User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Aquagenic Wrinkling Among Skin-Related Signs of Cystic Fibrosis
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with CF, caused by a mutation in the CF Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) gene, can develop diverse dermatologic manifestations.
- Researchers reviewed the literature and provided their own clinical experience regarding dermatologic manifestations of CF.
- They also reviewed the cutaneous side effects of CFTR modulators and antibiotics used to treat CF.
TAKEAWAY:
- Aquagenic wrinkling of the palm is common in individuals with CF, affecting up to 80% of patients (and 25% of CF gene carriers), and can be an early manifestation of CF. Treatments include topical medications (such as aluminum chloride, corticosteroids, and salicylic acid), botulinum toxin injections, and recently, CFTR-modulating treatments.
- CF nutrient deficiency dermatitis, often in a diaper distribution, usually appears in infancy and, before newborn screening was available, was sometimes the first sign of CF in some cases. It usually resolves with an adequate diet, pancreatic enzymes, and/or nutritional supplements. Zinc and essential fatty acid deficiencies can lead to acrodermatitis enteropathica–like symptoms and psoriasiform rashes, respectively.
- CF is also associated with vascular disorders, including cutaneous and, rarely, systemic vasculitis. Treatment includes topical and oral steroids and immune-modulating therapies.
- CFTR modulators, now the most common and highly effective treatment for CF, are associated with several skin reactions, which can be managed with treatments that include topical steroids and oral antihistamines. Frequent antibiotic treatment can also trigger skin reactions.
IN PRACTICE:
“Recognition and familiarity with dermatologic clinical manifestations of CF are important for multidisciplinary care” for patients with CF, the authors wrote, adding that “dermatology providers may play a significant role in the diagnosis and management of CF cutaneous comorbidities.”
SOURCE:
Aaron D. Smith, BS, from the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and coauthors were from the departments of dermatology and pulmonology/critical care medicine at UVA. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors did not make a comment about the limitations of their review.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding was received for the review. The authors had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with CF, caused by a mutation in the CF Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) gene, can develop diverse dermatologic manifestations.
- Researchers reviewed the literature and provided their own clinical experience regarding dermatologic manifestations of CF.
- They also reviewed the cutaneous side effects of CFTR modulators and antibiotics used to treat CF.
TAKEAWAY:
- Aquagenic wrinkling of the palm is common in individuals with CF, affecting up to 80% of patients (and 25% of CF gene carriers), and can be an early manifestation of CF. Treatments include topical medications (such as aluminum chloride, corticosteroids, and salicylic acid), botulinum toxin injections, and recently, CFTR-modulating treatments.
- CF nutrient deficiency dermatitis, often in a diaper distribution, usually appears in infancy and, before newborn screening was available, was sometimes the first sign of CF in some cases. It usually resolves with an adequate diet, pancreatic enzymes, and/or nutritional supplements. Zinc and essential fatty acid deficiencies can lead to acrodermatitis enteropathica–like symptoms and psoriasiform rashes, respectively.
- CF is also associated with vascular disorders, including cutaneous and, rarely, systemic vasculitis. Treatment includes topical and oral steroids and immune-modulating therapies.
- CFTR modulators, now the most common and highly effective treatment for CF, are associated with several skin reactions, which can be managed with treatments that include topical steroids and oral antihistamines. Frequent antibiotic treatment can also trigger skin reactions.
IN PRACTICE:
“Recognition and familiarity with dermatologic clinical manifestations of CF are important for multidisciplinary care” for patients with CF, the authors wrote, adding that “dermatology providers may play a significant role in the diagnosis and management of CF cutaneous comorbidities.”
SOURCE:
Aaron D. Smith, BS, from the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and coauthors were from the departments of dermatology and pulmonology/critical care medicine at UVA. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors did not make a comment about the limitations of their review.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding was received for the review. The authors had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with CF, caused by a mutation in the CF Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) gene, can develop diverse dermatologic manifestations.
- Researchers reviewed the literature and provided their own clinical experience regarding dermatologic manifestations of CF.
- They also reviewed the cutaneous side effects of CFTR modulators and antibiotics used to treat CF.
TAKEAWAY:
- Aquagenic wrinkling of the palm is common in individuals with CF, affecting up to 80% of patients (and 25% of CF gene carriers), and can be an early manifestation of CF. Treatments include topical medications (such as aluminum chloride, corticosteroids, and salicylic acid), botulinum toxin injections, and recently, CFTR-modulating treatments.
- CF nutrient deficiency dermatitis, often in a diaper distribution, usually appears in infancy and, before newborn screening was available, was sometimes the first sign of CF in some cases. It usually resolves with an adequate diet, pancreatic enzymes, and/or nutritional supplements. Zinc and essential fatty acid deficiencies can lead to acrodermatitis enteropathica–like symptoms and psoriasiform rashes, respectively.
- CF is also associated with vascular disorders, including cutaneous and, rarely, systemic vasculitis. Treatment includes topical and oral steroids and immune-modulating therapies.
- CFTR modulators, now the most common and highly effective treatment for CF, are associated with several skin reactions, which can be managed with treatments that include topical steroids and oral antihistamines. Frequent antibiotic treatment can also trigger skin reactions.
IN PRACTICE:
“Recognition and familiarity with dermatologic clinical manifestations of CF are important for multidisciplinary care” for patients with CF, the authors wrote, adding that “dermatology providers may play a significant role in the diagnosis and management of CF cutaneous comorbidities.”
SOURCE:
Aaron D. Smith, BS, from the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and coauthors were from the departments of dermatology and pulmonology/critical care medicine at UVA. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors did not make a comment about the limitations of their review.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding was received for the review. The authors had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PCP Compensation, Part 4
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Smart Use of Smartphones
Amid the declarations about the current mental health crisis among youth, it has become increasingly common to link rising rates of anxiety and depression among youth to screen time, and more specifically to hours spent on social media. But in truth, this matter is far from settled. The evidence linking mood and anxiety disorders to social media use is inconsistent. And where the evidence is stronger, causality has not been established. Does screen time precipitate an episode of depression or does a preteen at risk for depression, in the midst of a divorce or burdened by learning problems, use screen time excessively as a solution to these problems? There is also substantial variation across age groups, genders, and other factors that suggests that time spent on smartphone apps may not be the primary factor creating risk. Indeed, there is growing uncertainty about whether the climbing rates of anxiety and mood disorders among youth reflect yet to be identified factors increasing the burden of mental illness or the altered screening and tracking landscape in the United States after COVID and the Affordable Care Act. This uncertainty does not mean that we cannot make recommendations about how to guide patients and their families. Smartphones (and watches, glasses, etc) are here to stay.
Start by asking your patients how much time they spend on screens of all sorts and on social media in particular. Find out if there are rules at school or at home limiting screen time or social media. Are there disagreements about screen time? Are patients frustrated with their parents’ use of screens? What are their favorite apps to use? How much time do they think they spend on them? If they don’t know, point out how they can track it on their phone directly. Is it painful to be separated from their phone? Do they have interests or hobbies that are not screen-based? What would they do if the power or Wi-Fi was out for a week? These questions can be the start of an ongoing project for screen time and social media literacy.
Recognize That Apps Are Designed to Be Addictive
Smartphones are useful tools designed to help people stay connected, manage their bank accounts, keep up with current events, access entertainment, and much more. It is easy to spend more time than one intended on them. The applications developed for smartphones promise, and often deliver, efficiency and ease, including staying connected to friends and families. But social media applications have been developed to make their parent companies profit from ad revenue or selling user data. They are designed to encourage more and more use, and for some may become addictive. Start the literacy course with a clear statement of this fact. Remind teenagers that they are often the target audience for the corporations making money from these apps. They are especially sensitive to the likes and followers that can be the currency of social media. For every minute they spend on the apps, a corporation is profiting. It can be helpful to remind teenagers to bring their healthy skepticism of authority to their use of these corporate products.
Develop Awareness of Their Time, Energy, and Mood
Time is our most precious commodity, and most teenagers are stressed by not having enough of it. Ask your patients about the variety of things they need to do and want to do each day. Do they have enough time to do the things they want beyond their smartphones? Is the time on their smartphones more or less than they want? How do they feel when they finish with different activities? Energized? Engaged? Exhilarated? Drained? Irritable? Sad? Do they feel connected? Lonely? Loved? Left out? Suggest that they pay attention to how they feel after engaging in all kinds of activities (including homework, sports, hobbies, and time with friends), as these are the types of choices they will make throughout their adult lives. Some tasks are simply required (homework), some are relaxing (leaving us feeling calm and even sleepy), and some are recharging (leaving us feeling focused and energized). If an activity consistently leaves them drained and irritable, sad, and lonely or discouraged and insecure, they need to step back and ask themselves why they are making this choice and if that is the choice they want to make. Support their developing self-awareness, activating their sense of agency and independence in making choices that will serve them.
Develop Awareness of Their Sense of Connection to Others
As your patients are paying attention to their mood, focus, interest, and energy, they can also pay attention to these components of their social life. How do they feel with individual friends? With different groups? In different settings? How does this compare with how they feel when engaged with social media? In general, when technology is supporting strong connections with friends, it can enhance their health and well-being. When it helps youth isolated by interests or identity to become connected to supportive youth who are physically far away, it can be a social lifeline. But sometimes, social media exploits youth sensitivity to peer opinions and social comparison to keep their attention without the payoff of deepened or new relationships. Do they know the youth they are chatting with or following? Could they spend 2 hours with them offline? How do they feel after spending 2 hours “with” them online? Once again, the goal is to develop teens’ awareness of the quality of their relationships and of their control over how to manage this.
Acknowledge Their Own Vulnerabilities
Does your patient have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? Are they being treated for depression? An anxiety disorder? An eating disorder? While we cannot say whether excessive use of social media can cause these problems, we know that it can be counterproductive to their treatment. Youth with ADHD have great difficulty switching their cognitive focus away from something rewarding, so are particularly prone to spending excessive time in addictive apps. Those with depression often have low energy and initiative alongside feelings of worthlessness that can make engaging in physical, in-person activities challenging. Those with anxiety disorders are prone to rumination and avoidance. The possibility of escaping into virtual social activities or distractions can be very hard to resist and counter-therapeutic for these youth (and adults). Those with eating disorders are vulnerable to comparing themselves with idealized (airbrushed) images online, which can intensify the body image distortion and competitiveness that are common in eating disorders. While there may be helpful information about diagnoses, treatment, and support, there is also troubling information about self-injury, restrictive eating, and even suicide that can increase the risk for these behaviors in vulnerable youth. You can help your patients cultivate awareness of how to take good care of themselves.
Create Habits That Support Sleep, Exercise, and Relationships
Talk with your patients and their parents about strategies to set habits that will make it easier for them to be smart users of their smartphones. Can they explore new apps or games together? Can they talk together about how each of them relaxes and recharges? Then they can work together on how this tool (and toy) can fit into a healthy life. The task is to prioritize sleep, exercise, and live, in-person social time, so virtual activities don’t take over the time needed for them. This can be as simple as consistent bed and waking times and ensuring that smartphones are not at the dining table or in bedrooms at night. Having dinner together as a family most nights (an especially positive habit), going for walks, runs, or hikes together, or doing activities that everyone enjoys (playing music or board games, making cookies or art, gardening) are beneficial for every family member’s physical and mental health and ensure that screen time is not at the expense of real connection. Invite your patients to tell you how they practice putting their smartphones away, getting their homework done, or making time for activities that matter to them. And find out how they relax and recharge beyond using their smartphones. Healthy habits evolve over a lifetime, and there will surely be new technologies that require new limits in the coming years. Helping your patients to make good choices will serve them well as they enter adulthood and throughout their lives.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (California) Peninsula. Dr. Michael S. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Amid the declarations about the current mental health crisis among youth, it has become increasingly common to link rising rates of anxiety and depression among youth to screen time, and more specifically to hours spent on social media. But in truth, this matter is far from settled. The evidence linking mood and anxiety disorders to social media use is inconsistent. And where the evidence is stronger, causality has not been established. Does screen time precipitate an episode of depression or does a preteen at risk for depression, in the midst of a divorce or burdened by learning problems, use screen time excessively as a solution to these problems? There is also substantial variation across age groups, genders, and other factors that suggests that time spent on smartphone apps may not be the primary factor creating risk. Indeed, there is growing uncertainty about whether the climbing rates of anxiety and mood disorders among youth reflect yet to be identified factors increasing the burden of mental illness or the altered screening and tracking landscape in the United States after COVID and the Affordable Care Act. This uncertainty does not mean that we cannot make recommendations about how to guide patients and their families. Smartphones (and watches, glasses, etc) are here to stay.
