively, said Inbar Nakar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with her associates. In line with prior studies, adding C-reactive protein (CRP) to fecal calprotectin improved neither sensitivity or specificity, the researchers wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Bowel healing is a crucial goal in Crohn’s disease (CD). Because pediatric transmural healing had not been studied, the researchers analyzed data from the ImageKids study, a multicenter effort to develop magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) measures for CD patients aged 6-18 years. Participants averaged 14 years old with a standard deviation of 2 years. Assessments included MRE, complete ileocolonoscopic evaluation, CRP, and fecal calprotectin. The researchers defined mucosal healing as a Simple Endoscopic Severity Index in Crohn’s Disease score below 3, transmural healing as an MRE visual analog score below 20 mm, and deep healing as transmural plus mucosal healing.

Nearly one-third of patients had healing only in the mucosa or the bowel wall, but not both; 6% had mucosal healing but transmural inflammation, and 25% of children had transmural healing but mucosal inflammation. In addition, 14% of children had deep healing, and 55% of children had both mucosal and transmural inflammation. Those findings highlight “the discrepancy between mucosal and transmural inflammation and the importance of evaluating the disease by both ileocolonoscopy and imaging,” the researchers wrote.

Median calprotectin levels varied significantly by healing status (P less than .001). They were lowest (10 mcg/g) for deep healing, followed by either transmural or mucosal inflammation, and were highest (median, 810 mcg/g) when children had both mucosal and transmural inflammation. Calprotectin in children with deep healing had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.89- 0.98). In contrast, CRP level identified children with deep healing with an AUROC value of only 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.90).

Although “calprotectin level is driven primarily by mucosal healing, [it] is still superior to CRP,” the investigators concluded. “Although a calprotectin cutoff [less than] 300 mcg/g predicted mucosal healing, a lower cutoff of [less than] 100 mcg/g may be more suitable to predict deep healing.” However, they emphasized that fecal calprotectin level is only moderately accurate in predicting mucosal or transmural healing in children with CD. They advised physicians to “be familiar with the predictive values of each cutoff before incorporating them in clinical decision making.”

An educational grant from AbbVie funded the ImageKids study. AbbVie was not otherwise involved in the study. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. There were no other disclosures.

SOURCE: Nakar I et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.01.024.

For children with Crohn’s disease, fecal calprotectin levels below 300 mcg indicated mucosal healing, while values below 100 mcg signified deep healing in a multicenter, 151-patient study.

Sensitivity was 80% for mucosal healing and 71% for deep healing, while specificities were 81% and 92%, respectively, said Inbar Nakar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with her associates. In line with prior studies, adding C-reactive protein (CRP) to fecal calprotectin improved neither sensitivity or specificity, the researchers wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Bowel healing is a crucial goal in Crohn’s disease (CD). Because pediatric transmural healing had not been studied, the researchers analyzed data from the ImageKids study, a multicenter effort to develop magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) measures for CD patients aged 6-18 years. Participants averaged 14 years old with a standard deviation of 2 years. Assessments included MRE, complete ileocolonoscopic evaluation, CRP, and fecal calprotectin. The researchers defined mucosal healing as a Simple Endoscopic Severity Index in Crohn’s Disease score below 3, transmural healing as an MRE visual analog score below 20 mm, and deep healing as transmural plus mucosal healing.

Nearly one-third of patients had healing only in the mucosa or the bowel wall, but not both; 6% had mucosal healing but transmural inflammation, and 25% of children had transmural healing but mucosal inflammation. In addition, 14% of children had deep healing, and 55% of children had both mucosal and transmural inflammation. Those findings highlight “the discrepancy between mucosal and transmural inflammation and the importance of evaluating the disease by both ileocolonoscopy and imaging,” the researchers wrote.

Median calprotectin levels varied significantly by healing status (P less than .001). They were lowest (10 mcg/g) for deep healing, followed by either transmural or mucosal inflammation, and were highest (median, 810 mcg/g) when children had both mucosal and transmural inflammation. Calprotectin in children with deep healing had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.89- 0.98). In contrast, CRP level identified children with deep healing with an AUROC value of only 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.90).

Although “calprotectin level is driven primarily by mucosal healing, [it] is still superior to CRP,” the investigators concluded. “Although a calprotectin cutoff [less than] 300 mcg/g predicted mucosal healing, a lower cutoff of [less than] 100 mcg/g may be more suitable to predict deep healing.” However, they emphasized that fecal calprotectin level is only moderately accurate in predicting mucosal or transmural healing in children with CD. They advised physicians to “be familiar with the predictive values of each cutoff before incorporating them in clinical decision making.”

An educational grant from AbbVie funded the ImageKids study. AbbVie was not otherwise involved in the study. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. There were no other disclosures.

SOURCE: Nakar I et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.01.024.

Native to North and East Asia, buckwheat has been grown in China for more than 2,000 years and has been used in traditional medicine to treat varicose veins.^1,2 This highly adaptable plant – the most common species of which are Fagopyrum esculentum (common buckwheat or sweet buckwheat), and F. tataricum (which grows in more mountainous regions) – has acclimated to cultivation in North America, as well.¹ Increasingly popular as a healthy grain option, buckwheat flour has been touted for beneficial effects on diabetes, obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and constipation.¹ It has also gained attention for its association with some allergic reactions.

SandraKavas/iStock /Getty Images Plus

Wound Healing

In 2008, van den Berg et al. performed an in vitro investigation of the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory qualities of buckwheat honey for consideration in wound healing. American buckwheat honey from New York was found to be the source of the most salient activities, with such properties attributed to its abundant phenolic components. The researchers suggested that these phenols might impart antibacterial activity, while the low pH and high free acid content of the buckwheat honey could contribute to healing wounds.⁴

Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant capacity, along with other traits, characterizing the sprouts of common buckwheat (F. esculentum) and tartary buckwheat (F. tataricum) was evaluated by Liu et al. in 2008. Rutin is the main flavonoid found in both species, with fivefold higher levels identified in tartary buckwheat in this study. Ethanol extracts of tartary buckwheat also exhibited greater free radical scavenging activity and superoxide scavenging activity, compared with common buckwheat. Both buckwheat species displayed antioxidant activity on human hepatoma HepG2 cells, with tartary buckwheat more effective in diminishing cellular oxidative stress, which the authors attributed to its greater rutin and quercetin levels.⁵

