MDedge ObGyn

A qualitative study of breast cancer screening–age women finds that few women identified breast density as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Most women did not feel confident they knew what actions could mitigate breast cancer risk, leading researchers to the conclusion that comprehensive education about breast cancer risks and prevention strategies is needed.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Network Open.

“Forty [percent] to 50% of women who undergo mammography fall into the two highest breast density categories,” said the study’s lead author Christine Gunn, PhD, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, N.H. “Breast cancer risk increases from 1.2-4.0 times depending on the level of breast density. By comparison, a first-degree family history of breast cancer, particularly in premenopausal women, confers a two-fold higher breast cancer risk.”

Dr. Gunn’s study is based on a survey of 2,306 women (between 40 and 76 years old) that was conducted between 2019 and 2020. The goal was to determine how well women understood cancer risks associated with dense breast tissue. The final analysis included 1,858 women (9% Asian, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, 43% White, and 7% other race or ethnicity).

Breast density was thought to be a greater risk than not having children, drinking daily, and having had a prior breast biopsy, according to 52%, 53%, and 48% of respondents, respectively. Breast density was believed to be a lesser breast cancer risk than having a first-degree relative with breast cancer by 93% of women, and 65% of women felt it was a lesser risk than being overweight or obese.

Of the 61 women who completed follow-up interviews, 6 described breast density as a contributing factor to breast cancer risk. And, 17 women did not know whether it was possible to reduce their breast cancer risk.
 

Doctors must notify patients in writing

Breast tissue falls under one of four categories: fatty tissue, scattered areas of dense fibroglandular tissue, many areas of glandular and connective tissue, or extremely dense tissue. The tissue is considered dense if it falls under heterogeneously dense or extremely dense, and in those cases, follow-up testing with ultrasound or MRI may be necessary. This is important, Dr. Gunn said, because dense tissue can make “it harder to find cancers because connective tissue appears white on the mammogram, potentially masking tumors.”

Prior studies have found that many clinicians are uncomfortable counseling patients on the implications of breast density and cancer risk, the authors wrote.

However, under the Mammography Quality Standards Act, which was updated on March 10, the Food and Drug Administration requires that patients be provided with a mammography report summary that “identifies whether the patient has dense or nondense breast tissue.” The report, which should be written in lay language, should also specify the “significance” of the dense tissue.

While some states mandate notification regardless of the density level, most only notify women if heterogeneously dense or extremely dense tissue has been identified, Dr. Gunn said. But the rules are inconsistent, she said. In some facilities in Massachusetts, for example, women may receive a mammography report letter and a separate breast density letter. “For some, it has been really confusing. They received a letter saying that their mammography was normal and then another one saying that they have dense breasts – resulting in a lot of uncertainty and anxiety. We don’t want to overly alarm people. We want them to understand their risk,” she said.

Breast density can be considered among other risk factors, including alcohol use, obesity, diet, parity, prior breast biopsy, and inherited unfavorable genetic mutations. “If the total lifetime risk is above 20%, that opens up further screening options, such as a breast MRI, which will catch more cancers than a breast mammogram by itself,” Dr. Gunn said.

“The challenges for physicians and patients around collecting and understanding breast density information in the context of other risk factors can potentially lead to disparities in who gets to know their risk and who doesn’t,” Dr. Gunn said. It would be possible, she speculated, to create or use existing risk calculators integrated into medical records and populated with information gathered in premammography visit questionnaires. Ideally, a radiologist could hand the patient results in real time at the end of the mammography visit, integrating risk estimates with mammography findings to make recommendations.

This study was supported by grant RSG-133017-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society.
 

A qualitative study of breast cancer screening–age women finds that few women identified breast density as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Most women did not feel confident they knew what actions could mitigate breast cancer risk, leading researchers to the conclusion that comprehensive education about breast cancer risks and prevention strategies is needed.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Network Open.

“Forty [percent] to 50% of women who undergo mammography fall into the two highest breast density categories,” said the study’s lead author Christine Gunn, PhD, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, N.H. “Breast cancer risk increases from 1.2-4.0 times depending on the level of breast density. By comparison, a first-degree family history of breast cancer, particularly in premenopausal women, confers a two-fold higher breast cancer risk.”

Dr. Gunn’s study is based on a survey of 2,306 women (between 40 and 76 years old) that was conducted between 2019 and 2020. The goal was to determine how well women understood cancer risks associated with dense breast tissue. The final analysis included 1,858 women (9% Asian, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, 43% White, and 7% other race or ethnicity).