Start by asking your patients how much time they spend on screens of all sorts and on social media in particular. Find out if there are rules at school or at home limiting screen time or social media. Are there disagreements about screen time? Are patients frustrated with their parents’ use of screens? What are their favorite apps to use? How much time do they think they spend on them? If they don’t know, point out how they can track it on their phone directly. Is it painful to be separated from their phone? Do they have interests or hobbies that are not screen-based? What would they do if the power or Wi-Fi was out for a week? These questions can be the start of an ongoing project for screen time and social media literacy.
Recognize That Apps Are Designed to Be Addictive
Smartphones are useful tools designed to help people stay connected, manage their bank accounts, keep up with current events, access entertainment, and much more. It is easy to spend more time than one intended on them. The applications developed for smartphones promise, and often deliver, efficiency and ease, including staying connected to friends and families. But social media applications have been developed to make their parent companies profit from ad revenue or selling user data. They are designed to encourage more and more use, and for some may become addictive. Start the literacy course with a clear statement of this fact. Remind teenagers that they are often the target audience for the corporations making money from these apps. They are especially sensitive to the likes and followers that can be the currency of social media. For every minute they spend on the apps, a corporation is profiting. It can be helpful to remind teenagers to bring their healthy skepticism of authority to their use of these corporate products.
Develop Awareness of Their Time, Energy, and Mood
Time is our most precious commodity, and most teenagers are stressed by not having enough of it. Ask your patients about the variety of things they need to do and want to do each day. Do they have enough time to do the things they want beyond their smartphones? Is the time on their smartphones more or less than they want? How do they feel when they finish with different activities? Energized? Engaged? Exhilarated? Drained? Irritable? Sad? Do they feel connected? Lonely? Loved? Left out? Suggest that they pay attention to how they feel after engaging in all kinds of activities (including homework, sports, hobbies, and time with friends), as these are the types of choices they will make throughout their adult lives. Some tasks are simply required (homework), some are relaxing (leaving us feeling calm and even sleepy), and some are recharging (leaving us feeling focused and energized). If an activity consistently leaves them drained and irritable, sad, and lonely or discouraged and insecure, they need to step back and ask themselves why they are making this choice and if that is the choice they want to make. Support their developing self-awareness, activating their sense of agency and independence in making choices that will serve them.
Develop Awareness of Their Sense of Connection to Others
As your patients are paying attention to their mood, focus, interest, and energy, they can also pay attention to these components of their social life. How do they feel with individual friends? With different groups? In different settings? How does this compare with how they feel when engaged with social media? In general, when technology is supporting strong connections with friends, it can enhance their health and well-being. When it helps youth isolated by interests or identity to become connected to supportive youth who are physically far away, it can be a social lifeline. But sometimes, social media exploits youth sensitivity to peer opinions and social comparison to keep their attention without the payoff of deepened or new relationships. Do they know the youth they are chatting with or following? Could they spend 2 hours with them offline? How do they feel after spending 2 hours “with” them online? Once again, the goal is to develop teens’ awareness of the quality of their relationships and of their control over how to manage this.
Acknowledge Their Own Vulnerabilities
Does your patient have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? Are they being treated for depression? An anxiety disorder? An eating disorder? While we cannot say whether excessive use of social media can cause these problems, we know that it can be counterproductive to their treatment. Youth with ADHD have great difficulty switching their cognitive focus away from something rewarding, so are particularly prone to spending excessive time in addictive apps. Those with depression often have low energy and initiative alongside feelings of worthlessness that can make engaging in physical, in-person activities challenging. Those with anxiety disorders are prone to rumination and avoidance. The possibility of escaping into virtual social activities or distractions can be very hard to resist and counter-therapeutic for these youth (and adults). Those with eating disorders are vulnerable to comparing themselves with idealized (airbrushed) images online, which can intensify the body image distortion and competitiveness that are common in eating disorders. While there may be helpful information about diagnoses, treatment, and support, there is also troubling information about self-injury, restrictive eating, and even suicide that can increase the risk for these behaviors in vulnerable youth. You can help your patients cultivate awareness of how to take good care of themselves.
Create Habits That Support Sleep, Exercise, and Relationships
Talk with your patients and their parents about strategies to set habits that will make it easier for them to be smart users of their smartphones. Can they explore new apps or games together? Can they talk together about how each of them relaxes and recharges? Then they can work together on how this tool (and toy) can fit into a healthy life. The task is to prioritize sleep, exercise, and live, in-person social time, so virtual activities don’t take over the time needed for them. This can be as simple as consistent bed and waking times and ensuring that smartphones are not at the dining table or in bedrooms at night. Having dinner together as a family most nights (an especially positive habit), going for walks, runs, or hikes together, or doing activities that everyone enjoys (playing music or board games, making cookies or art, gardening) are beneficial for every family member’s physical and mental health and ensure that screen time is not at the expense of real connection. Invite your patients to tell you how they practice putting their smartphones away, getting their homework done, or making time for activities that matter to them. And find out how they relax and recharge beyond using their smartphones. Healthy habits evolve over a lifetime, and there will surely be new technologies that require new limits in the coming years. Helping your patients to make good choices will serve them well as they enter adulthood and throughout their lives.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (California) Peninsula. Dr. Michael S. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Amid the declarations about the current mental health crisis among youth, it has become increasingly common to link rising rates of anxiety and depression among youth to screen time, and more specifically to hours spent on social media. But in truth, this matter is far from settled. The evidence linking mood and anxiety disorders to social media use is inconsistent. And where the evidence is stronger, causality has not been established. Does screen time precipitate an episode of depression or does a preteen at risk for depression, in the midst of a divorce or burdened by learning problems, use screen time excessively as a solution to these problems? There is also substantial variation across age groups, genders, and other factors that suggests that time spent on smartphone apps may not be the primary factor creating risk. Indeed, there is growing uncertainty about whether the climbing rates of anxiety and mood disorders among youth reflect yet to be identified factors increasing the burden of mental illness or the altered screening and tracking landscape in the United States after COVID and the Affordable Care Act. This uncertainty does not mean that we cannot make recommendations about how to guide patients and their families. Smartphones (and watches, glasses, etc) are here to stay.
Start by asking your patients how much time they spend on screens of all sorts and on social media in particular. Find out if there are rules at school or at home limiting screen time or social media. Are there disagreements about screen time? Are patients frustrated with their parents’ use of screens? What are their favorite apps to use? How much time do they think they spend on them? If they don’t know, point out how they can track it on their phone directly. Is it painful to be separated from their phone? Do they have interests or hobbies that are not screen-based? What would they do if the power or Wi-Fi was out for a week? These questions can be the start of an ongoing project for screen time and social media literacy.
Recognize That Apps Are Designed to Be Addictive
Smartphones are useful tools designed to help people stay connected, manage their bank accounts, keep up with current events, access entertainment, and much more. It is easy to spend more time than one intended on them. The applications developed for smartphones promise, and often deliver, efficiency and ease, including staying connected to friends and families. But social media applications have been developed to make their parent companies profit from ad revenue or selling user data. They are designed to encourage more and more use, and for some may become addictive. Start the literacy course with a clear statement of this fact. Remind teenagers that they are often the target audience for the corporations making money from these apps. They are especially sensitive to the likes and followers that can be the currency of social media. For every minute they spend on the apps, a corporation is profiting. It can be helpful to remind teenagers to bring their healthy skepticism of authority to their use of these corporate products.
Develop Awareness of Their Time, Energy, and Mood
Time is our most precious commodity, and most teenagers are stressed by not having enough of it. Ask your patients about the variety of things they need to do and want to do each day. Do they have enough time to do the things they want beyond their smartphones? Is the time on their smartphones more or less than they want? How do they feel when they finish with different activities? Energized? Engaged? Exhilarated? Drained? Irritable? Sad? Do they feel connected? Lonely? Loved? Left out? Suggest that they pay attention to how they feel after engaging in all kinds of activities (including homework, sports, hobbies, and time with friends), as these are the types of choices they will make throughout their adult lives. Some tasks are simply required (homework), some are relaxing (leaving us feeling calm and even sleepy), and some are recharging (leaving us feeling focused and energized). If an activity consistently leaves them drained and irritable, sad, and lonely or discouraged and insecure, they need to step back and ask themselves why they are making this choice and if that is the choice they want to make. Support their developing self-awareness, activating their sense of agency and independence in making choices that will serve them.
Develop Awareness of Their Sense of Connection to Others
As your patients are paying attention to their mood, focus, interest, and energy, they can also pay attention to these components of their social life. How do they feel with individual friends? With different groups? In different settings? How does this compare with how they feel when engaged with social media? In general, when technology is supporting strong connections with friends, it can enhance their health and well-being. When it helps youth isolated by interests or identity to become connected to supportive youth who are physically far away, it can be a social lifeline. But sometimes, social media exploits youth sensitivity to peer opinions and social comparison to keep their attention without the payoff of deepened or new relationships. Do they know the youth they are chatting with or following? Could they spend 2 hours with them offline? How do they feel after spending 2 hours “with” them online? Once again, the goal is to develop teens’ awareness of the quality of their relationships and of their control over how to manage this.
Acknowledge Their Own Vulnerabilities
Does your patient have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? Are they being treated for depression? An anxiety disorder? An eating disorder? While we cannot say whether excessive use of social media can cause these problems, we know that it can be counterproductive to their treatment. Youth with ADHD have great difficulty switching their cognitive focus away from something rewarding, so are particularly prone to spending excessive time in addictive apps. Those with depression often have low energy and initiative alongside feelings of worthlessness that can make engaging in physical, in-person activities challenging. Those with anxiety disorders are prone to rumination and avoidance. The possibility of escaping into virtual social activities or distractions can be very hard to resist and counter-therapeutic for these youth (and adults). Those with eating disorders are vulnerable to comparing themselves with idealized (airbrushed) images online, which can intensify the body image distortion and competitiveness that are common in eating disorders. While there may be helpful information about diagnoses, treatment, and support, there is also troubling information about self-injury, restrictive eating, and even suicide that can increase the risk for these behaviors in vulnerable youth. You can help your patients cultivate awareness of how to take good care of themselves.