Zhou et al. studied the protective effects of buckwheat honey on hydroxyl radical-induced DNA damage in 2012, finding that all studied honeys more effectively protected DNA in non–site specific rather than site-specific systems.⁶

Photoprotection

In a 2005 screening of 47 antioxidant substances and study of their effects on UV-induced lipid peroxidation, Trommer and Neubert reported that buckwheat extract significantly lowered radiation levels, as did extracts of St. John’s Wort, melissa, and sage. They concluded that their in vitro findings supported the inclusion of such ingredients in photoprotective cosmetic formulations or sunscreens pending the results of in vivo experiments with these compounds.⁷

In 2006, Hinneburg et al. evaluated the antioxidant and photoprotective activity of a buckwheat herb extract, also comparing its photoprotective characteristics to those of a commercial UV absorber. In an assay with 1,1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazyl radical (DPPH), buckwheat extract exhibited significantly more antioxidant activity than did pure rutin, with buckwheat observed to more effectively block UV-induced peroxidation of linoleic acid as compared with rutin and the commercial UV absorber. The researchers concluded that including antioxidants such as buckwheat extract in photoprotective formulations may serve to maximize skin protection in such products.⁸

Buckwheat Sensitivity

Conclusion

Because it is a popular component in many diets around the world, especially Japan, Korea, Russia, and Poland, as well as other Asian and European countries, South Africa, Australia, and North America,⁴ it is reasonable to expect that we’ll see more research on buckwheat. For now, there are indications to suggest that more investigations are warranted to determine whether this botanical agent will have a meaningful role in the dermatologic armamentarium.

References

1. Li SQ et al. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2001 Sep;41(6):451-64.

2. Dattner AM. Dermatol Ther. 2003;16(2):106-13.

3. Hinneburg I et al. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Jan 12;53(1):3-7.

4. van den Berg AJ et al. J Wound Care. 2008 Apr;17(4):172-4, 176-8.

5. Liu CL et al. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Jan 9;56(1):173-8.

6. Zhou J et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Aug;50(8):2766-73.

7. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.

8. Hinneburg I et al. Pharmazie. 2006 Mar;61(3):237-40.

9. Geiselhart S et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 2018 Feb;48(2):217-24.
 

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014); she also authored a New York Times Best Seller for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance Therapeutics. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at [email protected].

Native to North and East Asia, buckwheat has been grown in China for more than 2,000 years and has been used in traditional medicine to treat varicose veins.^1,2 This highly adaptable plant – the most common species of which are Fagopyrum esculentum (common buckwheat or sweet buckwheat), and F. tataricum (which grows in more mountainous regions) – has acclimated to cultivation in North America, as well.¹ Increasingly popular as a healthy grain option, buckwheat flour has been touted for beneficial effects on diabetes, obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and constipation.¹ It has also gained attention for its association with some allergic reactions.

SandraKavas/iStock /Getty Images Plus

Wound Healing

In 2008, van den Berg et al. performed an in vitro investigation of the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory qualities of buckwheat honey for consideration in wound healing. American buckwheat honey from New York was found to be the source of the most salient activities, with such properties attributed to its abundant phenolic components. The researchers suggested that these phenols might impart antibacterial activity, while the low pH and high free acid content of the buckwheat honey could contribute to healing wounds.⁴

Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant capacity, along with other traits, characterizing the sprouts of common buckwheat (F. esculentum) and tartary buckwheat (F. tataricum) was evaluated by Liu et al. in 2008. Rutin is the main flavonoid found in both species, with fivefold higher levels identified in tartary buckwheat in this study. Ethanol extracts of tartary buckwheat also exhibited greater free radical scavenging activity and superoxide scavenging activity, compared with common buckwheat. Both buckwheat species displayed antioxidant activity on human hepatoma HepG2 cells, with tartary buckwheat more effective in diminishing cellular oxidative stress, which the authors attributed to its greater rutin and quercetin levels.⁵

Zhou et al. studied the protective effects of buckwheat honey on hydroxyl radical-induced DNA damage in 2012, finding that all studied honeys more effectively protected DNA in non–site specific rather than site-specific systems.⁶

Photoprotection

In a 2005 screening of 47 antioxidant substances and study of their effects on UV-induced lipid peroxidation, Trommer and Neubert reported that buckwheat extract significantly lowered radiation levels, as did extracts of St. John’s Wort, melissa, and sage. They concluded that their in vitro findings supported the inclusion of such ingredients in photoprotective cosmetic formulations or sunscreens pending the results of in vivo experiments with these compounds.⁷

In 2006, Hinneburg et al. evaluated the antioxidant and photoprotective activity of a buckwheat herb extract, also comparing its photoprotective characteristics to those of a commercial UV absorber. In an assay with 1,1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazyl radical (DPPH), buckwheat extract exhibited significantly more antioxidant activity than did pure rutin, with buckwheat observed to more effectively block UV-induced peroxidation of linoleic acid as compared with rutin and the commercial UV absorber. The researchers concluded that including antioxidants such as buckwheat extract in photoprotective formulations may serve to maximize skin protection in such products.⁸

Buckwheat Sensitivity

Conclusion

Because it is a popular component in many diets around the world, especially Japan, Korea, Russia, and Poland, as well as other Asian and European countries, South Africa, Australia, and North America,⁴ it is reasonable to expect that we’ll see more research on buckwheat. For now, there are indications to suggest that more investigations are warranted to determine whether this botanical agent will have a meaningful role in the dermatologic armamentarium.

References

1. Li SQ et al. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2001 Sep;41(6):451-64.

2. Dattner AM. Dermatol Ther. 2003;16(2):106-13.

3. Hinneburg I et al. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Jan 12;53(1):3-7.

4. van den Berg AJ et al. J Wound Care. 2008 Apr;17(4):172-4, 176-8.

5. Liu CL et al. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Jan 9;56(1):173-8.

6. Zhou J et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Aug;50(8):2766-73.

7. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.

8. Hinneburg I et al. Pharmazie. 2006 Mar;61(3):237-40.

9. Geiselhart S et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 2018 Feb;48(2):217-24.
 

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014); she also authored a New York Times Best Seller for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance Therapeutics. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at [email protected].