Breast density was thought to be a greater risk than not having children, drinking daily, and having had a prior breast biopsy, according to 52%, 53%, and 48% of respondents, respectively. Breast density was believed to be a lesser breast cancer risk than having a first-degree relative with breast cancer by 93% of women, and 65% of women felt it was a lesser risk than being overweight or obese.

Of the 61 women who completed follow-up interviews, 6 described breast density as a contributing factor to breast cancer risk. And, 17 women did not know whether it was possible to reduce their breast cancer risk.
 

Doctors must notify patients in writing

Breast tissue falls under one of four categories: fatty tissue, scattered areas of dense fibroglandular tissue, many areas of glandular and connective tissue, or extremely dense tissue. The tissue is considered dense if it falls under heterogeneously dense or extremely dense, and in those cases, follow-up testing with ultrasound or MRI may be necessary. This is important, Dr. Gunn said, because dense tissue can make “it harder to find cancers because connective tissue appears white on the mammogram, potentially masking tumors.”

Prior studies have found that many clinicians are uncomfortable counseling patients on the implications of breast density and cancer risk, the authors wrote.

However, under the Mammography Quality Standards Act, which was updated on March 10, the Food and Drug Administration requires that patients be provided with a mammography report summary that “identifies whether the patient has dense or nondense breast tissue.” The report, which should be written in lay language, should also specify the “significance” of the dense tissue.

While some states mandate notification regardless of the density level, most only notify women if heterogeneously dense or extremely dense tissue has been identified, Dr. Gunn said. But the rules are inconsistent, she said. In some facilities in Massachusetts, for example, women may receive a mammography report letter and a separate breast density letter. “For some, it has been really confusing. They received a letter saying that their mammography was normal and then another one saying that they have dense breasts – resulting in a lot of uncertainty and anxiety. We don’t want to overly alarm people. We want them to understand their risk,” she said.

Breast density can be considered among other risk factors, including alcohol use, obesity, diet, parity, prior breast biopsy, and inherited unfavorable genetic mutations. “If the total lifetime risk is above 20%, that opens up further screening options, such as a breast MRI, which will catch more cancers than a breast mammogram by itself,” Dr. Gunn said.

“The challenges for physicians and patients around collecting and understanding breast density information in the context of other risk factors can potentially lead to disparities in who gets to know their risk and who doesn’t,” Dr. Gunn said. It would be possible, she speculated, to create or use existing risk calculators integrated into medical records and populated with information gathered in premammography visit questionnaires. Ideally, a radiologist could hand the patient results in real time at the end of the mammography visit, integrating risk estimates with mammography findings to make recommendations.

This study was supported by grant RSG-133017-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society.
 

A qualitative study of breast cancer screening–age women finds that few women identified breast density as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Most women did not feel confident they knew what actions could mitigate breast cancer risk, leading researchers to the conclusion that comprehensive education about breast cancer risks and prevention strategies is needed.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Network Open.

“Forty [percent] to 50% of women who undergo mammography fall into the two highest breast density categories,” said the study’s lead author Christine Gunn, PhD, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, N.H. “Breast cancer risk increases from 1.2-4.0 times depending on the level of breast density. By comparison, a first-degree family history of breast cancer, particularly in premenopausal women, confers a two-fold higher breast cancer risk.”

Dr. Gunn’s study is based on a survey of 2,306 women (between 40 and 76 years old) that was conducted between 2019 and 2020. The goal was to determine how well women understood cancer risks associated with dense breast tissue. The final analysis included 1,858 women (9% Asian, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, 43% White, and 7% other race or ethnicity).

Breast density was thought to be a greater risk than not having children, drinking daily, and having had a prior breast biopsy, according to 52%, 53%, and 48% of respondents, respectively. Breast density was believed to be a lesser breast cancer risk than having a first-degree relative with breast cancer by 93% of women, and 65% of women felt it was a lesser risk than being overweight or obese.

Of the 61 women who completed follow-up interviews, 6 described breast density as a contributing factor to breast cancer risk. And, 17 women did not know whether it was possible to reduce their breast cancer risk.
 

Doctors must notify patients in writing

Breast tissue falls under one of four categories: fatty tissue, scattered areas of dense fibroglandular tissue, many areas of glandular and connective tissue, or extremely dense tissue. The tissue is considered dense if it falls under heterogeneously dense or extremely dense, and in those cases, follow-up testing with ultrasound or MRI may be necessary. This is important, Dr. Gunn said, because dense tissue can make “it harder to find cancers because connective tissue appears white on the mammogram, potentially masking tumors.”