Create Habits That Support Sleep, Exercise, and Relationships
Talk with your patients and their parents about strategies to set habits that will make it easier for them to be smart users of their smartphones. Can they explore new apps or games together? Can they talk together about how each of them relaxes and recharges? Then they can work together on how this tool (and toy) can fit into a healthy life. The task is to prioritize sleep, exercise, and live, in-person social time, so virtual activities don’t take over the time needed for them. This can be as simple as consistent bed and waking times and ensuring that smartphones are not at the dining table or in bedrooms at night. Having dinner together as a family most nights (an especially positive habit), going for walks, runs, or hikes together, or doing activities that everyone enjoys (playing music or board games, making cookies or art, gardening) are beneficial for every family member’s physical and mental health and ensure that screen time is not at the expense of real connection. Invite your patients to tell you how they practice putting their smartphones away, getting their homework done, or making time for activities that matter to them. And find out how they relax and recharge beyond using their smartphones. Healthy habits evolve over a lifetime, and there will surely be new technologies that require new limits in the coming years. Helping your patients to make good choices will serve them well as they enter adulthood and throughout their lives.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (California) Peninsula. Dr. Michael S. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Pediatricians Face Competing Goals in Well Visits for LGBTQ+ Adolescents
TORONTO — , and there are different preferences for those with a gender identity different from their birth assignment or non-heterosexuals relative to those in neither of these categories.
In a study that surveyed more than 60,000 adolescents, one of the messages was that there is a “balancing act” that involves affirming the child’s self-identity while recognizing the substantial vulnerability at this step in development, reported Scott Jelinek, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.
Based on his work, there are two aims.
“The first is to determine the comfort level of the adolescent in discussing sensitive health information,” said Dr. Jelinek, referring to the discussion of SOGI irrespective of how the adolescent responds. “To understand this is crucial because this first encounter with healthcare can be formative.”
Yet, for those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer, or with another sexual or gender orientation (LBGTQ+), the encounter can be more delicate, according to Dr. Jelinek. One reason is that there is greater uncertainty about acceptance of these identities from peers, parents, and others, Dr. Jelinek said.
This was reinforced by results of a cross-sectional study of 62,695 adolescents in 31 pediatric clinics in the Philadelphia area. Of these, 10,381 (16.6%) identified as LGBTQ+. The adolescents aged in range from 13 to 21 years with a mean age of 15.3.
These data were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting. Dr. Jelinek received this year’s Society of Pediatric Research Richard D. Rowe Award for clinical research by a fellow.
Revealing Sensitive Information
With the intention of comparing responses from LBGTQ+ youth to those of cisgender heterosexuals, the first of two primary questions elicited information about comfort level discussing SOGI in the presence of parents or caregivers during a primary care visit. The second asked for a preference regarding electronic or oral capture of the information. “Almost half [49.4%] of the LGBTQ+ adolescents expressed discomfort discussing this information with the caregiver present,” reported Dr. Jelinek. This proportion, which was close to double the 25.5% rate among the cisgender heterosexual respondents, reached significance (P < .01). After adjustment for covariates, there was a 60% greater odds ratio (OR) among LBGTQ+ adolescents for expressing reluctance to share this information in front of a caregiver (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; 95% CI: 0.35-0.39).
The greater preference among LBGTQ+ adolescents for electronic capture of SOGI-relevant information also reached statistical significance. Even though the proportional difference was modest (74.2% vs 72.7%; P < .01), it corresponded to about a 10% greater preference for electronic data collection after adjustment (aOR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.03-1.14), Dr. Jelinek reported.
These results were generally consistent across clinics, which were located in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Responses among Black adolescents, which represented 29.7% of the study population, were similar to those provided by White adolescents, which represented 46.1%, and Hispanics, which represented about 10% of the sample.
The results are not entirely surprising in the context of the potential for LBGTQ+ stigma, but Dr. Jelinek emphasized the need for being aware that this discussion is delicate and might have ramifications after the visit for children trying to accept and affirm their self-identification.
“Let us remember that the healthcare system has the potential to be a powerful ally in the lives of LBGTQ+ youth and to meet their unique needs,” he said.
The interaction is also delicate because parents might not yet be aware of their child’s sexual orientation. Indeed, Dr. Jelinek said that completion of the Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Questionnaire (AHQ) might be the first time that these individuals have revealed this aspect of their identity to anyone.
For confirming a non-heterosexual orientation, “pediatricians are on the front line and often the first point of contact for adolescents seeking health support and affirmation,” he said.
For this reason, it is also essential to maintain confidentiality to the degree that the patient specifies. Dr. Jelinek recognizes tension when balancing visibility and affirmation against the need for privacy, but he said both are important. Even if pediatricians should provide a positive experience for adolescents revealing their sexual orientation, there might be personal, family, and social adjustments to navigate over time.
As a result, Dr. Jelinek warned that there are issues for protecting information that an adolescent is not ready to reveal.
In this regard. “there is an urgent need for innovative solutions to balance visibility with privacy in primary care,” he said, reporting that electronic medical records (EMR) do not necessarily guarantee confidentiality, particularly from family members.
When adolescents arrive at the office to complete an AHQ, front desk staff at Dr. Jelinek’s center are instructed to hand the tablet to the child, not the caregiver. However, he recognizes that this does not prevent the caregiver from reviewing the answers or in some cases taking the tablet to complete the answers.
“If I enter the exam room and see the tablet in a parent’s lap, I am going to want to have a conversation with the patient to verify the answers,” he said.
Protecting Patients
The data from this study provoke important questions about how to achieve the goals that Dr. Jelinek described, according to Ashley M. Lekach, MSN, RN, a family nurse practitioner working in pediatric endocrinology at NewYork-Presbyterian’s Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. Ms. Lekach was not involved with the study.
“My concern is that once we are given this sensitive information, how do we make sure we are going to protect the patient from unwanted disclosure?” Ms. Lekach said. She agreed that there is a risk that EMRs can be accessed by individuals to which the patient would not want SOGI information revealed.
“It is a vote of confidence for the patient to reveal this information to me, and it is clearly our job to make sure the patient feels safe,” she said.
She also expressed concern that adolescents who reveal this information might need resources to cope with issues raised by non-heterosexual identification. She agreed that discussing sexual orientation and gender identity in the clinical setting is often a major step for adolescents, particularly young adolescents, but she believes follow-up and next steps are in the interest of the patient.
Although the need for affirmation and confidentiality are not new ideas, Ms. Lekach said that the talk provided some useful context for thinking about these issues.
Dr. Jelinek and Ms. Lekach report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO — , and there are different preferences for those with a gender identity different from their birth assignment or non-heterosexuals relative to those in neither of these categories.
In a study that surveyed more than 60,000 adolescents, one of the messages was that there is a “balancing act” that involves affirming the child’s self-identity while recognizing the substantial vulnerability at this step in development, reported Scott Jelinek, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.
Based on his work, there are two aims.
“The first is to determine the comfort level of the adolescent in discussing sensitive health information,” said Dr. Jelinek, referring to the discussion of SOGI irrespective of how the adolescent responds. “To understand this is crucial because this first encounter with healthcare can be formative.”
Yet, for those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer, or with another sexual or gender orientation (LBGTQ+), the encounter can be more delicate, according to Dr. Jelinek. One reason is that there is greater uncertainty about acceptance of these identities from peers, parents, and others, Dr. Jelinek said.
This was reinforced by results of a cross-sectional study of 62,695 adolescents in 31 pediatric clinics in the Philadelphia area. Of these, 10,381 (16.6%) identified as LGBTQ+. The adolescents aged in range from 13 to 21 years with a mean age of 15.3.
These data were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting. Dr. Jelinek received this year’s Society of Pediatric Research Richard D. Rowe Award for clinical research by a fellow.
Revealing Sensitive Information
With the intention of comparing responses from LBGTQ+ youth to those of cisgender heterosexuals, the first of two primary questions elicited information about comfort level discussing SOGI in the presence of parents or caregivers during a primary care visit. The second asked for a preference regarding electronic or oral capture of the information. “Almost half [49.4%] of the LGBTQ+ adolescents expressed discomfort discussing this information with the caregiver present,” reported Dr. Jelinek. This proportion, which was close to double the 25.5% rate among the cisgender heterosexual respondents, reached significance (P < .01). After adjustment for covariates, there was a 60% greater odds ratio (OR) among LBGTQ+ adolescents for expressing reluctance to share this information in front of a caregiver (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; 95% CI: 0.35-0.39).
The greater preference among LBGTQ+ adolescents for electronic capture of SOGI-relevant information also reached statistical significance. Even though the proportional difference was modest (74.2% vs 72.7%; P < .01), it corresponded to about a 10% greater preference for electronic data collection after adjustment (aOR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.03-1.14), Dr. Jelinek reported.
These results were generally consistent across clinics, which were located in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Responses among Black adolescents, which represented 29.7% of the study population, were similar to those provided by White adolescents, which represented 46.1%, and Hispanics, which represented about 10% of the sample.
The results are not entirely surprising in the context of the potential for LBGTQ+ stigma, but Dr. Jelinek emphasized the need for being aware that this discussion is delicate and might have ramifications after the visit for children trying to accept and affirm their self-identification.
“Let us remember that the healthcare system has the potential to be a powerful ally in the lives of LBGTQ+ youth and to meet their unique needs,” he said.
The interaction is also delicate because parents might not yet be aware of their child’s sexual orientation. Indeed, Dr. Jelinek said that completion of the Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Questionnaire (AHQ) might be the first time that these individuals have revealed this aspect of their identity to anyone.
For confirming a non-heterosexual orientation, “pediatricians are on the front line and often the first point of contact for adolescents seeking health support and affirmation,” he said.
For this reason, it is also essential to maintain confidentiality to the degree that the patient specifies. Dr. Jelinek recognizes tension when balancing visibility and affirmation against the need for privacy, but he said both are important. Even if pediatricians should provide a positive experience for adolescents revealing their sexual orientation, there might be personal, family, and social adjustments to navigate over time.
As a result, Dr. Jelinek warned that there are issues for protecting information that an adolescent is not ready to reveal.
In this regard. “there is an urgent need for innovative solutions to balance visibility with privacy in primary care,” he said, reporting that electronic medical records (EMR) do not necessarily guarantee confidentiality, particularly from family members.
When adolescents arrive at the office to complete an AHQ, front desk staff at Dr. Jelinek’s center are instructed to hand the tablet to the child, not the caregiver. However, he recognizes that this does not prevent the caregiver from reviewing the answers or in some cases taking the tablet to complete the answers.
“If I enter the exam room and see the tablet in a parent’s lap, I am going to want to have a conversation with the patient to verify the answers,” he said.
Protecting Patients
The data from this study provoke important questions about how to achieve the goals that Dr. Jelinek described, according to Ashley M. Lekach, MSN, RN, a family nurse practitioner working in pediatric endocrinology at NewYork-Presbyterian’s Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. Ms. Lekach was not involved with the study.
“My concern is that once we are given this sensitive information, how do we make sure we are going to protect the patient from unwanted disclosure?” Ms. Lekach said. She agreed that there is a risk that EMRs can be accessed by individuals to which the patient would not want SOGI information revealed.
“It is a vote of confidence for the patient to reveal this information to me, and it is clearly our job to make sure the patient feels safe,” she said.
She also expressed concern that adolescents who reveal this information might need resources to cope with issues raised by non-heterosexual identification. She agreed that discussing sexual orientation and gender identity in the clinical setting is often a major step for adolescents, particularly young adolescents, but she believes follow-up and next steps are in the interest of the patient.
Although the need for affirmation and confidentiality are not new ideas, Ms. Lekach said that the talk provided some useful context for thinking about these issues.
Dr. Jelinek and Ms. Lekach report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO — , and there are different preferences for those with a gender identity different from their birth assignment or non-heterosexuals relative to those in neither of these categories.
In a study that surveyed more than 60,000 adolescents, one of the messages was that there is a “balancing act” that involves affirming the child’s self-identity while recognizing the substantial vulnerability at this step in development, reported Scott Jelinek, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.
Based on his work, there are two aims.