Native to North and East Asia, buckwheat has been grown in China for more than 2,000 years and has been used in traditional medicine to treat varicose veins.^1,2 This highly adaptable plant – the most common species of which are Fagopyrum esculentum (common buckwheat or sweet buckwheat), and F. tataricum (which grows in more mountainous regions) – has acclimated to cultivation in North America, as well.¹ Increasingly popular as a healthy grain option, buckwheat flour has been touted for beneficial effects on diabetes, obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and constipation.¹ It has also gained attention for its association with some allergic reactions.

SandraKavas/iStock /Getty Images Plus

Wound Healing

In 2008, van den Berg et al. performed an in vitro investigation of the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory qualities of buckwheat honey for consideration in wound healing. American buckwheat honey from New York was found to be the source of the most salient activities, with such properties attributed to its abundant phenolic components. The researchers suggested that these phenols might impart antibacterial activity, while the low pH and high free acid content of the buckwheat honey could contribute to healing wounds.⁴

Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant capacity, along with other traits, characterizing the sprouts of common buckwheat (F. esculentum) and tartary buckwheat (F. tataricum) was evaluated by Liu et al. in 2008. Rutin is the main flavonoid found in both species, with fivefold higher levels identified in tartary buckwheat in this study. Ethanol extracts of tartary buckwheat also exhibited greater free radical scavenging activity and superoxide scavenging activity, compared with common buckwheat. Both buckwheat species displayed antioxidant activity on human hepatoma HepG2 cells, with tartary buckwheat more effective in diminishing cellular oxidative stress, which the authors attributed to its greater rutin and quercetin levels.⁵

Zhou et al. studied the protective effects of buckwheat honey on hydroxyl radical-induced DNA damage in 2012, finding that all studied honeys more effectively protected DNA in non–site specific rather than site-specific systems.⁶

Photoprotection

In a 2005 screening of 47 antioxidant substances and study of their effects on UV-induced lipid peroxidation, Trommer and Neubert reported that buckwheat extract significantly lowered radiation levels, as did extracts of St. John’s Wort, melissa, and sage. They concluded that their in vitro findings supported the inclusion of such ingredients in photoprotective cosmetic formulations or sunscreens pending the results of in vivo experiments with these compounds.⁷

In 2006, Hinneburg et al. evaluated the antioxidant and photoprotective activity of a buckwheat herb extract, also comparing its photoprotective characteristics to those of a commercial UV absorber. In an assay with 1,1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazyl radical (DPPH), buckwheat extract exhibited significantly more antioxidant activity than did pure rutin, with buckwheat observed to more effectively block UV-induced peroxidation of linoleic acid as compared with rutin and the commercial UV absorber. The researchers concluded that including antioxidants such as buckwheat extract in photoprotective formulations may serve to maximize skin protection in such products.⁸

Buckwheat Sensitivity

Conclusion

Because it is a popular component in many diets around the world, especially Japan, Korea, Russia, and Poland, as well as other Asian and European countries, South Africa, Australia, and North America,⁴ it is reasonable to expect that we’ll see more research on buckwheat. For now, there are indications to suggest that more investigations are warranted to determine whether this botanical agent will have a meaningful role in the dermatologic armamentarium.

References

1. Li SQ et al. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2001 Sep;41(6):451-64.

2. Dattner AM. Dermatol Ther. 2003;16(2):106-13.

3. Hinneburg I et al. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Jan 12;53(1):3-7.

4. van den Berg AJ et al. J Wound Care. 2008 Apr;17(4):172-4, 176-8.

5. Liu CL et al. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Jan 9;56(1):173-8.

6. Zhou J et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Aug;50(8):2766-73.

7. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.

8. Hinneburg I et al. Pharmazie. 2006 Mar;61(3):237-40.

9. Geiselhart S et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 2018 Feb;48(2):217-24.
 

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014); she also authored a New York Times Best Seller for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance Therapeutics. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at [email protected].

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

Falls have long been a major hazard for older adults—accounting for the largest percentage of deaths from unintentional injuries. Each year, about 1 in 4 older adults in the US reports falling, and an estimated 3 million emergency department visits every year are related to falls.

According to the CDC, things are getting worse. Overall, deaths due to falls among older adults increased 31% from 2007- 2016, a rate of 3% per year. The rate increased in every demographic category except among American Indians/Alaska Natives, with the largest increase (4%) among people aged ≥ 85 years. Nationwide, nearly 30,000 older adults died from fall-related causes in 2016.

But falls are not an inevitable part of aging, the CDC reminds. Advanced age is a well-known independent risk factor; other risk factors include reduced activity, chronic conditions (including incontinence), prescription medications (which may act synergistically on the central nervous system), and changes in gait and balance. The CDC says health care providers can address the problem by asking patients about falls, assessing gait and balance, reviewing medications, and prescribing interventions such as strength and balance exercises or physical therapy.

Initiatives such as CDC’s STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries) can help with risk assessment, patient education, and interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi).

Falls have long been a major hazard for older adults—accounting for the largest percentage of deaths from unintentional injuries. Each year, about 1 in 4 older adults in the US reports falling, and an estimated 3 million emergency department visits every year are related to falls.

According to the CDC, things are getting worse. Overall, deaths due to falls among older adults increased 31% from 2007- 2016, a rate of 3% per year. The rate increased in every demographic category except among American Indians/Alaska Natives, with the largest increase (4%) among people aged ≥ 85 years. Nationwide, nearly 30,000 older adults died from fall-related causes in 2016.

But falls are not an inevitable part of aging, the CDC reminds. Advanced age is a well-known independent risk factor; other risk factors include reduced activity, chronic conditions (including incontinence), prescription medications (which may act synergistically on the central nervous system), and changes in gait and balance. The CDC says health care providers can address the problem by asking patients about falls, assessing gait and balance, reviewing medications, and prescribing interventions such as strength and balance exercises or physical therapy.

Initiatives such as CDC’s STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries) can help with risk assessment, patient education, and interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi).

Falls have long been a major hazard for older adults—accounting for the largest percentage of deaths from unintentional injuries. Each year, about 1 in 4 older adults in the US reports falling, and an estimated 3 million emergency department visits every year are related to falls.

According to the CDC, things are getting worse. Overall, deaths due to falls among older adults increased 31% from 2007- 2016, a rate of 3% per year. The rate increased in every demographic category except among American Indians/Alaska Natives, with the largest increase (4%) among people aged ≥ 85 years. Nationwide, nearly 30,000 older adults died from fall-related causes in 2016.

