MDedge ObGyn

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

What are the principal microorganisms that cause puerperal mastitis?

Continue to the answer...

Staphylococci and Streptococcus viridans are the 2 dominant microorganisms that cause puerperal mastitis. For the initial treatment of mastitis, the drug of choice is dicloxacillin sodium (500 mg orally every 6 to 8 hours for 7 to 10 days). If the patient has a mild allergy to penicillin, cephalexin (500 mg orally every 6 to 8 hours for 7 to 10 days) is an appropriate alternative. If the allergy to penicillin is severe or if methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection is suspected, either clindamycin (300 mg orally twice daily for 7 to 10 days) or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength orally twice daily for 7 to 10 days should be used.

What are the principal microorganisms that cause puerperal mastitis?

Continue to the answer...

Staphylococci and Streptococcus viridans are the 2 dominant microorganisms that cause puerperal mastitis. For the initial treatment of mastitis, the drug of choice is dicloxacillin sodium (500 mg orally every 6 to 8 hours for 7 to 10 days). If the patient has a mild allergy to penicillin, cephalexin (500 mg orally every 6 to 8 hours for 7 to 10 days) is an appropriate alternative. If the allergy to penicillin is severe or if methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection is suspected, either clindamycin (300 mg orally twice daily for 7 to 10 days) or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength orally twice daily for 7 to 10 days should be used.

What are the principal microorganisms that cause puerperal mastitis?

Continue to the answer...

Staphylococci and Streptococcus viridans are the 2 dominant microorganisms that cause puerperal mastitis. For the initial treatment of mastitis, the drug of choice is dicloxacillin sodium (500 mg orally every 6 to 8 hours for 7 to 10 days). If the patient has a mild allergy to penicillin, cephalexin (500 mg orally every 6 to 8 hours for 7 to 10 days) is an appropriate alternative. If the allergy to penicillin is severe or if methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection is suspected, either clindamycin (300 mg orally twice daily for 7 to 10 days) or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength orally twice daily for 7 to 10 days should be used.

A French research team has developed a microRNA (miRNA) signature for diagnosing endometriosis through a simple saliva test. Its validation in a larger cohort could soon allow doctors to have a cheap, noninvasive, and accurate tool to use in diagnosing a disease that, for the time being, is difficult to identify with any certainty. The researchers suggest that their methodology could be used as a blueprint to investigate other pathologies, both benign and malignant.

ENDO-miRNA study

miRNAs regulate as much as 60% of gene expression at the posttranscriptional level. In the setting of endometriosis, several authors have evaluated the relevance of a blood-based miRNA signature, but the results are discordant because of methodological and control group issues. Other researchers have also sought to develop a miRNA saliva test. A French team wanted to determine whether it was possible to define a saliva-based diagnostic miRNome signature that would allow patients with and without endometriosis to be differentiated and, from there, develop the first specific diagnostic test for the disease.

The prospective ENDO-miRNA study included saliva samples obtained from women with chronic pelvic pain suggestive of endometriosis. Exploratory procedures were performed to look for lesions. All the patients underwent either a laparoscopic procedure (therapeutic or diagnostic laparoscopy) and/or MRI imaging. For the patients who underwent laparoscopy, diagnosis was confirmed by histology. For the patients diagnosed with endometriosis without laparoscopic evaluation, all had MRI imaging with features of deep endometriosis.

One part of the study involved the identification of a biomarker based on genomewide miRNA expression profiling by small RNA sequencing using next-generation sequencing. The second part involved the development of a saliva-based miRNA diagnostic signature according to expression and accuracy profiling using a random forest algorithm.
 

High sensitivity, specificity

Among the 200 patients (mean age, 31 years) enrolled in the study, 76.5% (n = 153) were diagnosed with endometriosis. On average, their pain was statistically more severe than that of the women in the control group. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were, respectively: dysmenorrhea 6 versus 5.0 (P < .001), dyspareunia 5.28 versus 4.95 (P < .001), and urinary pain during menstruation 4.35 versus 2.84 (P < .001).

Next-generation sequencing identified an average of 2,561 expressed miRNAs in the saliva samples. The feature selection method generated a subset of 109 miRNAs composing the endometriosis diagnostic signature. Among those miRNAs, 29 were associated with the main signaling pathways of endometriosis: PI3K/AKT, PTEN, Wnt/beta-catenin, HIF1-alpha/NF kappa B, and YAP/TAZ/EGFR.

The accuracy and reproducibility of the signature were tested on several data sets randomly composed of the same proportion of controls and patients with endometriosis. The respective sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for the diagnostic miRNA signature were 96.7%, 100%, and 98.3%, respectively.

The study’s results support the use of a saliva-based miRNA signature for diagnosing whether a patient is discordant/complex (chronic pelvic pain suggestive of endometriosis and both negative clinical examination and imaging findings) or has early-stage or advanced-stage endometriosis.

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

A French research team has developed a microRNA (miRNA) signature for diagnosing endometriosis through a simple saliva test. Its validation in a larger cohort could soon allow doctors to have a cheap, noninvasive, and accurate tool to use in diagnosing a disease that, for the time being, is difficult to identify with any certainty. The researchers suggest that their methodology could be used as a blueprint to investigate other pathologies, both benign and malignant.