“The first is to determine the comfort level of the adolescent in discussing sensitive health information,” said Dr. Jelinek, referring to the discussion of SOGI irrespective of how the adolescent responds. “To understand this is crucial because this first encounter with healthcare can be formative.”
Yet, for those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer, or with another sexual or gender orientation (LBGTQ+), the encounter can be more delicate, according to Dr. Jelinek. One reason is that there is greater uncertainty about acceptance of these identities from peers, parents, and others, Dr. Jelinek said.
This was reinforced by results of a cross-sectional study of 62,695 adolescents in 31 pediatric clinics in the Philadelphia area. Of these, 10,381 (16.6%) identified as LGBTQ+. The adolescents aged in range from 13 to 21 years with a mean age of 15.3.
These data were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting. Dr. Jelinek received this year’s Society of Pediatric Research Richard D. Rowe Award for clinical research by a fellow.
Revealing Sensitive Information
With the intention of comparing responses from LBGTQ+ youth to those of cisgender heterosexuals, the first of two primary questions elicited information about comfort level discussing SOGI in the presence of parents or caregivers during a primary care visit. The second asked for a preference regarding electronic or oral capture of the information. “Almost half [49.4%] of the LGBTQ+ adolescents expressed discomfort discussing this information with the caregiver present,” reported Dr. Jelinek. This proportion, which was close to double the 25.5% rate among the cisgender heterosexual respondents, reached significance (P < .01). After adjustment for covariates, there was a 60% greater odds ratio (OR) among LBGTQ+ adolescents for expressing reluctance to share this information in front of a caregiver (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; 95% CI: 0.35-0.39).
The greater preference among LBGTQ+ adolescents for electronic capture of SOGI-relevant information also reached statistical significance. Even though the proportional difference was modest (74.2% vs 72.7%; P < .01), it corresponded to about a 10% greater preference for electronic data collection after adjustment (aOR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.03-1.14), Dr. Jelinek reported.
These results were generally consistent across clinics, which were located in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Responses among Black adolescents, which represented 29.7% of the study population, were similar to those provided by White adolescents, which represented 46.1%, and Hispanics, which represented about 10% of the sample.
The results are not entirely surprising in the context of the potential for LBGTQ+ stigma, but Dr. Jelinek emphasized the need for being aware that this discussion is delicate and might have ramifications after the visit for children trying to accept and affirm their self-identification.
“Let us remember that the healthcare system has the potential to be a powerful ally in the lives of LBGTQ+ youth and to meet their unique needs,” he said.
The interaction is also delicate because parents might not yet be aware of their child’s sexual orientation. Indeed, Dr. Jelinek said that completion of the Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Questionnaire (AHQ) might be the first time that these individuals have revealed this aspect of their identity to anyone.
For confirming a non-heterosexual orientation, “pediatricians are on the front line and often the first point of contact for adolescents seeking health support and affirmation,” he said.
For this reason, it is also essential to maintain confidentiality to the degree that the patient specifies. Dr. Jelinek recognizes tension when balancing visibility and affirmation against the need for privacy, but he said both are important. Even if pediatricians should provide a positive experience for adolescents revealing their sexual orientation, there might be personal, family, and social adjustments to navigate over time.
As a result, Dr. Jelinek warned that there are issues for protecting information that an adolescent is not ready to reveal.
In this regard. “there is an urgent need for innovative solutions to balance visibility with privacy in primary care,” he said, reporting that electronic medical records (EMR) do not necessarily guarantee confidentiality, particularly from family members.
When adolescents arrive at the office to complete an AHQ, front desk staff at Dr. Jelinek’s center are instructed to hand the tablet to the child, not the caregiver. However, he recognizes that this does not prevent the caregiver from reviewing the answers or in some cases taking the tablet to complete the answers.
“If I enter the exam room and see the tablet in a parent’s lap, I am going to want to have a conversation with the patient to verify the answers,” he said.
Protecting Patients
The data from this study provoke important questions about how to achieve the goals that Dr. Jelinek described, according to Ashley M. Lekach, MSN, RN, a family nurse practitioner working in pediatric endocrinology at NewYork-Presbyterian’s Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. Ms. Lekach was not involved with the study.
“My concern is that once we are given this sensitive information, how do we make sure we are going to protect the patient from unwanted disclosure?” Ms. Lekach said. She agreed that there is a risk that EMRs can be accessed by individuals to which the patient would not want SOGI information revealed.
“It is a vote of confidence for the patient to reveal this information to me, and it is clearly our job to make sure the patient feels safe,” she said.
She also expressed concern that adolescents who reveal this information might need resources to cope with issues raised by non-heterosexual identification. She agreed that discussing sexual orientation and gender identity in the clinical setting is often a major step for adolescents, particularly young adolescents, but she believes follow-up and next steps are in the interest of the patient.
Although the need for affirmation and confidentiality are not new ideas, Ms. Lekach said that the talk provided some useful context for thinking about these issues.
Dr. Jelinek and Ms. Lekach report no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM PAS 2024
More Rapid Confirmation of an Autism Diagnosis Is Coming to Primary Care
TORONTO — , according to a series of studies presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Accelerated Diagnosis
In one study, 80% of the evaluations were conducted within 6 weeks of patient enrollment, according to Corinna Rea, MD, a clinician in the primary care center at Boston Children’s Hospital as well as an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
This outcome was drawn from a pilot study with 179 children suspected of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by clinicians in a pediatric clinic. All were under the age of 3 years. In the first step, families completed the Bayley-4 Social-Emotional and Adaptive Behavior Scale.
The next step was a virtual assessment by a trained clinician using the TELE-ADS-PEDs (TAP) tool developed by Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Patients and families participated from their homes. The diagnosis of ASD was made by a psychologist using the patient’s history and data provided by the two assessment tools.
Through this approach, the median time to diagnosis was 30 days, according to Dr. Rea. Relative to a median time of 168 days to diagnosis among patients considered likely to have ASD at Dr. Rea’s center in the year prior to this pilot study, the time was reduced significantly (P < .001).
All patients in the study were subsequently evaluated by traditional methods. One hundred percent of the ASD diagnoses were confirmed with traditional assessment.
On the basis of these data, the accelerated approach “seems efficient and quite accurate,” Dr. Rea reported. When family members were surveyed at the end of the pilot study, 60% were satisfied and 28% were moderately satisfied. Although 59% reported that they would have preferred an in-person assessment, approximately 90% agreed the child’s development was mostly or completely captured in the accelerated assessment.
Dr. Rea pointed out that the psychologists participating in this study offered the opinion that home-based assessments are in their experience better than in-person evaluations due to the more natural behavior of the child in their own environment. However, she said that the diagnostic approach in the pilot study is still being modified, and one of the goals is to make virtual assessment more acceptable to the families.
A Commercialized Diagnostic Approach
A similar approach has been commercialized by a firm called As You Are, according to Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, who is an associate professor of pediatrics at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. Dr. Hicks is a principal in the enterprise, which is also assessing ASD virtually.
Trained pediatricians are evaluating patients with multiple tools in addition to TAP, including the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) checklist for ASD. The company, which began offering this diagnostic service in 2022, now employs more than 30 pediatricians who participated in a 1-month training program.
At the 2024 PAS meeting, quality assurance data were presented on 215 (2.2%) of the 9632 children evaluated between February 2023 and March 2024. The diagnostic assessments of these randomly selected children were reviewed by one of three randomly assigned experts (a developmental pediatrician, a child psychologist, or a pediatrician with 7 years’ diagnostic experience) blinded to the initial scoring.
The diagnostic agreement was 94%, according to the data presented, providing a specificity of 90% and a sensitivity of 90% for ASD. The commercialized diagnostic approach is providing a diagnosis in a mean time of 29 days from initial contact, compared with delays that typically exceed 1 year for many children with suspected ASD, according to Dr. Hicks.
Additional Studies Aim at Streamlining Diagnosis
Two additional studies also evaluated strategies to streamline the diagnosis of ASD. Both were positive. In one, the accuracy and time to diagnosis among pediatricians trained in TAP and CARS were compared with those of ASD specialists in a dedicated autism clinic. Both were located at Nemours Children’s Health Center, Wilmington, Delaware.
In this study, presented by Meghan Harrison, DO, an attending pediatrician at Nemours Children’s Health, time to diagnosis among the 39 patients evaluated by pediatricians relative to the 349 patients evaluated at the dedicated ASD center (2.0 vs 5.1 months; P = .001) was significantly shorter. The age at diagnosis in the pediatrician-assessed population (27.5 vs 36.5 months; P < .001) was also significantly younger.
In another study, led by Ashely L. Early, MSW, a clinical social worker at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, switching to a screening tool called the Rapid Interactive Screening Test for Autism in Toddlers (RITA-1) reduced the wait time to evaluation by approximately 5 months relative to previous practice with a more cumbersome screening method.
An ‘Urgent Need’ to Accelerate Diagnosis
In most places in the United States, children suspected of ASD are referred to specialists for confirmation of the diagnosis, which is needed to quality for ASD services, according to Katherine Zuckerman, MD, a professor of pediatrics the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Zuckerman, who was moderator of the session in which all four of these abstracts were presented, explained that there is an urgent need to accelerate the time to diagnosis, which involves long delays for many if not most children with ASD. This is important because treatment and supportive services for ASD are almost always dependent on a diagnosis.
“There are tons of data to show that earlier access to ASD services has important patient benefits, including higher IQs,” she said. Other benefits she listed include a better quality of life for the child and the family.
“It can provide a huge reduction in family stress,” she added, suggesting that early interventions favorably modify the trajectory of the disability over time with accruing benefits.
“The lifetime costs of ASD exceed cancer and most other disease, so there are major implications for the cumulative cost of ASD management,” Dr. Zuckerman said. She suggested that the studies presented at the meeting reflect a likely evolution in who evaluates children for ASD and how quickly the evaluation is performed.
Dr. Rea, Dr. Harrison, Dr. Zuckerman, and Ms. Early reported no potential conflicts of interest. In addition to his executive role in As You Are, Dr. Hicks has financial relationships with Quadrant Biosciences and Spectrum Solutions.
TORONTO — , according to a series of studies presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Accelerated Diagnosis
In one study, 80% of the evaluations were conducted within 6 weeks of patient enrollment, according to Corinna Rea, MD, a clinician in the primary care center at Boston Children’s Hospital as well as an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
This outcome was drawn from a pilot study with 179 children suspected of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by clinicians in a pediatric clinic. All were under the age of 3 years. In the first step, families completed the Bayley-4 Social-Emotional and Adaptive Behavior Scale.
The next step was a virtual assessment by a trained clinician using the TELE-ADS-PEDs (TAP) tool developed by Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Patients and families participated from their homes. The diagnosis of ASD was made by a psychologist using the patient’s history and data provided by the two assessment tools.
Through this approach, the median time to diagnosis was 30 days, according to Dr. Rea. Relative to a median time of 168 days to diagnosis among patients considered likely to have ASD at Dr. Rea’s center in the year prior to this pilot study, the time was reduced significantly (P < .001).
All patients in the study were subsequently evaluated by traditional methods. One hundred percent of the ASD diagnoses were confirmed with traditional assessment.
On the basis of these data, the accelerated approach “seems efficient and quite accurate,” Dr. Rea reported. When family members were surveyed at the end of the pilot study, 60% were satisfied and 28% were moderately satisfied. Although 59% reported that they would have preferred an in-person assessment, approximately 90% agreed the child’s development was mostly or completely captured in the accelerated assessment.
Dr. Rea pointed out that the psychologists participating in this study offered the opinion that home-based assessments are in their experience better than in-person evaluations due to the more natural behavior of the child in their own environment. However, she said that the diagnostic approach in the pilot study is still being modified, and one of the goals is to make virtual assessment more acceptable to the families.