But falls are not an inevitable part of aging, the CDC reminds. Advanced age is a well-known independent risk factor; other risk factors include reduced activity, chronic conditions (including incontinence), prescription medications (which may act synergistically on the central nervous system), and changes in gait and balance. The CDC says health care providers can address the problem by asking patients about falls, assessing gait and balance, reviewing medications, and prescribing interventions such as strength and balance exercises or physical therapy.

Initiatives such as CDC’s STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries) can help with risk assessment, patient education, and interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi).

In 2006, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) first published The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine: A Framework for Curricular Development (henceforth described as the Core Competencies) to help define the role and expectations of hospitalists.^1,2 The Core Competencies provided a framework for evaluating clinical skills and professional expertise within a rapidly developing field and highlighted opportunities for growth. Since the initial development and publication of the Core Competencies, changes in the healthcare landscape and hospitalist practice environment have prompted this revision.

Over the past decade, the field of hospital medicine has experienced exponential growth. In 2005, just over 16,000 hospitalists were practicing in the United States. By 2015, that number had increased to an estimated 44,000 hospitalists, accounting for approximately 6% of the physician workforce.³ Hospitalists have expanded the scope of hospital medicine in many ways. In their roles, hospitalists lead and participate in hospital-based care models that emphasize interprofessional collaboration and a focus on the delivery of high-quality and cost-effective care across a variety of clinical domains (eg, the Choosing Wisely initiative).⁴ They are also engaged in patient safety and quality initiatives that are increasingly being used as benchmarks to rate hospitals and as factors for hospital payment (eg, Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing Program).⁵ In fact, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) created a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification program in response to the growing number of internists choosing to concentrate their practice in the hospital setting. This decision by the ABIM underscores the value that hospitalists bring to improving patient care in the hospital setting. The ABIM also recognizes the Core Competencies as a curricular framework for a focused practice in hospital medicine.⁶

Changes within the educational environment have demanded attentive and active participation by many hospitalists. For example, in 2012, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced the Milestones Project, a new outcomes-based framework designed to more effectively assess learner performance across the 6 core competencies.⁷ These milestones assessments create intentional opportunities to guide the development of physicians during their training, including in the inpatient environments in which hospitalists practice. Where applicable, existing Core Competencies learning objectives were compared with external sources such as the individual ACGME performance milestones for this revision.

The Core Competencies focus on adult hospital medicine. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies are published separately.⁸ Importantly, the Core Competencies document is not intended to define an absolute set of clinical, procedural, or system-based topics described in textbooks or used by graduate medical education training programs. It does not define or limit the scope of the practice of hospital medicine. Rather, the Core Competencies serve as measurable learning objectives that encourage teaching faculty, practicing hospitalists, and administrators to develop individual skill sets and programs to improve patient care contextualized to the needs of an individual, care setting, or institution. To permit this flexibility, individual chapter-specific objectives are intentionally general in nature. Finally, the Core Competencies document is not a set of practice guidelines, nor does it offer any representation of a “standard of care.” Readers are encouraged to explore the article by McKean et al.⁹ to review examples of application of the Core Competencies and suggestions for curricular development.

The purpose of this article is to describe the criteria for inclusion of new chapters in the Core Competencies and the methodology of the review and revision process. It outlines the process of initial review and editing of the existing chapters; needs assessment for new topics; new chapter production; and the process of review and revision of individual chapters to create the complete document. The revised Core Competencies document is available online at http://www.journalofhospitalmedicine.com/jhospmed/issue/134981/journal-hospital-medicine-124-suppl-1.

In 2012, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Education Committee created a Core Competencies Task Force (CCTF) in response to the SHM Board of Directors’ charge that it review and update the initial Core Competencies document. The CCTF comprised of 5 physician SHM Education Committee members and one SHM staff representative. CCTF membership included hospitalists with an interest and familiarity with the Core Competencies document. The SHM Education Committee nominated the CCTF chair, who determined the optimal size, qualifications, and composition of the task force with approval from the Committee. The CCTF communicated through frequent conference calls and via e-mail correspondence to conduct an initial review of the existing chapters and to perform a needs assessment for new topics.

Individual Chapter Review

The SHM Education Committee provided critical input and approved the chapter review process designed by the CCTF (Figure). The CCTF reviewed each chapter of the Core Competencies document to assess its continuing relevance to the field of hospital medicine with a standardized tool (Appendix 1). The process required that at least 2 CCTF members reviewed each chapter. Preliminary reviewers assessed the current relevance of each chapter, determined whether individual learning objectives required additional investigation or modification, and developed new learning objectives to fill any educational gaps. All CCTF members then discussed assimilated feedback from the initial CCTF review, using consensus decision making to determine chapter changes and modifications. The CCTF found each of the existing chapters to be relevant to the field and identified none for removal.

The CCTF rewrote all chapters. It then disseminated proposed chapter changes to a panel of diverse independent reviewers to solicit suggestions and comments to ensure a multidisciplinary and balanced review process. Independent reviewers included authors of the original Core Competencies chapters, invited content experts, and members of the SHM Education Committee. When appropriate, corresponding SHM Committees reviewed individual chapters for updates and revisions. For example, the SHM Hospital Quality and Patient Safety Committee reviewed the chapters on patient safety and quality improvement, and the SHM Practice Management Committee reviewed the chapter on management practices. Four CCTF section editors managed an independent portfolio of chapters. Each CCTF section editor assimilated the various draft versions, corresponded with individual reviewers when necessary, and compiled the changes into a subsequent draft. This process ensured that the final version of every chapter reflected the thoughtful input from all parties involved in the review. Throughout the process, the CCTF used consensus decision making to adjudicate chapter changes and modifications. The 2006 Core Competencies Editorial team also reviewed the revision and provided critical input. The SHM Education Committee and the SHM Board of Directors reviewed and approved the final version of the Core Competencies document.

Needs Assessment and Selection of New Core Competency Chapters

The CCTF issued a call for new topics to the members of the SHM Education Committee for inclusion in the Core Competencies. Topics were also identified from the following sources: the top 100 adult medical diagnoses at hospital discharge in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database in 2010; topics in hospital medicine textbooks; curricula presented at the 3 most recent SHM annual meetings; and responses from SHM annual meeting surveys. Table 1 lists the topics considered for addition.