ENDO-miRNA study

miRNAs regulate as much as 60% of gene expression at the posttranscriptional level. In the setting of endometriosis, several authors have evaluated the relevance of a blood-based miRNA signature, but the results are discordant because of methodological and control group issues. Other researchers have also sought to develop a miRNA saliva test. A French team wanted to determine whether it was possible to define a saliva-based diagnostic miRNome signature that would allow patients with and without endometriosis to be differentiated and, from there, develop the first specific diagnostic test for the disease.

The prospective ENDO-miRNA study included saliva samples obtained from women with chronic pelvic pain suggestive of endometriosis. Exploratory procedures were performed to look for lesions. All the patients underwent either a laparoscopic procedure (therapeutic or diagnostic laparoscopy) and/or MRI imaging. For the patients who underwent laparoscopy, diagnosis was confirmed by histology. For the patients diagnosed with endometriosis without laparoscopic evaluation, all had MRI imaging with features of deep endometriosis.

One part of the study involved the identification of a biomarker based on genomewide miRNA expression profiling by small RNA sequencing using next-generation sequencing. The second part involved the development of a saliva-based miRNA diagnostic signature according to expression and accuracy profiling using a random forest algorithm.
 

High sensitivity, specificity

Among the 200 patients (mean age, 31 years) enrolled in the study, 76.5% (n = 153) were diagnosed with endometriosis. On average, their pain was statistically more severe than that of the women in the control group. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were, respectively: dysmenorrhea 6 versus 5.0 (P < .001), dyspareunia 5.28 versus 4.95 (P < .001), and urinary pain during menstruation 4.35 versus 2.84 (P < .001).

Next-generation sequencing identified an average of 2,561 expressed miRNAs in the saliva samples. The feature selection method generated a subset of 109 miRNAs composing the endometriosis diagnostic signature. Among those miRNAs, 29 were associated with the main signaling pathways of endometriosis: PI3K/AKT, PTEN, Wnt/beta-catenin, HIF1-alpha/NF kappa B, and YAP/TAZ/EGFR.

The accuracy and reproducibility of the signature were tested on several data sets randomly composed of the same proportion of controls and patients with endometriosis. The respective sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for the diagnostic miRNA signature were 96.7%, 100%, and 98.3%, respectively.

The study’s results support the use of a saliva-based miRNA signature for diagnosing whether a patient is discordant/complex (chronic pelvic pain suggestive of endometriosis and both negative clinical examination and imaging findings) or has early-stage or advanced-stage endometriosis.

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

A French research team has developed a microRNA (miRNA) signature for diagnosing endometriosis through a simple saliva test. Its validation in a larger cohort could soon allow doctors to have a cheap, noninvasive, and accurate tool to use in diagnosing a disease that, for the time being, is difficult to identify with any certainty. The researchers suggest that their methodology could be used as a blueprint to investigate other pathologies, both benign and malignant.

ENDO-miRNA study

miRNAs regulate as much as 60% of gene expression at the posttranscriptional level. In the setting of endometriosis, several authors have evaluated the relevance of a blood-based miRNA signature, but the results are discordant because of methodological and control group issues. Other researchers have also sought to develop a miRNA saliva test. A French team wanted to determine whether it was possible to define a saliva-based diagnostic miRNome signature that would allow patients with and without endometriosis to be differentiated and, from there, develop the first specific diagnostic test for the disease.

The prospective ENDO-miRNA study included saliva samples obtained from women with chronic pelvic pain suggestive of endometriosis. Exploratory procedures were performed to look for lesions. All the patients underwent either a laparoscopic procedure (therapeutic or diagnostic laparoscopy) and/or MRI imaging. For the patients who underwent laparoscopy, diagnosis was confirmed by histology. For the patients diagnosed with endometriosis without laparoscopic evaluation, all had MRI imaging with features of deep endometriosis.

One part of the study involved the identification of a biomarker based on genomewide miRNA expression profiling by small RNA sequencing using next-generation sequencing. The second part involved the development of a saliva-based miRNA diagnostic signature according to expression and accuracy profiling using a random forest algorithm.
 

High sensitivity, specificity

Among the 200 patients (mean age, 31 years) enrolled in the study, 76.5% (n = 153) were diagnosed with endometriosis. On average, their pain was statistically more severe than that of the women in the control group. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were, respectively: dysmenorrhea 6 versus 5.0 (P < .001), dyspareunia 5.28 versus 4.95 (P < .001), and urinary pain during menstruation 4.35 versus 2.84 (P < .001).

Next-generation sequencing identified an average of 2,561 expressed miRNAs in the saliva samples. The feature selection method generated a subset of 109 miRNAs composing the endometriosis diagnostic signature. Among those miRNAs, 29 were associated with the main signaling pathways of endometriosis: PI3K/AKT, PTEN, Wnt/beta-catenin, HIF1-alpha/NF kappa B, and YAP/TAZ/EGFR.

The accuracy and reproducibility of the signature were tested on several data sets randomly composed of the same proportion of controls and patients with endometriosis. The respective sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for the diagnostic miRNA signature were 96.7%, 100%, and 98.3%, respectively.

The study’s results support the use of a saliva-based miRNA signature for diagnosing whether a patient is discordant/complex (chronic pelvic pain suggestive of endometriosis and both negative clinical examination and imaging findings) or has early-stage or advanced-stage endometriosis.

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

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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