A Commercialized Diagnostic Approach
A similar approach has been commercialized by a firm called As You Are, according to Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, who is an associate professor of pediatrics at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. Dr. Hicks is a principal in the enterprise, which is also assessing ASD virtually.
Trained pediatricians are evaluating patients with multiple tools in addition to TAP, including the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) checklist for ASD. The company, which began offering this diagnostic service in 2022, now employs more than 30 pediatricians who participated in a 1-month training program.
At the 2024 PAS meeting, quality assurance data were presented on 215 (2.2%) of the 9632 children evaluated between February 2023 and March 2024. The diagnostic assessments of these randomly selected children were reviewed by one of three randomly assigned experts (a developmental pediatrician, a child psychologist, or a pediatrician with 7 years’ diagnostic experience) blinded to the initial scoring.
The diagnostic agreement was 94%, according to the data presented, providing a specificity of 90% and a sensitivity of 90% for ASD. The commercialized diagnostic approach is providing a diagnosis in a mean time of 29 days from initial contact, compared with delays that typically exceed 1 year for many children with suspected ASD, according to Dr. Hicks.
Additional Studies Aim at Streamlining Diagnosis
Two additional studies also evaluated strategies to streamline the diagnosis of ASD. Both were positive. In one, the accuracy and time to diagnosis among pediatricians trained in TAP and CARS were compared with those of ASD specialists in a dedicated autism clinic. Both were located at Nemours Children’s Health Center, Wilmington, Delaware.
In this study, presented by Meghan Harrison, DO, an attending pediatrician at Nemours Children’s Health, time to diagnosis among the 39 patients evaluated by pediatricians relative to the 349 patients evaluated at the dedicated ASD center (2.0 vs 5.1 months; P = .001) was significantly shorter. The age at diagnosis in the pediatrician-assessed population (27.5 vs 36.5 months; P < .001) was also significantly younger.
In another study, led by Ashely L. Early, MSW, a clinical social worker at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, switching to a screening tool called the Rapid Interactive Screening Test for Autism in Toddlers (RITA-1) reduced the wait time to evaluation by approximately 5 months relative to previous practice with a more cumbersome screening method.
An ‘Urgent Need’ to Accelerate Diagnosis
In most places in the United States, children suspected of ASD are referred to specialists for confirmation of the diagnosis, which is needed to quality for ASD services, according to Katherine Zuckerman, MD, a professor of pediatrics the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Zuckerman, who was moderator of the session in which all four of these abstracts were presented, explained that there is an urgent need to accelerate the time to diagnosis, which involves long delays for many if not most children with ASD. This is important because treatment and supportive services for ASD are almost always dependent on a diagnosis.
“There are tons of data to show that earlier access to ASD services has important patient benefits, including higher IQs,” she said. Other benefits she listed include a better quality of life for the child and the family.
“It can provide a huge reduction in family stress,” she added, suggesting that early interventions favorably modify the trajectory of the disability over time with accruing benefits.
“The lifetime costs of ASD exceed cancer and most other disease, so there are major implications for the cumulative cost of ASD management,” Dr. Zuckerman said. She suggested that the studies presented at the meeting reflect a likely evolution in who evaluates children for ASD and how quickly the evaluation is performed.
Dr. Rea, Dr. Harrison, Dr. Zuckerman, and Ms. Early reported no potential conflicts of interest. In addition to his executive role in As You Are, Dr. Hicks has financial relationships with Quadrant Biosciences and Spectrum Solutions.
TORONTO — , according to a series of studies presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Accelerated Diagnosis
In one study, 80% of the evaluations were conducted within 6 weeks of patient enrollment, according to Corinna Rea, MD, a clinician in the primary care center at Boston Children’s Hospital as well as an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
This outcome was drawn from a pilot study with 179 children suspected of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by clinicians in a pediatric clinic. All were under the age of 3 years. In the first step, families completed the Bayley-4 Social-Emotional and Adaptive Behavior Scale.
The next step was a virtual assessment by a trained clinician using the TELE-ADS-PEDs (TAP) tool developed by Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Patients and families participated from their homes. The diagnosis of ASD was made by a psychologist using the patient’s history and data provided by the two assessment tools.
Through this approach, the median time to diagnosis was 30 days, according to Dr. Rea. Relative to a median time of 168 days to diagnosis among patients considered likely to have ASD at Dr. Rea’s center in the year prior to this pilot study, the time was reduced significantly (P < .001).
All patients in the study were subsequently evaluated by traditional methods. One hundred percent of the ASD diagnoses were confirmed with traditional assessment.
On the basis of these data, the accelerated approach “seems efficient and quite accurate,” Dr. Rea reported. When family members were surveyed at the end of the pilot study, 60% were satisfied and 28% were moderately satisfied. Although 59% reported that they would have preferred an in-person assessment, approximately 90% agreed the child’s development was mostly or completely captured in the accelerated assessment.
Dr. Rea pointed out that the psychologists participating in this study offered the opinion that home-based assessments are in their experience better than in-person evaluations due to the more natural behavior of the child in their own environment. However, she said that the diagnostic approach in the pilot study is still being modified, and one of the goals is to make virtual assessment more acceptable to the families.
A Commercialized Diagnostic Approach
A similar approach has been commercialized by a firm called As You Are, according to Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, who is an associate professor of pediatrics at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. Dr. Hicks is a principal in the enterprise, which is also assessing ASD virtually.
Trained pediatricians are evaluating patients with multiple tools in addition to TAP, including the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) checklist for ASD. The company, which began offering this diagnostic service in 2022, now employs more than 30 pediatricians who participated in a 1-month training program.
At the 2024 PAS meeting, quality assurance data were presented on 215 (2.2%) of the 9632 children evaluated between February 2023 and March 2024. The diagnostic assessments of these randomly selected children were reviewed by one of three randomly assigned experts (a developmental pediatrician, a child psychologist, or a pediatrician with 7 years’ diagnostic experience) blinded to the initial scoring.
The diagnostic agreement was 94%, according to the data presented, providing a specificity of 90% and a sensitivity of 90% for ASD. The commercialized diagnostic approach is providing a diagnosis in a mean time of 29 days from initial contact, compared with delays that typically exceed 1 year for many children with suspected ASD, according to Dr. Hicks.
Additional Studies Aim at Streamlining Diagnosis
Two additional studies also evaluated strategies to streamline the diagnosis of ASD. Both were positive. In one, the accuracy and time to diagnosis among pediatricians trained in TAP and CARS were compared with those of ASD specialists in a dedicated autism clinic. Both were located at Nemours Children’s Health Center, Wilmington, Delaware.
In this study, presented by Meghan Harrison, DO, an attending pediatrician at Nemours Children’s Health, time to diagnosis among the 39 patients evaluated by pediatricians relative to the 349 patients evaluated at the dedicated ASD center (2.0 vs 5.1 months; P = .001) was significantly shorter. The age at diagnosis in the pediatrician-assessed population (27.5 vs 36.5 months; P < .001) was also significantly younger.
In another study, led by Ashely L. Early, MSW, a clinical social worker at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, switching to a screening tool called the Rapid Interactive Screening Test for Autism in Toddlers (RITA-1) reduced the wait time to evaluation by approximately 5 months relative to previous practice with a more cumbersome screening method.
An ‘Urgent Need’ to Accelerate Diagnosis
In most places in the United States, children suspected of ASD are referred to specialists for confirmation of the diagnosis, which is needed to quality for ASD services, according to Katherine Zuckerman, MD, a professor of pediatrics the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Zuckerman, who was moderator of the session in which all four of these abstracts were presented, explained that there is an urgent need to accelerate the time to diagnosis, which involves long delays for many if not most children with ASD. This is important because treatment and supportive services for ASD are almost always dependent on a diagnosis.
“There are tons of data to show that earlier access to ASD services has important patient benefits, including higher IQs,” she said. Other benefits she listed include a better quality of life for the child and the family.
“It can provide a huge reduction in family stress,” she added, suggesting that early interventions favorably modify the trajectory of the disability over time with accruing benefits.
“The lifetime costs of ASD exceed cancer and most other disease, so there are major implications for the cumulative cost of ASD management,” Dr. Zuckerman said. She suggested that the studies presented at the meeting reflect a likely evolution in who evaluates children for ASD and how quickly the evaluation is performed.
Dr. Rea, Dr. Harrison, Dr. Zuckerman, and Ms. Early reported no potential conflicts of interest. In addition to his executive role in As You Are, Dr. Hicks has financial relationships with Quadrant Biosciences and Spectrum Solutions.
FROM PAS 2024
High-Potency Cannabis Tied to Impaired Brain Development, Psychosis, Cannabis-Use Disorder
It’s becoming clear that (CUD).
That was the message delivered by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Mount Sinai in New York, during a press briefing at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 annual meeting.
“We’re actually in historic times in that we now have highly concentrated, highly potent cannabis products that are administered in various routes,” Dr. Hurd told reporters.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations in cannabis products have increased over the years, from around 2%-4% to 15%-24% now, Dr. Hurd noted.
Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote in a commentary on the developmental trajectory of CUD published simultaneously in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Dramatic Increase in Teen Cannabis Use
A recent study from Oregon Health & Science University showed that adolescent cannabis abuse in the United States has increased dramatically, by about 245%, since 2000.
“Drug abuse is often driven by what is in front of you,” Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, noted in an interview.
“Right now, cannabis is widely available. So, guess what? Cannabis becomes the drug that people take. Nicotine is much harder to get. It is regulated to a much greater extent than cannabis, so fewer teenagers are consuming nicotine than are consuming cannabis,” Dr. Volkow said.
Cannabis exposure during neurodevelopment has the potential to alter the endocannabinoid system, which in turn, can affect the development of neural pathways that mediate reward; emotional regulation; and multiple cognitive domains including executive functioning and decision-making, learning, abstraction, and attention — all processes central to substance use disorder and other psychiatric disorders, Dr. Hurd said at the briefing.
Dr. Volkow said that cannabis use in adolescence and young adulthood is “very concerning because that’s also the age of risk for psychosis, particularly schizophrenia, with one study showing that use of cannabis in high doses can trigger psychotic episodes, particularly among young males.”
Dr. Hurd noted that not all young people who use cannabis develop CUD, “but a significant number do,” and large-scale studies have consistently reported two main factors associated with CUD risk.
The first is age, both for the onset and frequency of use at younger age. Those who start using cannabis before age 16 years are at the highest risk for CUD. The risk for CUD also increases significantly among youth who use cannabis at least weekly, with the highest prevalence among youth who use cannabis daily. One large study linked increased frequency of use with up to a 17-fold increased risk for CUD.
The second factor consistently associated with the risk for CUD is biologic sex, with CUD rates typically higher in male individuals.
Treatment Challenges
For young people who develop CUD, access to and uptake of treatment can be challenging.
“Given that the increased potency of cannabis and cannabinoid products is expected to increase CUD risk, it is disturbing that less than 10% of youth who meet the criteria for a substance use disorder, including CUD, receive treatment,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues point out in their commentary.
Another challenge is that treatment strategies for CUD are currently limited and consist mainly of motivational enhancement and cognitive-behavioral therapies.
“Clearly new treatment strategies are needed to address the mounting challenge of CUD risk in teens and young adults,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote.
Summing up, Dr. Hurd told reporters, “We now know that most psychiatric disorders have a developmental origin, and the adolescent time period is a critical window for cannabis use disorder risk.”
Yet, on a positive note, the “plasticity of the developing brain that makes it vulnerable to cannabis use disorder and psychiatric comorbidities also provides an opportunity for prevention and early intervention to change that trajectory,” Dr. Hurd said.