Members of the SHM Education Committee rated each of the potential topics considered for inclusion based on the following characteristics: relevance to the field of hospital medicine; intersection of the topic with medical subspecialties; and its appropriateness as a separate, stand-alone chapter. In addition, topics more frequently encountered by hospitalists, those deemed clinically important with a known risk of complications or management inconsistencies, and those with significant opportunities for quality improvement initiatives carried more weight. Syncope and hyponatremia were the only 2 clinical conditions identified that met all of the inclusion criteria. No additional topics met the criteria for new chapter development in the Procedures or Healthcare Systems sections. The SHM Education Committee identified the use of point-of-care ultrasonography as an important advancement in the field. Where appropriate, the individual procedure chapters now include a new competency-based objective highlighting its role. In addition, a separate SHM task force is working to develop a practice guideline for the use of point-of-care ultrasonography by hospitalists.

Contributors

The SHM Education Committee determined authorship for the new chapters (syncope and hyponatremia). It assigned 2 CCTF members with content expertise and familiarity with the Core Competencies to each author one chapter. Given the limited number of new chapters, it made a decision to develop the content internally rather than through an open-call for authorship nominations to practicing SHM members. The authors made an effort to maintain consistency with the educational theory used to develop the initial Core Competencies. Each of the new topics underwent rigorous review as previously described, including additional independent reviews by hospitalists with content expertise in these areas.

Following the same format as the earlier version, the 2017 Core Competencies revision contains 53 chapters, divided into 3 sections—Clinical Conditions, Procedures, and Healthcare Systems (Table 2) —all integral components of the practice of hospital medicine. The design allows individual chapters to stand alone. However, each chapter should be considered in the context of the entire document because a particular concept may be only briefly discussed in one chapter, but described in greater depth in another given the potential overlap across topics.

The chapters maintain the same content structure as the original version. Each chapter begins with an introductory paragraph followed by a list of competency-based objectives grouped in subsections according to the educational theory of learning domains: cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (attitudes).¹⁰ In addition, a subsection for System Organization and Improvement is included in the Clinical Conditions and Procedure chapters to emphasize the importance of interprofessional collaboration for optimal patient care. These subsections were not included in the Healthcare Systems chapters, as system organization and improvement is intrinsic to these subjects.

The introductory paragraph provides background information and describes how the chapter remains relevant to the current practice of hospital medicine. Individual competency-based objectives outline a relevant concept and expected level of proficiency as defined by Bloom’s taxonomy.¹⁰ New objectives reflect changes in the healthcare landscape over the past decade or further enhance each chapter’s concepts. Chapter authors made an effort to develop chapter and learning objective concepts that are consistent with external resources such as the ACGME Milestones Project and practice guideline objectives developed by a variety of professional organizations.

The Core Competencies document serves as a resource for hospitalists and hospital medicine programs to evaluate, develop, and improve individual and collective skills and the practice environment. The Core Competencies also provide a framework for medical school clerkship directors and residency and fellowship program directors, as well as course directors of Continuing Medical Education programs, to develop curricula to enhance educational experiences for trainees and hospital medicine providers. The updates in every chapter in this revision to the Core Competencies reflects the changes in the healthcare landscape and hospitalist practice environment over the past decade, and we encourage readers to revisit the entire compendium. Table 3 highlights some of the salient changes in this revision.

Hospital medicine continues to evolve as a specialty. The Core Competencies define hospitalists as agents of change and foster the development of a culture of safe and effective patient care within the hospital environment. Although the CCTF hopes that the Core Competencies will preserve their relevance over time, it recognizes the importance of their periodic reevaluation and adaptation. Additionally, SHM developed the Core Competencies primarily for physicians practicing as hospitalists. As the number of physician assistants and nurse practitioners engaged in the practice of hospital medicine increases, and hospital medicine expands into nontraditional specialties such as surgical comanagement, it may be necessary to consider the development of additional or separate Hospital Medicine Core Competencies tailored to the needs of these subsets of clinicians.

Acknowledgments

The authors and the CCTF are immensely grateful to Nick Marzano for project coordination and Abbie Young for her assistance with medical editing and chapter formatting. We extend our sincerest appreciation and gratitude to the index team of authors and editors whose efforts laid the foundation for this body of work. The initial development and this revision of the Core Competencies would not have been possible without the support and assistance of the SHM staff, the SHM Education Committee, and the scores of contributors and reviewers who participated in its creation (complete list of individuals is available in Appendix 2). We thank everyone for his or her invaluable input and effort.

Disclosures

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) provided administrative support for project coordination. SHM, or any of its representatives, had no role in the development of topic areas, refinement, or vetting of the topic list. No member of the Core Competencies Task Force or the SHM Education Committee received compensation for their participation in revising the Core Competencies. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

In 2006, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) first published The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine: A Framework for Curricular Development (henceforth described as the Core Competencies) to help define the role and expectations of hospitalists.^1,2 The Core Competencies provided a framework for evaluating clinical skills and professional expertise within a rapidly developing field and highlighted opportunities for growth. Since the initial development and publication of the Core Competencies, changes in the healthcare landscape and hospitalist practice environment have prompted this revision.

Over the past decade, the field of hospital medicine has experienced exponential growth. In 2005, just over 16,000 hospitalists were practicing in the United States. By 2015, that number had increased to an estimated 44,000 hospitalists, accounting for approximately 6% of the physician workforce.³ Hospitalists have expanded the scope of hospital medicine in many ways. In their roles, hospitalists lead and participate in hospital-based care models that emphasize interprofessional collaboration and a focus on the delivery of high-quality and cost-effective care across a variety of clinical domains (eg, the Choosing Wisely initiative).⁴ They are also engaged in patient safety and quality initiatives that are increasingly being used as benchmarks to rate hospitals and as factors for hospital payment (eg, Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing Program).⁵ In fact, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) created a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification program in response to the growing number of internists choosing to concentrate their practice in the hospital setting. This decision by the ABIM underscores the value that hospitalists bring to improving patient care in the hospital setting. The ABIM also recognizes the Core Competencies as a curricular framework for a focused practice in hospital medicine.⁶

Changes within the educational environment have demanded attentive and active participation by many hospitalists. For example, in 2012, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced the Milestones Project, a new outcomes-based framework designed to more effectively assess learner performance across the 6 core competencies.⁷ These milestones assessments create intentional opportunities to guide the development of physicians during their training, including in the inpatient environments in which hospitalists practice. Where applicable, existing Core Competencies learning objectives were compared with external sources such as the individual ACGME performance milestones for this revision.