Prior studies have found that many clinicians are uncomfortable counseling patients on the implications of breast density and cancer risk, the authors wrote.

However, under the Mammography Quality Standards Act, which was updated on March 10, the Food and Drug Administration requires that patients be provided with a mammography report summary that “identifies whether the patient has dense or nondense breast tissue.” The report, which should be written in lay language, should also specify the “significance” of the dense tissue.

While some states mandate notification regardless of the density level, most only notify women if heterogeneously dense or extremely dense tissue has been identified, Dr. Gunn said. But the rules are inconsistent, she said. In some facilities in Massachusetts, for example, women may receive a mammography report letter and a separate breast density letter. “For some, it has been really confusing. They received a letter saying that their mammography was normal and then another one saying that they have dense breasts – resulting in a lot of uncertainty and anxiety. We don’t want to overly alarm people. We want them to understand their risk,” she said.

Breast density can be considered among other risk factors, including alcohol use, obesity, diet, parity, prior breast biopsy, and inherited unfavorable genetic mutations. “If the total lifetime risk is above 20%, that opens up further screening options, such as a breast MRI, which will catch more cancers than a breast mammogram by itself,” Dr. Gunn said.

“The challenges for physicians and patients around collecting and understanding breast density information in the context of other risk factors can potentially lead to disparities in who gets to know their risk and who doesn’t,” Dr. Gunn said. It would be possible, she speculated, to create or use existing risk calculators integrated into medical records and populated with information gathered in premammography visit questionnaires. Ideally, a radiologist could hand the patient results in real time at the end of the mammography visit, integrating risk estimates with mammography findings to make recommendations.

This study was supported by grant RSG-133017-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society.
 

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

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

The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

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

The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

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

All adults should be tested for hepatitis B virus (HBV) at least once in their lifetime, according to updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This is the first update to HBV screening guidelines since 2008, the agency said.

“Risk-based testing alone has not identified most persons living with chronic HBV infection and is considered inefficient for providers to implement,” the authors wrote in the new guidance, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “Universal screening of adults for HBV infection is cost-effective, compared with risk-based screening and averts liver disease and death. Although a curative treatment is not yet available, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic HBV infections reduces the risk for cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.”

Howard Lee, MD, an assistant professor in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that risk-based screening has not been effective. A universal screening approach “is the way to go,” he said. With this new screening approach, patients can get tested without having to admit that they may be at risk for a chronic disease like HIV and HBV, which can be stigmatizing, said Dr. Lee, who was not involved with making these recommendations.

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million individuals are living with HBV infection in the United States, and two-thirds may be unaware they are infected, according to the CDC. The virus spreads through contact with blood, semen, and other body fluids of an infected person.

The guidance now recommends using the triple panel (HBsAg, anti-HBs, total anti-HBc) for initial screening.

“It can help identify persons who have an active HBV infection and could be linked to care; have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (for example, immunosuppressed persons); are susceptible and need vaccination; or are vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Patients with previous HBV infection can have the infection reactivated with immunosuppressive treatments, Dr. Lee said, which is why detecting prior infection via the triple panel screening is important.

Women who are pregnant should be screened, ideally, in the first trimester of each pregnancy, regardless of vaccination status or testing history. If they have already received timely triple panel screening for hepatitis B and have no new HBV exposures, pregnant women only need HBsAg screening, the guidelines state.

The guidelines also specify that higher risk groups, specifically those incarcerated or formerly incarcerated, adults with current or past hepatitis C virus infection, and those with current or past sexually transmitted infections and multiple sex partners.

People who are susceptible for infection, refuse vaccination and are at higher risk for HBV should be screened periodically, but how often they should be screened should be based on shared decision-making between the provider and patient as well as individual risk and immune status.

Additional research into the optimal frequency of periodic testing is necessary, the authors say.

“Along with vaccination strategies, universal screening of adults and appropriate testing of persons at increased risk for HBV infection will improve health outcomes, reduce the prevalence of HBV infection in the United States, and advance viral hepatitis elimination goals,” the authors wrote.

The new recommendations now contrast with the 2020 screening guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that recommend risk-based screening for hepatitis B.

“When that recommendation was published, the Task Force was aligned with several other organizations, including the CDC, in supporting screening for hepatitis B in high-risk populations — and importantly, we’re all still aligned in making sure that people get the care that they need,” said Michael Barry, MD, chair of the USPSTF, in an emailed statement. “The evidence on clinical preventive services is always changing, and the Task Force aims to keep all recommendations current, updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years.”