The changing legal landscape of cannabis — the US Drug Enforcement Agency is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act — makes addressing these risks all the timelier.
“As states vie to leverage tax dollars from the growing cannabis industry, a significant portion of such funds must be used for early intervention/prevention strategies to reduce the impact of cannabis on the developing brain,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote.
This research was supported in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hurd and Dr. Volkow have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s becoming clear that (CUD).
That was the message delivered by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Mount Sinai in New York, during a press briefing at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 annual meeting.
“We’re actually in historic times in that we now have highly concentrated, highly potent cannabis products that are administered in various routes,” Dr. Hurd told reporters.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations in cannabis products have increased over the years, from around 2%-4% to 15%-24% now, Dr. Hurd noted.
Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote in a commentary on the developmental trajectory of CUD published simultaneously in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Dramatic Increase in Teen Cannabis Use
A recent study from Oregon Health & Science University showed that adolescent cannabis abuse in the United States has increased dramatically, by about 245%, since 2000.
“Drug abuse is often driven by what is in front of you,” Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, noted in an interview.
“Right now, cannabis is widely available. So, guess what? Cannabis becomes the drug that people take. Nicotine is much harder to get. It is regulated to a much greater extent than cannabis, so fewer teenagers are consuming nicotine than are consuming cannabis,” Dr. Volkow said.
Cannabis exposure during neurodevelopment has the potential to alter the endocannabinoid system, which in turn, can affect the development of neural pathways that mediate reward; emotional regulation; and multiple cognitive domains including executive functioning and decision-making, learning, abstraction, and attention — all processes central to substance use disorder and other psychiatric disorders, Dr. Hurd said at the briefing.
Dr. Volkow said that cannabis use in adolescence and young adulthood is “very concerning because that’s also the age of risk for psychosis, particularly schizophrenia, with one study showing that use of cannabis in high doses can trigger psychotic episodes, particularly among young males.”
Dr. Hurd noted that not all young people who use cannabis develop CUD, “but a significant number do,” and large-scale studies have consistently reported two main factors associated with CUD risk.
The first is age, both for the onset and frequency of use at younger age. Those who start using cannabis before age 16 years are at the highest risk for CUD. The risk for CUD also increases significantly among youth who use cannabis at least weekly, with the highest prevalence among youth who use cannabis daily. One large study linked increased frequency of use with up to a 17-fold increased risk for CUD.
The second factor consistently associated with the risk for CUD is biologic sex, with CUD rates typically higher in male individuals.
Treatment Challenges
For young people who develop CUD, access to and uptake of treatment can be challenging.
“Given that the increased potency of cannabis and cannabinoid products is expected to increase CUD risk, it is disturbing that less than 10% of youth who meet the criteria for a substance use disorder, including CUD, receive treatment,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues point out in their commentary.
Another challenge is that treatment strategies for CUD are currently limited and consist mainly of motivational enhancement and cognitive-behavioral therapies.
“Clearly new treatment strategies are needed to address the mounting challenge of CUD risk in teens and young adults,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote.
Summing up, Dr. Hurd told reporters, “We now know that most psychiatric disorders have a developmental origin, and the adolescent time period is a critical window for cannabis use disorder risk.”
Yet, on a positive note, the “plasticity of the developing brain that makes it vulnerable to cannabis use disorder and psychiatric comorbidities also provides an opportunity for prevention and early intervention to change that trajectory,” Dr. Hurd said.
The changing legal landscape of cannabis — the US Drug Enforcement Agency is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act — makes addressing these risks all the timelier.
“As states vie to leverage tax dollars from the growing cannabis industry, a significant portion of such funds must be used for early intervention/prevention strategies to reduce the impact of cannabis on the developing brain,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote.
This research was supported in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hurd and Dr. Volkow have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s becoming clear that (CUD).
That was the message delivered by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Mount Sinai in New York, during a press briefing at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 annual meeting.
“We’re actually in historic times in that we now have highly concentrated, highly potent cannabis products that are administered in various routes,” Dr. Hurd told reporters.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations in cannabis products have increased over the years, from around 2%-4% to 15%-24% now, Dr. Hurd noted.
Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote in a commentary on the developmental trajectory of CUD published simultaneously in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Dramatic Increase in Teen Cannabis Use
A recent study from Oregon Health & Science University showed that adolescent cannabis abuse in the United States has increased dramatically, by about 245%, since 2000.
“Drug abuse is often driven by what is in front of you,” Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, noted in an interview.
“Right now, cannabis is widely available. So, guess what? Cannabis becomes the drug that people take. Nicotine is much harder to get. It is regulated to a much greater extent than cannabis, so fewer teenagers are consuming nicotine than are consuming cannabis,” Dr. Volkow said.
Cannabis exposure during neurodevelopment has the potential to alter the endocannabinoid system, which in turn, can affect the development of neural pathways that mediate reward; emotional regulation; and multiple cognitive domains including executive functioning and decision-making, learning, abstraction, and attention — all processes central to substance use disorder and other psychiatric disorders, Dr. Hurd said at the briefing.
Dr. Volkow said that cannabis use in adolescence and young adulthood is “very concerning because that’s also the age of risk for psychosis, particularly schizophrenia, with one study showing that use of cannabis in high doses can trigger psychotic episodes, particularly among young males.”
Dr. Hurd noted that not all young people who use cannabis develop CUD, “but a significant number do,” and large-scale studies have consistently reported two main factors associated with CUD risk.
The first is age, both for the onset and frequency of use at younger age. Those who start using cannabis before age 16 years are at the highest risk for CUD. The risk for CUD also increases significantly among youth who use cannabis at least weekly, with the highest prevalence among youth who use cannabis daily. One large study linked increased frequency of use with up to a 17-fold increased risk for CUD.
The second factor consistently associated with the risk for CUD is biologic sex, with CUD rates typically higher in male individuals.
Treatment Challenges
For young people who develop CUD, access to and uptake of treatment can be challenging.
“Given that the increased potency of cannabis and cannabinoid products is expected to increase CUD risk, it is disturbing that less than 10% of youth who meet the criteria for a substance use disorder, including CUD, receive treatment,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues point out in their commentary.
Another challenge is that treatment strategies for CUD are currently limited and consist mainly of motivational enhancement and cognitive-behavioral therapies.
“Clearly new treatment strategies are needed to address the mounting challenge of CUD risk in teens and young adults,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote.
Summing up, Dr. Hurd told reporters, “We now know that most psychiatric disorders have a developmental origin, and the adolescent time period is a critical window for cannabis use disorder risk.”
Yet, on a positive note, the “plasticity of the developing brain that makes it vulnerable to cannabis use disorder and psychiatric comorbidities also provides an opportunity for prevention and early intervention to change that trajectory,” Dr. Hurd said.
The changing legal landscape of cannabis — the US Drug Enforcement Agency is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act — makes addressing these risks all the timelier.
“As states vie to leverage tax dollars from the growing cannabis industry, a significant portion of such funds must be used for early intervention/prevention strategies to reduce the impact of cannabis on the developing brain,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote.
This research was supported in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hurd and Dr. Volkow have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM APA 2024
Follow-Up for Pediatric Depression Doubles With New Quality Initiative
TORONTO — An ambitious effort at a busy pediatrics clinic to improve follow-up in children and adolescents with a positive depression screen improved this quality metric, and it produced a fundamental change in approach.
“It was a big culture shift,” reported Landon B. Krantz, MD, a clinical fellow in the Division of General and Community Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital in Ohio. From a baseline position of screening, risk identification, and then referral, “we are now taking ownership of the process.”
Based on the substantial risk posed by significant levels of depression, guidelines recommend follow-up for any patient 12 years or older who has a positive screen, according to Dr. Krantz. At his center, they found only 19% had a documented follow-up within 30 days, even though timely intervention is important.
“Nearly half of suicide events in adolescents occur within 30 days after a positive PHQ-9 [9-question Patient Health Questionnaire] is completed,” said Dr. Krantz when presenting his data at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The issue has gained more urgency because of the substantial increase over the past several years in children presenting with depression and suicidal thoughts, according to Dr. Krantz. He said many are characterizing the upsurge as a mental health crisis in the pediatric age group.
Improving Follow-Up
. The goal at the outset was to increase the proportion to 35%.
“We know that a lot of children would receive follow-up at centers outside of our system,” said Dr. Krantz, explaining why the goal was relatively modest. Based on the likelihood that many follow-up visits would not be captured, he expected the final data would represent an underestimate.
Depression at baseline was defined as a score of 10 or higher on the PHQ-9 or any positive answer to item 9 on this screening tool, which asks specifically about thoughts of self-harm.
To be counted, follow-up had to be a documented encounter, whether by phone call, in-person visit, or telehealth visit.
“We needed patients to be checked. We did not count a prescription refill as a true follow-up,” Dr. Krantz specified.
There were numerous strategies implemented to improve follow-up, not least of which was an educational program to reinforce the importance and value of follow-up that was disseminated to clinicians in all of the participating clinics. Medical assistants were instructed to schedule a follow-up appointment for all patients who tested positive before they left the office. A target of 3 weeks was a strategy of overcorrection when so many patients were missing the initial 30-day window by just a few days.
The approach also involved an enhanced collaboration with psychologists to which patients were referred. Asking for expedited appointments when appropriate ensured that those at highest risk were prioritized, although Dr. Krantz said that this step was planned carefully to avoid overwhelming the mental health team.
“We monitored this and made sure it was not increasing the burden for psychologists from a capacity standpoint,” he said.
Other steps, like a depression action plan, which Dr. Krantz compared to an asthma action plan, were also implemented to reduce the risk of losing symptomatic patients before the chance for an effective treatment.
When compared with the 19% 30-day follow-up rate in the preintervention sample of 589 children, the 43.8% 30-day follow-up rate achieved in the 764 patients identified after implementation beat the original goal.
The improvement in follow-up was relatively consistent across all six clinics, which Dr. Krantz believes reflected a broad and shared change in a sense of responsibility for confirming that symptoms of depression were being addressed. Patients were still referred for psychological help, but referral was no longer considered enough.
“Children with mental health issues are still our patients in primary care,” said Dr. Krantz, who considers this an important change in orientation.
While the goal was to schedule patients for a follow-up at the time of a positive depression screen, Dr. Krantz described one important accommodation.
“The screen for depression was being performed in most cases during well visits, so patients and their families were not expecting to be discussing this issue,” he said. The diagnosis might be a particular surprise to parents who were not aware of any symptoms. In this case, Dr. Krantz said patients and families were given time to process the information and were contacted after a week to discuss further workup.
It is also notable that about one third of patients met the criteria for depression by answering positively to the PHQ-9 item on self-harm when they did not meet the 10 or more threshold depression score overall. In other words, these patients would have been missed without this criterion.
In the participating Cincinnati pediatric clinics, about 12%-13% of adolescents met the criteria for depression, which Dr. Krantz said is consistent with reports in the literature. He said the range is about 6%-24%.
Although outcomes were not tracked, there is evidence that early intervention for depression yields better outcomes than delayed intervention, according to Dr. Krantz. Based on approximately 600 positive screens for depression per year at his pediatric clinics, he estimated that his data predict at least 25% more patients will receive timely follow-up.
Seeking Solutions to a Growing Problem
There are several studies documenting the growing problem of adolescent depression and suicide and, for this reason, the topic is attracting a lot of attention, according to Corinna Rea, MD, MPH, a pediatrician working in the primary care center at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts.
Dr. Rea was not involved with the study, but when asked to comment, she said: “The results of this study were encouraging because we know that getting patients to care quickly is probably important.” She also agreed that referring patients with depression for care might not be enough, noting that a lot of patients do not follow up on recommendations to pursue a consultation or treatment.