The Core Competencies focus on adult hospital medicine. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies are published separately.⁸ Importantly, the Core Competencies document is not intended to define an absolute set of clinical, procedural, or system-based topics described in textbooks or used by graduate medical education training programs. It does not define or limit the scope of the practice of hospital medicine. Rather, the Core Competencies serve as measurable learning objectives that encourage teaching faculty, practicing hospitalists, and administrators to develop individual skill sets and programs to improve patient care contextualized to the needs of an individual, care setting, or institution. To permit this flexibility, individual chapter-specific objectives are intentionally general in nature. Finally, the Core Competencies document is not a set of practice guidelines, nor does it offer any representation of a “standard of care.” Readers are encouraged to explore the article by McKean et al.⁹ to review examples of application of the Core Competencies and suggestions for curricular development.

The purpose of this article is to describe the criteria for inclusion of new chapters in the Core Competencies and the methodology of the review and revision process. It outlines the process of initial review and editing of the existing chapters; needs assessment for new topics; new chapter production; and the process of review and revision of individual chapters to create the complete document. The revised Core Competencies document is available online at http://www.journalofhospitalmedicine.com/jhospmed/issue/134981/journal-hospital-medicine-124-suppl-1.

In 2012, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Education Committee created a Core Competencies Task Force (CCTF) in response to the SHM Board of Directors’ charge that it review and update the initial Core Competencies document. The CCTF comprised of 5 physician SHM Education Committee members and one SHM staff representative. CCTF membership included hospitalists with an interest and familiarity with the Core Competencies document. The SHM Education Committee nominated the CCTF chair, who determined the optimal size, qualifications, and composition of the task force with approval from the Committee. The CCTF communicated through frequent conference calls and via e-mail correspondence to conduct an initial review of the existing chapters and to perform a needs assessment for new topics.

Individual Chapter Review

The SHM Education Committee provided critical input and approved the chapter review process designed by the CCTF (Figure). The CCTF reviewed each chapter of the Core Competencies document to assess its continuing relevance to the field of hospital medicine with a standardized tool (Appendix 1). The process required that at least 2 CCTF members reviewed each chapter. Preliminary reviewers assessed the current relevance of each chapter, determined whether individual learning objectives required additional investigation or modification, and developed new learning objectives to fill any educational gaps. All CCTF members then discussed assimilated feedback from the initial CCTF review, using consensus decision making to determine chapter changes and modifications. The CCTF found each of the existing chapters to be relevant to the field and identified none for removal.

The CCTF rewrote all chapters. It then disseminated proposed chapter changes to a panel of diverse independent reviewers to solicit suggestions and comments to ensure a multidisciplinary and balanced review process. Independent reviewers included authors of the original Core Competencies chapters, invited content experts, and members of the SHM Education Committee. When appropriate, corresponding SHM Committees reviewed individual chapters for updates and revisions. For example, the SHM Hospital Quality and Patient Safety Committee reviewed the chapters on patient safety and quality improvement, and the SHM Practice Management Committee reviewed the chapter on management practices. Four CCTF section editors managed an independent portfolio of chapters. Each CCTF section editor assimilated the various draft versions, corresponded with individual reviewers when necessary, and compiled the changes into a subsequent draft. This process ensured that the final version of every chapter reflected the thoughtful input from all parties involved in the review. Throughout the process, the CCTF used consensus decision making to adjudicate chapter changes and modifications. The 2006 Core Competencies Editorial team also reviewed the revision and provided critical input. The SHM Education Committee and the SHM Board of Directors reviewed and approved the final version of the Core Competencies document.

Needs Assessment and Selection of New Core Competency Chapters

The CCTF issued a call for new topics to the members of the SHM Education Committee for inclusion in the Core Competencies. Topics were also identified from the following sources: the top 100 adult medical diagnoses at hospital discharge in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database in 2010; topics in hospital medicine textbooks; curricula presented at the 3 most recent SHM annual meetings; and responses from SHM annual meeting surveys. Table 1 lists the topics considered for addition.

Members of the SHM Education Committee rated each of the potential topics considered for inclusion based on the following characteristics: relevance to the field of hospital medicine; intersection of the topic with medical subspecialties; and its appropriateness as a separate, stand-alone chapter. In addition, topics more frequently encountered by hospitalists, those deemed clinically important with a known risk of complications or management inconsistencies, and those with significant opportunities for quality improvement initiatives carried more weight. Syncope and hyponatremia were the only 2 clinical conditions identified that met all of the inclusion criteria. No additional topics met the criteria for new chapter development in the Procedures or Healthcare Systems sections. The SHM Education Committee identified the use of point-of-care ultrasonography as an important advancement in the field. Where appropriate, the individual procedure chapters now include a new competency-based objective highlighting its role. In addition, a separate SHM task force is working to develop a practice guideline for the use of point-of-care ultrasonography by hospitalists.

Contributors

The SHM Education Committee determined authorship for the new chapters (syncope and hyponatremia). It assigned 2 CCTF members with content expertise and familiarity with the Core Competencies to each author one chapter. Given the limited number of new chapters, it made a decision to develop the content internally rather than through an open-call for authorship nominations to practicing SHM members. The authors made an effort to maintain consistency with the educational theory used to develop the initial Core Competencies. Each of the new topics underwent rigorous review as previously described, including additional independent reviews by hospitalists with content expertise in these areas.

Following the same format as the earlier version, the 2017 Core Competencies revision contains 53 chapters, divided into 3 sections—Clinical Conditions, Procedures, and Healthcare Systems (Table 2) —all integral components of the practice of hospital medicine. The design allows individual chapters to stand alone. However, each chapter should be considered in the context of the entire document because a particular concept may be only briefly discussed in one chapter, but described in greater depth in another given the potential overlap across topics.

The chapters maintain the same content structure as the original version. Each chapter begins with an introductory paragraph followed by a list of competency-based objectives grouped in subsections according to the educational theory of learning domains: cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (attitudes).¹⁰ In addition, a subsection for System Organization and Improvement is included in the Clinical Conditions and Procedure chapters to emphasize the importance of interprofessional collaboration for optimal patient care. These subsections were not included in the Healthcare Systems chapters, as system organization and improvement is intrinsic to these subjects.

The introductory paragraph provides background information and describes how the chapter remains relevant to the current practice of hospital medicine. Individual competency-based objectives outline a relevant concept and expected level of proficiency as defined by Bloom’s taxonomy.¹⁰ New objectives reflect changes in the healthcare landscape over the past decade or further enhance each chapter’s concepts. Chapter authors made an effort to develop chapter and learning objective concepts that are consistent with external resources such as the ACGME Milestones Project and practice guideline objectives developed by a variety of professional organizations.