“In the meantime, we always encourage clinicians to use their judgment as they provide care for their patients — including those who may benefit from screening for hepatitis B — and to decide together with each patient which preventive services can best help them live a long and healthy life,” Dr. Barry said.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases is currently updating their HBV screening recommendations, Dr. Lee said, and he expects other professional societies to follow the CDC recommendations.

“It’s not uncommon that we see the CDC or societies making recommendations and the USPSTF following along, so hopefully that’s the case for hepatitis B as well,” he said.

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

All adults should be tested for hepatitis B virus (HBV) at least once in their lifetime, according to updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This is the first update to HBV screening guidelines since 2008, the agency said.

“Risk-based testing alone has not identified most persons living with chronic HBV infection and is considered inefficient for providers to implement,” the authors wrote in the new guidance, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “Universal screening of adults for HBV infection is cost-effective, compared with risk-based screening and averts liver disease and death. Although a curative treatment is not yet available, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic HBV infections reduces the risk for cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.”

Howard Lee, MD, an assistant professor in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that risk-based screening has not been effective. A universal screening approach “is the way to go,” he said. With this new screening approach, patients can get tested without having to admit that they may be at risk for a chronic disease like HIV and HBV, which can be stigmatizing, said Dr. Lee, who was not involved with making these recommendations.

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million individuals are living with HBV infection in the United States, and two-thirds may be unaware they are infected, according to the CDC. The virus spreads through contact with blood, semen, and other body fluids of an infected person.

The guidance now recommends using the triple panel (HBsAg, anti-HBs, total anti-HBc) for initial screening.

“It can help identify persons who have an active HBV infection and could be linked to care; have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (for example, immunosuppressed persons); are susceptible and need vaccination; or are vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Patients with previous HBV infection can have the infection reactivated with immunosuppressive treatments, Dr. Lee said, which is why detecting prior infection via the triple panel screening is important.

Women who are pregnant should be screened, ideally, in the first trimester of each pregnancy, regardless of vaccination status or testing history. If they have already received timely triple panel screening for hepatitis B and have no new HBV exposures, pregnant women only need HBsAg screening, the guidelines state.

The guidelines also specify that higher risk groups, specifically those incarcerated or formerly incarcerated, adults with current or past hepatitis C virus infection, and those with current or past sexually transmitted infections and multiple sex partners.

People who are susceptible for infection, refuse vaccination and are at higher risk for HBV should be screened periodically, but how often they should be screened should be based on shared decision-making between the provider and patient as well as individual risk and immune status.

Additional research into the optimal frequency of periodic testing is necessary, the authors say.

“Along with vaccination strategies, universal screening of adults and appropriate testing of persons at increased risk for HBV infection will improve health outcomes, reduce the prevalence of HBV infection in the United States, and advance viral hepatitis elimination goals,” the authors wrote.

The new recommendations now contrast with the 2020 screening guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that recommend risk-based screening for hepatitis B.

“When that recommendation was published, the Task Force was aligned with several other organizations, including the CDC, in supporting screening for hepatitis B in high-risk populations — and importantly, we’re all still aligned in making sure that people get the care that they need,” said Michael Barry, MD, chair of the USPSTF, in an emailed statement. “The evidence on clinical preventive services is always changing, and the Task Force aims to keep all recommendations current, updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years.”

“In the meantime, we always encourage clinicians to use their judgment as they provide care for their patients — including those who may benefit from screening for hepatitis B — and to decide together with each patient which preventive services can best help them live a long and healthy life,” Dr. Barry said.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases is currently updating their HBV screening recommendations, Dr. Lee said, and he expects other professional societies to follow the CDC recommendations.

“It’s not uncommon that we see the CDC or societies making recommendations and the USPSTF following along, so hopefully that’s the case for hepatitis B as well,” he said.

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

All adults should be tested for hepatitis B virus (HBV) at least once in their lifetime, according to updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This is the first update to HBV screening guidelines since 2008, the agency said.

“Risk-based testing alone has not identified most persons living with chronic HBV infection and is considered inefficient for providers to implement,” the authors wrote in the new guidance, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “Universal screening of adults for HBV infection is cost-effective, compared with risk-based screening and averts liver disease and death. Although a curative treatment is not yet available, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic HBV infections reduces the risk for cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.”