“I am now involved in a project with the American Academy of Pediatrics to address this issue,” Dr. Rae said. She thinks that more work in this area is needed and agreed with Dr. Krantz that pediatricians should verify that children with depression are getting help even when other specialists are providing the treatment.
Dr. Krantz and Dr. Rae report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO — An ambitious effort at a busy pediatrics clinic to improve follow-up in children and adolescents with a positive depression screen improved this quality metric, and it produced a fundamental change in approach.
“It was a big culture shift,” reported Landon B. Krantz, MD, a clinical fellow in the Division of General and Community Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital in Ohio. From a baseline position of screening, risk identification, and then referral, “we are now taking ownership of the process.”
Based on the substantial risk posed by significant levels of depression, guidelines recommend follow-up for any patient 12 years or older who has a positive screen, according to Dr. Krantz. At his center, they found only 19% had a documented follow-up within 30 days, even though timely intervention is important.
“Nearly half of suicide events in adolescents occur within 30 days after a positive PHQ-9 [9-question Patient Health Questionnaire] is completed,” said Dr. Krantz when presenting his data at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The issue has gained more urgency because of the substantial increase over the past several years in children presenting with depression and suicidal thoughts, according to Dr. Krantz. He said many are characterizing the upsurge as a mental health crisis in the pediatric age group.
Improving Follow-Up
. The goal at the outset was to increase the proportion to 35%.
“We know that a lot of children would receive follow-up at centers outside of our system,” said Dr. Krantz, explaining why the goal was relatively modest. Based on the likelihood that many follow-up visits would not be captured, he expected the final data would represent an underestimate.
Depression at baseline was defined as a score of 10 or higher on the PHQ-9 or any positive answer to item 9 on this screening tool, which asks specifically about thoughts of self-harm.
To be counted, follow-up had to be a documented encounter, whether by phone call, in-person visit, or telehealth visit.
“We needed patients to be checked. We did not count a prescription refill as a true follow-up,” Dr. Krantz specified.
There were numerous strategies implemented to improve follow-up, not least of which was an educational program to reinforce the importance and value of follow-up that was disseminated to clinicians in all of the participating clinics. Medical assistants were instructed to schedule a follow-up appointment for all patients who tested positive before they left the office. A target of 3 weeks was a strategy of overcorrection when so many patients were missing the initial 30-day window by just a few days.
The approach also involved an enhanced collaboration with psychologists to which patients were referred. Asking for expedited appointments when appropriate ensured that those at highest risk were prioritized, although Dr. Krantz said that this step was planned carefully to avoid overwhelming the mental health team.
“We monitored this and made sure it was not increasing the burden for psychologists from a capacity standpoint,” he said.
Other steps, like a depression action plan, which Dr. Krantz compared to an asthma action plan, were also implemented to reduce the risk of losing symptomatic patients before the chance for an effective treatment.
When compared with the 19% 30-day follow-up rate in the preintervention sample of 589 children, the 43.8% 30-day follow-up rate achieved in the 764 patients identified after implementation beat the original goal.
The improvement in follow-up was relatively consistent across all six clinics, which Dr. Krantz believes reflected a broad and shared change in a sense of responsibility for confirming that symptoms of depression were being addressed. Patients were still referred for psychological help, but referral was no longer considered enough.
“Children with mental health issues are still our patients in primary care,” said Dr. Krantz, who considers this an important change in orientation.
While the goal was to schedule patients for a follow-up at the time of a positive depression screen, Dr. Krantz described one important accommodation.
“The screen for depression was being performed in most cases during well visits, so patients and their families were not expecting to be discussing this issue,” he said. The diagnosis might be a particular surprise to parents who were not aware of any symptoms. In this case, Dr. Krantz said patients and families were given time to process the information and were contacted after a week to discuss further workup.
It is also notable that about one third of patients met the criteria for depression by answering positively to the PHQ-9 item on self-harm when they did not meet the 10 or more threshold depression score overall. In other words, these patients would have been missed without this criterion.
In the participating Cincinnati pediatric clinics, about 12%-13% of adolescents met the criteria for depression, which Dr. Krantz said is consistent with reports in the literature. He said the range is about 6%-24%.
Although outcomes were not tracked, there is evidence that early intervention for depression yields better outcomes than delayed intervention, according to Dr. Krantz. Based on approximately 600 positive screens for depression per year at his pediatric clinics, he estimated that his data predict at least 25% more patients will receive timely follow-up.
Seeking Solutions to a Growing Problem
There are several studies documenting the growing problem of adolescent depression and suicide and, for this reason, the topic is attracting a lot of attention, according to Corinna Rea, MD, MPH, a pediatrician working in the primary care center at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts.
Dr. Rea was not involved with the study, but when asked to comment, she said: “The results of this study were encouraging because we know that getting patients to care quickly is probably important.” She also agreed that referring patients with depression for care might not be enough, noting that a lot of patients do not follow up on recommendations to pursue a consultation or treatment.
“I am now involved in a project with the American Academy of Pediatrics to address this issue,” Dr. Rae said. She thinks that more work in this area is needed and agreed with Dr. Krantz that pediatricians should verify that children with depression are getting help even when other specialists are providing the treatment.
Dr. Krantz and Dr. Rae report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO — An ambitious effort at a busy pediatrics clinic to improve follow-up in children and adolescents with a positive depression screen improved this quality metric, and it produced a fundamental change in approach.
“It was a big culture shift,” reported Landon B. Krantz, MD, a clinical fellow in the Division of General and Community Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital in Ohio. From a baseline position of screening, risk identification, and then referral, “we are now taking ownership of the process.”
Based on the substantial risk posed by significant levels of depression, guidelines recommend follow-up for any patient 12 years or older who has a positive screen, according to Dr. Krantz. At his center, they found only 19% had a documented follow-up within 30 days, even though timely intervention is important.
“Nearly half of suicide events in adolescents occur within 30 days after a positive PHQ-9 [9-question Patient Health Questionnaire] is completed,” said Dr. Krantz when presenting his data at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The issue has gained more urgency because of the substantial increase over the past several years in children presenting with depression and suicidal thoughts, according to Dr. Krantz. He said many are characterizing the upsurge as a mental health crisis in the pediatric age group.
Improving Follow-Up
. The goal at the outset was to increase the proportion to 35%.
“We know that a lot of children would receive follow-up at centers outside of our system,” said Dr. Krantz, explaining why the goal was relatively modest. Based on the likelihood that many follow-up visits would not be captured, he expected the final data would represent an underestimate.
Depression at baseline was defined as a score of 10 or higher on the PHQ-9 or any positive answer to item 9 on this screening tool, which asks specifically about thoughts of self-harm.
To be counted, follow-up had to be a documented encounter, whether by phone call, in-person visit, or telehealth visit.
“We needed patients to be checked. We did not count a prescription refill as a true follow-up,” Dr. Krantz specified.
There were numerous strategies implemented to improve follow-up, not least of which was an educational program to reinforce the importance and value of follow-up that was disseminated to clinicians in all of the participating clinics. Medical assistants were instructed to schedule a follow-up appointment for all patients who tested positive before they left the office. A target of 3 weeks was a strategy of overcorrection when so many patients were missing the initial 30-day window by just a few days.
The approach also involved an enhanced collaboration with psychologists to which patients were referred. Asking for expedited appointments when appropriate ensured that those at highest risk were prioritized, although Dr. Krantz said that this step was planned carefully to avoid overwhelming the mental health team.
“We monitored this and made sure it was not increasing the burden for psychologists from a capacity standpoint,” he said.
Other steps, like a depression action plan, which Dr. Krantz compared to an asthma action plan, were also implemented to reduce the risk of losing symptomatic patients before the chance for an effective treatment.
When compared with the 19% 30-day follow-up rate in the preintervention sample of 589 children, the 43.8% 30-day follow-up rate achieved in the 764 patients identified after implementation beat the original goal.
The improvement in follow-up was relatively consistent across all six clinics, which Dr. Krantz believes reflected a broad and shared change in a sense of responsibility for confirming that symptoms of depression were being addressed. Patients were still referred for psychological help, but referral was no longer considered enough.
“Children with mental health issues are still our patients in primary care,” said Dr. Krantz, who considers this an important change in orientation.
While the goal was to schedule patients for a follow-up at the time of a positive depression screen, Dr. Krantz described one important accommodation.
“The screen for depression was being performed in most cases during well visits, so patients and their families were not expecting to be discussing this issue,” he said. The diagnosis might be a particular surprise to parents who were not aware of any symptoms. In this case, Dr. Krantz said patients and families were given time to process the information and were contacted after a week to discuss further workup.
It is also notable that about one third of patients met the criteria for depression by answering positively to the PHQ-9 item on self-harm when they did not meet the 10 or more threshold depression score overall. In other words, these patients would have been missed without this criterion.
In the participating Cincinnati pediatric clinics, about 12%-13% of adolescents met the criteria for depression, which Dr. Krantz said is consistent with reports in the literature. He said the range is about 6%-24%.
Although outcomes were not tracked, there is evidence that early intervention for depression yields better outcomes than delayed intervention, according to Dr. Krantz. Based on approximately 600 positive screens for depression per year at his pediatric clinics, he estimated that his data predict at least 25% more patients will receive timely follow-up.
Seeking Solutions to a Growing Problem
There are several studies documenting the growing problem of adolescent depression and suicide and, for this reason, the topic is attracting a lot of attention, according to Corinna Rea, MD, MPH, a pediatrician working in the primary care center at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts.
Dr. Rea was not involved with the study, but when asked to comment, she said: “The results of this study were encouraging because we know that getting patients to care quickly is probably important.” She also agreed that referring patients with depression for care might not be enough, noting that a lot of patients do not follow up on recommendations to pursue a consultation or treatment.
“I am now involved in a project with the American Academy of Pediatrics to address this issue,” Dr. Rae said. She thinks that more work in this area is needed and agreed with Dr. Krantz that pediatricians should verify that children with depression are getting help even when other specialists are providing the treatment.
Dr. Krantz and Dr. Rae report no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM PAS 2024
PCP Compensation, Part 3
In Part 2 of this series on PCP Compensation, I concluded by saying that it is possible, maybe even likely, that growing your panel size will further endanger your health. When you share this concern with your boss, based purely on economic principles, he or she should answer, “How about charging more per visit?” However, your boss knows that third-party payers are going to look askance at that simple strategy. He or she may then suggest that you make each visit worth more to justify the increased charge.
Here is where the topic of Relative Value Units (RVUs) raises its ugly head.
Before the invention of “health insurance,” when the patient paid for his or her own office visits, it was an unspoken negotiation between patient and physician that decided the value of the care.
When third-party payers first came on the scene, the value of the visit was based roughly on the time spent with the patient. Coupling time spent with value gave no credit to more experienced or skilled physicians who were more efficient at managing their patients. If, on average, it took me 10 minutes to effectively manage an ear infection and my younger associate 20 minutes, should he or she be paid twice as much as I’m paid?
But, value spent on a crude estimate of time spent was a system ripe for abuse.
I have no way of knowing what other physicians were doing, but I suspect I was not alone in factoring my own assessment of “complexity” into the calculation when deciding what to bill for a visit, giving only a passing glance at the recommended time-based definitions of short, standard, and complex visits. The payers then began demanding a more definable method of determining complexity. The result was the RVU, the labor-intensive, but no more accurate, system in which the provider must build a case to defend his or her charges.