The Core Competencies document serves as a resource for hospitalists and hospital medicine programs to evaluate, develop, and improve individual and collective skills and the practice environment. The Core Competencies also provide a framework for medical school clerkship directors and residency and fellowship program directors, as well as course directors of Continuing Medical Education programs, to develop curricula to enhance educational experiences for trainees and hospital medicine providers. The updates in every chapter in this revision to the Core Competencies reflects the changes in the healthcare landscape and hospitalist practice environment over the past decade, and we encourage readers to revisit the entire compendium. Table 3 highlights some of the salient changes in this revision.

Hospital medicine continues to evolve as a specialty. The Core Competencies define hospitalists as agents of change and foster the development of a culture of safe and effective patient care within the hospital environment. Although the CCTF hopes that the Core Competencies will preserve their relevance over time, it recognizes the importance of their periodic reevaluation and adaptation. Additionally, SHM developed the Core Competencies primarily for physicians practicing as hospitalists. As the number of physician assistants and nurse practitioners engaged in the practice of hospital medicine increases, and hospital medicine expands into nontraditional specialties such as surgical comanagement, it may be necessary to consider the development of additional or separate Hospital Medicine Core Competencies tailored to the needs of these subsets of clinicians.

Acknowledgments

The authors and the CCTF are immensely grateful to Nick Marzano for project coordination and Abbie Young for her assistance with medical editing and chapter formatting. We extend our sincerest appreciation and gratitude to the index team of authors and editors whose efforts laid the foundation for this body of work. The initial development and this revision of the Core Competencies would not have been possible without the support and assistance of the SHM staff, the SHM Education Committee, and the scores of contributors and reviewers who participated in its creation (complete list of individuals is available in Appendix 2). We thank everyone for his or her invaluable input and effort.

Disclosures

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) provided administrative support for project coordination. SHM, or any of its representatives, had no role in the development of topic areas, refinement, or vetting of the topic list. No member of the Core Competencies Task Force or the SHM Education Committee received compensation for their participation in revising the Core Competencies. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

In 2006, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) first published The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine: A Framework for Curricular Development (henceforth described as the Core Competencies) to help define the role and expectations of hospitalists.^1,2 The Core Competencies provided a framework for evaluating clinical skills and professional expertise within a rapidly developing field and highlighted opportunities for growth. Since the initial development and publication of the Core Competencies, changes in the healthcare landscape and hospitalist practice environment have prompted this revision.

Over the past decade, the field of hospital medicine has experienced exponential growth. In 2005, just over 16,000 hospitalists were practicing in the United States. By 2015, that number had increased to an estimated 44,000 hospitalists, accounting for approximately 6% of the physician workforce.³ Hospitalists have expanded the scope of hospital medicine in many ways. In their roles, hospitalists lead and participate in hospital-based care models that emphasize interprofessional collaboration and a focus on the delivery of high-quality and cost-effective care across a variety of clinical domains (eg, the Choosing Wisely initiative).⁴ They are also engaged in patient safety and quality initiatives that are increasingly being used as benchmarks to rate hospitals and as factors for hospital payment (eg, Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing Program).⁵ In fact, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) created a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification program in response to the growing number of internists choosing to concentrate their practice in the hospital setting. This decision by the ABIM underscores the value that hospitalists bring to improving patient care in the hospital setting. The ABIM also recognizes the Core Competencies as a curricular framework for a focused practice in hospital medicine.⁶

Changes within the educational environment have demanded attentive and active participation by many hospitalists. For example, in 2012, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced the Milestones Project, a new outcomes-based framework designed to more effectively assess learner performance across the 6 core competencies.⁷ These milestones assessments create intentional opportunities to guide the development of physicians during their training, including in the inpatient environments in which hospitalists practice. Where applicable, existing Core Competencies learning objectives were compared with external sources such as the individual ACGME performance milestones for this revision.

The Core Competencies focus on adult hospital medicine. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies are published separately.⁸ Importantly, the Core Competencies document is not intended to define an absolute set of clinical, procedural, or system-based topics described in textbooks or used by graduate medical education training programs. It does not define or limit the scope of the practice of hospital medicine. Rather, the Core Competencies serve as measurable learning objectives that encourage teaching faculty, practicing hospitalists, and administrators to develop individual skill sets and programs to improve patient care contextualized to the needs of an individual, care setting, or institution. To permit this flexibility, individual chapter-specific objectives are intentionally general in nature. Finally, the Core Competencies document is not a set of practice guidelines, nor does it offer any representation of a “standard of care.” Readers are encouraged to explore the article by McKean et al.⁹ to review examples of application of the Core Competencies and suggestions for curricular development.

The purpose of this article is to describe the criteria for inclusion of new chapters in the Core Competencies and the methodology of the review and revision process. It outlines the process of initial review and editing of the existing chapters; needs assessment for new topics; new chapter production; and the process of review and revision of individual chapters to create the complete document. The revised Core Competencies document is available online at http://www.journalofhospitalmedicine.com/jhospmed/issue/134981/journal-hospital-medicine-124-suppl-1.

In 2012, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Education Committee created a Core Competencies Task Force (CCTF) in response to the SHM Board of Directors’ charge that it review and update the initial Core Competencies document. The CCTF comprised of 5 physician SHM Education Committee members and one SHM staff representative. CCTF membership included hospitalists with an interest and familiarity with the Core Competencies document. The SHM Education Committee nominated the CCTF chair, who determined the optimal size, qualifications, and composition of the task force with approval from the Committee. The CCTF communicated through frequent conference calls and via e-mail correspondence to conduct an initial review of the existing chapters and to perform a needs assessment for new topics.

Individual Chapter Review

The SHM Education Committee provided critical input and approved the chapter review process designed by the CCTF (Figure). The CCTF reviewed each chapter of the Core Competencies document to assess its continuing relevance to the field of hospital medicine with a standardized tool (Appendix 1). The process required that at least 2 CCTF members reviewed each chapter. Preliminary reviewers assessed the current relevance of each chapter, determined whether individual learning objectives required additional investigation or modification, and developed new learning objectives to fill any educational gaps. All CCTF members then discussed assimilated feedback from the initial CCTF review, using consensus decision making to determine chapter changes and modifications. The CCTF found each of the existing chapters to be relevant to the field and identified none for removal.