Howard Lee, MD, an assistant professor in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that risk-based screening has not been effective. A universal screening approach “is the way to go,” he said. With this new screening approach, patients can get tested without having to admit that they may be at risk for a chronic disease like HIV and HBV, which can be stigmatizing, said Dr. Lee, who was not involved with making these recommendations.

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million individuals are living with HBV infection in the United States, and two-thirds may be unaware they are infected, according to the CDC. The virus spreads through contact with blood, semen, and other body fluids of an infected person.

The guidance now recommends using the triple panel (HBsAg, anti-HBs, total anti-HBc) for initial screening.

“It can help identify persons who have an active HBV infection and could be linked to care; have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (for example, immunosuppressed persons); are susceptible and need vaccination; or are vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Patients with previous HBV infection can have the infection reactivated with immunosuppressive treatments, Dr. Lee said, which is why detecting prior infection via the triple panel screening is important.

Women who are pregnant should be screened, ideally, in the first trimester of each pregnancy, regardless of vaccination status or testing history. If they have already received timely triple panel screening for hepatitis B and have no new HBV exposures, pregnant women only need HBsAg screening, the guidelines state.

The guidelines also specify that higher risk groups, specifically those incarcerated or formerly incarcerated, adults with current or past hepatitis C virus infection, and those with current or past sexually transmitted infections and multiple sex partners.

People who are susceptible for infection, refuse vaccination and are at higher risk for HBV should be screened periodically, but how often they should be screened should be based on shared decision-making between the provider and patient as well as individual risk and immune status.

Additional research into the optimal frequency of periodic testing is necessary, the authors say.

“Along with vaccination strategies, universal screening of adults and appropriate testing of persons at increased risk for HBV infection will improve health outcomes, reduce the prevalence of HBV infection in the United States, and advance viral hepatitis elimination goals,” the authors wrote.

The new recommendations now contrast with the 2020 screening guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that recommend risk-based screening for hepatitis B.

“When that recommendation was published, the Task Force was aligned with several other organizations, including the CDC, in supporting screening for hepatitis B in high-risk populations — and importantly, we’re all still aligned in making sure that people get the care that they need,” said Michael Barry, MD, chair of the USPSTF, in an emailed statement. “The evidence on clinical preventive services is always changing, and the Task Force aims to keep all recommendations current, updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years.”

“In the meantime, we always encourage clinicians to use their judgment as they provide care for their patients — including those who may benefit from screening for hepatitis B — and to decide together with each patient which preventive services can best help them live a long and healthy life,” Dr. Barry said.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases is currently updating their HBV screening recommendations, Dr. Lee said, and he expects other professional societies to follow the CDC recommendations.

“It’s not uncommon that we see the CDC or societies making recommendations and the USPSTF following along, so hopefully that’s the case for hepatitis B as well,” he said.

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

Opioid overdose and other preventable causes are important contributors to postpartum death rates, Medicaid claims data show, particularly in women who have a recent history of opioid use disorder (OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
 

Nearly 5 million deliveries studied

Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.

They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.

Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).

Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
 

Medication significantly lowers death risk

The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.

For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).

As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.

“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
 

Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications

She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.

Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.

On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.

Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.

Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.

But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
 

Getting naloxone to patients, families

One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.

However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.

“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”

Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.

He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.

“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.

“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”

Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
 

Problem probably understated

He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.

“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.

Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.

In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.

“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”

Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

Opioid overdose and other preventable causes are important contributors to postpartum death rates, Medicaid claims data show, particularly in women who have a recent history of opioid use disorder (OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
 

Nearly 5 million deliveries studied

Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.

They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.

Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).

Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
 

Medication significantly lowers death risk

The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.

For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).

As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.

“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
 

Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications

She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.

Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.

On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.

Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.

Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.

But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
 

Getting naloxone to patients, families

One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.

However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.

“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”

Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.

He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.

“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.

“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”

Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
 

Problem probably understated

He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.

“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.

Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.

In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.

“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”

Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

Opioid overdose and other preventable causes are important contributors to postpartum death rates, Medicaid claims data show, particularly in women who have a recent history of opioid use disorder (OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
 

Nearly 5 million deliveries studied

Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.

They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.

Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).

Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
 

Medication significantly lowers death risk

The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.

For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).

As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.

“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
 

Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications

She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.

Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.

On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.

Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.

Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.

But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
 

Getting naloxone to patients, families

One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.

However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.

“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”

Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.

He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.

“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.

“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”

Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
 

Problem probably understated

He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.

“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.

Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.

In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.

“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”

Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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