The CCTF rewrote all chapters. It then disseminated proposed chapter changes to a panel of diverse independent reviewers to solicit suggestions and comments to ensure a multidisciplinary and balanced review process. Independent reviewers included authors of the original Core Competencies chapters, invited content experts, and members of the SHM Education Committee. When appropriate, corresponding SHM Committees reviewed individual chapters for updates and revisions. For example, the SHM Hospital Quality and Patient Safety Committee reviewed the chapters on patient safety and quality improvement, and the SHM Practice Management Committee reviewed the chapter on management practices. Four CCTF section editors managed an independent portfolio of chapters. Each CCTF section editor assimilated the various draft versions, corresponded with individual reviewers when necessary, and compiled the changes into a subsequent draft. This process ensured that the final version of every chapter reflected the thoughtful input from all parties involved in the review. Throughout the process, the CCTF used consensus decision making to adjudicate chapter changes and modifications. The 2006 Core Competencies Editorial team also reviewed the revision and provided critical input. The SHM Education Committee and the SHM Board of Directors reviewed and approved the final version of the Core Competencies document.

Needs Assessment and Selection of New Core Competency Chapters

The CCTF issued a call for new topics to the members of the SHM Education Committee for inclusion in the Core Competencies. Topics were also identified from the following sources: the top 100 adult medical diagnoses at hospital discharge in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database in 2010; topics in hospital medicine textbooks; curricula presented at the 3 most recent SHM annual meetings; and responses from SHM annual meeting surveys. Table 1 lists the topics considered for addition.

Members of the SHM Education Committee rated each of the potential topics considered for inclusion based on the following characteristics: relevance to the field of hospital medicine; intersection of the topic with medical subspecialties; and its appropriateness as a separate, stand-alone chapter. In addition, topics more frequently encountered by hospitalists, those deemed clinically important with a known risk of complications or management inconsistencies, and those with significant opportunities for quality improvement initiatives carried more weight. Syncope and hyponatremia were the only 2 clinical conditions identified that met all of the inclusion criteria. No additional topics met the criteria for new chapter development in the Procedures or Healthcare Systems sections. The SHM Education Committee identified the use of point-of-care ultrasonography as an important advancement in the field. Where appropriate, the individual procedure chapters now include a new competency-based objective highlighting its role. In addition, a separate SHM task force is working to develop a practice guideline for the use of point-of-care ultrasonography by hospitalists.

Contributors

The SHM Education Committee determined authorship for the new chapters (syncope and hyponatremia). It assigned 2 CCTF members with content expertise and familiarity with the Core Competencies to each author one chapter. Given the limited number of new chapters, it made a decision to develop the content internally rather than through an open-call for authorship nominations to practicing SHM members. The authors made an effort to maintain consistency with the educational theory used to develop the initial Core Competencies. Each of the new topics underwent rigorous review as previously described, including additional independent reviews by hospitalists with content expertise in these areas.

Following the same format as the earlier version, the 2017 Core Competencies revision contains 53 chapters, divided into 3 sections—Clinical Conditions, Procedures, and Healthcare Systems (Table 2) —all integral components of the practice of hospital medicine. The design allows individual chapters to stand alone. However, each chapter should be considered in the context of the entire document because a particular concept may be only briefly discussed in one chapter, but described in greater depth in another given the potential overlap across topics.

The chapters maintain the same content structure as the original version. Each chapter begins with an introductory paragraph followed by a list of competency-based objectives grouped in subsections according to the educational theory of learning domains: cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (attitudes).¹⁰ In addition, a subsection for System Organization and Improvement is included in the Clinical Conditions and Procedure chapters to emphasize the importance of interprofessional collaboration for optimal patient care. These subsections were not included in the Healthcare Systems chapters, as system organization and improvement is intrinsic to these subjects.

The introductory paragraph provides background information and describes how the chapter remains relevant to the current practice of hospital medicine. Individual competency-based objectives outline a relevant concept and expected level of proficiency as defined by Bloom’s taxonomy.¹⁰ New objectives reflect changes in the healthcare landscape over the past decade or further enhance each chapter’s concepts. Chapter authors made an effort to develop chapter and learning objective concepts that are consistent with external resources such as the ACGME Milestones Project and practice guideline objectives developed by a variety of professional organizations.

The Core Competencies document serves as a resource for hospitalists and hospital medicine programs to evaluate, develop, and improve individual and collective skills and the practice environment. The Core Competencies also provide a framework for medical school clerkship directors and residency and fellowship program directors, as well as course directors of Continuing Medical Education programs, to develop curricula to enhance educational experiences for trainees and hospital medicine providers. The updates in every chapter in this revision to the Core Competencies reflects the changes in the healthcare landscape and hospitalist practice environment over the past decade, and we encourage readers to revisit the entire compendium. Table 3 highlights some of the salient changes in this revision.

Hospital medicine continues to evolve as a specialty. The Core Competencies define hospitalists as agents of change and foster the development of a culture of safe and effective patient care within the hospital environment. Although the CCTF hopes that the Core Competencies will preserve their relevance over time, it recognizes the importance of their periodic reevaluation and adaptation. Additionally, SHM developed the Core Competencies primarily for physicians practicing as hospitalists. As the number of physician assistants and nurse practitioners engaged in the practice of hospital medicine increases, and hospital medicine expands into nontraditional specialties such as surgical comanagement, it may be necessary to consider the development of additional or separate Hospital Medicine Core Competencies tailored to the needs of these subsets of clinicians.

Acknowledgments

The authors and the CCTF are immensely grateful to Nick Marzano for project coordination and Abbie Young for her assistance with medical editing and chapter formatting. We extend our sincerest appreciation and gratitude to the index team of authors and editors whose efforts laid the foundation for this body of work. The initial development and this revision of the Core Competencies would not have been possible without the support and assistance of the SHM staff, the SHM Education Committee, and the scores of contributors and reviewers who participated in its creation (complete list of individuals is available in Appendix 2). We thank everyone for his or her invaluable input and effort.

Disclosures

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) provided administrative support for project coordination. SHM, or any of its representatives, had no role in the development of topic areas, refinement, or vetting of the topic list. No member of the Core Competencies Task Force or the SHM Education Committee received compensation for their participation in revising the Core Competencies. The authors report no conflicts of interest.