Unfortunately, the institution of the RVU system was a major contributor to the death of the short visit. The extra work required to submit and defend the coding of any visit meant that, from a strictly clerical point of view, the short visit became as costly to the business to process as a more complex visit. The result was that every astute business consultant worth his or her salt would begin with the recommendation to “Code up!” Do whatever it takes to build your case for a more complex visit even though it may be a stretch. (It would certainly mean a lot more time-gobbling documenting.) Stop doing short visits. They are your loss leaders.
Before there were RVUs, there was a way physicians could be profitable and include short visits in their schedule. But it meant the provider had to be efficient. But patients generally don’t like going to follow-up visits they see as needless. And, more often than not, the patients are correct. However, patients love the same-day availability that an abundance of short visits in a primary care provider’s schedule can offer. The patient who knows that he or she won’t have to wait weeks or months to see the provider is far less likely to show up at a visit with a laundry list as long as their arm of problems and questions they have saved up while they were waiting to get an appointment. It used to be possible to provide efficient and profitable care by including short visits in a PCP’s schedule. Whether it can still be done under the current RVU system is unclear and probably doubtful.
In the last and final Letter in this series, we will begin with a brief look at efficiency and a PCP’s contribution to overhead before exploring the more difficult subject of defining the quality of a provider’s care and how this could relate to compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In Part 2 of this series on PCP Compensation, I concluded by saying that it is possible, maybe even likely, that growing your panel size will further endanger your health. When you share this concern with your boss, based purely on economic principles, he or she should answer, “How about charging more per visit?” However, your boss knows that third-party payers are going to look askance at that simple strategy. He or she may then suggest that you make each visit worth more to justify the increased charge.
Here is where the topic of Relative Value Units (RVUs) raises its ugly head.
Before the invention of “health insurance,” when the patient paid for his or her own office visits, it was an unspoken negotiation between patient and physician that decided the value of the care.
When third-party payers first came on the scene, the value of the visit was based roughly on the time spent with the patient. Coupling time spent with value gave no credit to more experienced or skilled physicians who were more efficient at managing their patients. If, on average, it took me 10 minutes to effectively manage an ear infection and my younger associate 20 minutes, should he or she be paid twice as much as I’m paid?
But, value spent on a crude estimate of time spent was a system ripe for abuse.
I have no way of knowing what other physicians were doing, but I suspect I was not alone in factoring my own assessment of “complexity” into the calculation when deciding what to bill for a visit, giving only a passing glance at the recommended time-based definitions of short, standard, and complex visits. The payers then began demanding a more definable method of determining complexity. The result was the RVU, the labor-intensive, but no more accurate, system in which the provider must build a case to defend his or her charges.
Unfortunately, the institution of the RVU system was a major contributor to the death of the short visit. The extra work required to submit and defend the coding of any visit meant that, from a strictly clerical point of view, the short visit became as costly to the business to process as a more complex visit. The result was that every astute business consultant worth his or her salt would begin with the recommendation to “Code up!” Do whatever it takes to build your case for a more complex visit even though it may be a stretch. (It would certainly mean a lot more time-gobbling documenting.) Stop doing short visits. They are your loss leaders.
Before there were RVUs, there was a way physicians could be profitable and include short visits in their schedule. But it meant the provider had to be efficient. But patients generally don’t like going to follow-up visits they see as needless. And, more often than not, the patients are correct. However, patients love the same-day availability that an abundance of short visits in a primary care provider’s schedule can offer. The patient who knows that he or she won’t have to wait weeks or months to see the provider is far less likely to show up at a visit with a laundry list as long as their arm of problems and questions they have saved up while they were waiting to get an appointment. It used to be possible to provide efficient and profitable care by including short visits in a PCP’s schedule. Whether it can still be done under the current RVU system is unclear and probably doubtful.
In the last and final Letter in this series, we will begin with a brief look at efficiency and a PCP’s contribution to overhead before exploring the more difficult subject of defining the quality of a provider’s care and how this could relate to compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In Part 2 of this series on PCP Compensation, I concluded by saying that it is possible, maybe even likely, that growing your panel size will further endanger your health. When you share this concern with your boss, based purely on economic principles, he or she should answer, “How about charging more per visit?” However, your boss knows that third-party payers are going to look askance at that simple strategy. He or she may then suggest that you make each visit worth more to justify the increased charge.
Here is where the topic of Relative Value Units (RVUs) raises its ugly head.
Before the invention of “health insurance,” when the patient paid for his or her own office visits, it was an unspoken negotiation between patient and physician that decided the value of the care.
When third-party payers first came on the scene, the value of the visit was based roughly on the time spent with the patient. Coupling time spent with value gave no credit to more experienced or skilled physicians who were more efficient at managing their patients. If, on average, it took me 10 minutes to effectively manage an ear infection and my younger associate 20 minutes, should he or she be paid twice as much as I’m paid?
But, value spent on a crude estimate of time spent was a system ripe for abuse.
I have no way of knowing what other physicians were doing, but I suspect I was not alone in factoring my own assessment of “complexity” into the calculation when deciding what to bill for a visit, giving only a passing glance at the recommended time-based definitions of short, standard, and complex visits. The payers then began demanding a more definable method of determining complexity. The result was the RVU, the labor-intensive, but no more accurate, system in which the provider must build a case to defend his or her charges.
Unfortunately, the institution of the RVU system was a major contributor to the death of the short visit. The extra work required to submit and defend the coding of any visit meant that, from a strictly clerical point of view, the short visit became as costly to the business to process as a more complex visit. The result was that every astute business consultant worth his or her salt would begin with the recommendation to “Code up!” Do whatever it takes to build your case for a more complex visit even though it may be a stretch. (It would certainly mean a lot more time-gobbling documenting.) Stop doing short visits. They are your loss leaders.
Before there were RVUs, there was a way physicians could be profitable and include short visits in their schedule. But it meant the provider had to be efficient. But patients generally don’t like going to follow-up visits they see as needless. And, more often than not, the patients are correct. However, patients love the same-day availability that an abundance of short visits in a primary care provider’s schedule can offer. The patient who knows that he or she won’t have to wait weeks or months to see the provider is far less likely to show up at a visit with a laundry list as long as their arm of problems and questions they have saved up while they were waiting to get an appointment. It used to be possible to provide efficient and profitable care by including short visits in a PCP’s schedule. Whether it can still be done under the current RVU system is unclear and probably doubtful.
In the last and final Letter in this series, we will begin with a brief look at efficiency and a PCP’s contribution to overhead before exploring the more difficult subject of defining the quality of a provider’s care and how this could relate to compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)
Imagine this: A 15-year-old male presents to an urgent care center with a one-day history of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. He is mildly tachypneic with bilateral scattered crackles on lung exam. A rapid test for COVID-19 and influenza is positive for influenza A — a surprising result in June.
An oxygen saturation of 90% prompts transfer to the emergency department at the local children’s hospital. The emergency medicine fellow is skeptical of the presumptive diagnosis. Influenza in the summer in a boy who had not traveled outside his small hometown in the southeastern United States? A respiratory viral panel also detected influenza A, but the specimen did not type as influenza A H1 or H3. This result prompted the laboratory technician to place a call to the ordering physician. “Does this patient have risk factors for avian flu?” the tech asked.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) is not a new virus. It was discovered in waterfowl in China in 1996 and has since evolved into multiple clades and subclades, spreading to every continent on the globe except Oceania. It is called highly pathogenic because it kills a large number of the birds that it infects. In 2021, Clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI A(H5N1) viruses emerged in North America, causing large outbreaks in wild birds and farmed poultry populations, including backyard flocks. Sporadic infections have been identified in a diverse group of mammals, including foxes, raccoons, baby goats, bears, and harbor seals. In March of this year, HPAI A(H5N1) was detected for the first time in United States dairy cattle. As we go to press, the United States Department of Agriculture has detected HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle on 36 farms in 9 states.
Human infections are rare, but often severe. Following a 1997 outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in Hong Kong, 18 people were infected and 6 died. Since then, more than 900 cases have been reported in humans and approximately half of these have been fatal. The spectrum of disease includes asymptomatic infection and mild disease, as occurred recently in Texas. A dairy farm worker who was exposed to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with HPAI A(H5N1) developed conjunctivitis and no other symptoms. An individual infected in Colorado in 2022 had no symptoms other than fatigue and recovered.
Human-to-human transmission was not identified with either of these cases, although very limited, non-sustained transmission has been observed in the past, usually in family members of infected people after prolonged close exposure.
Right now, most people in the United States are not at risk for HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
Careful history taking with our illustrative and hypothetical case revealed exposure to farm animals but in a state without known cases of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle. State health department officials nevertheless agreed with further testing of the patient. Some influenza diagnostic tests cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can detect some novel influenza A viruses such as HPAI A(H5N1) but cannot distinguish between infection with seasonal influenza A or novel influenza A viruses. Molecular assays may give an “influenza A untypeable” result, as in our case. The CDC urges further testing on these untypeable specimens at local or state public health laboratories. When HPAI A(H5N1) is suspected, a negative result on a commercially available test is not considered sufficient to exclude the possibility of infection.
Our patient was admitted to the hospital and droplet, contact, and airborne precautions were instituted along with antiviral treatment with oseltamivir. Preliminary analysis of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses predicts susceptibility to currently available antivirals. The admitting physician confirmed that the boy had received influenza vaccine in the preceding season but, unfortunately, seasonal vaccines do not protect against HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
Advice for Clinicians
Given the recent media attention and public health focus on HPAI A(H5N1), frontline clinicians may start receiving questions from patients and families and perhaps requests for testing. At this point, testing is generally recommended only for individuals with risk factors or known exposures. Healthcare providers with questions about testing are encouraged to reach out to their local or state health departments.
Public health authorities have provided recommendations for protection from HPAI. These include avoiding unprotected exposures to sick or dead wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and wild or domesticated animals (including cattle). People should avoid unprotected contact with animals with suspected or confirmed HPAI A(H5N1)-virus infection or products from these animals, including raw or unpasteurized milk and raw milk products.
We can, however, reassure families that the commercial milk supply is safe. In late April, the FDA reported that HPAI viral fragments were found in one of five retail milk samples by polymerase chain reaction testing. Additional testing did not detect any live, infectious virus, indicating the effectiveness of pasteurization at inactivating the virus. Of importance to pediatricians and others pediatric clinicians, limited sampling of retail powdered infant formula and powdered milk products marketed as toddler formula revealed no viral fragments or viable virus.
The million-dollar question is whether HPAI A(H5N1) could start a new pandemic. To date, the virus has not acquired the mutations that would make it easily transmissible from person to person. If that changes and the virus does start spreading more widely, candidate vaccines that could protect against HPAI A(H5N1) have been developed and are part of the national stockpile. Let’s hope we don’t need them.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases and the physician lead for Red Book Online. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)
Imagine this: A 15-year-old male presents to an urgent care center with a one-day history of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. He is mildly tachypneic with bilateral scattered crackles on lung exam. A rapid test for COVID-19 and influenza is positive for influenza A — a surprising result in June.
An oxygen saturation of 90% prompts transfer to the emergency department at the local children’s hospital. The emergency medicine fellow is skeptical of the presumptive diagnosis. Influenza in the summer in a boy who had not traveled outside his small hometown in the southeastern United States? A respiratory viral panel also detected influenza A, but the specimen did not type as influenza A H1 or H3. This result prompted the laboratory technician to place a call to the ordering physician. “Does this patient have risk factors for avian flu?” the tech asked.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) is not a new virus. It was discovered in waterfowl in China in 1996 and has since evolved into multiple clades and subclades, spreading to every continent on the globe except Oceania. It is called highly pathogenic because it kills a large number of the birds that it infects. In 2021, Clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI A(H5N1) viruses emerged in North America, causing large outbreaks in wild birds and farmed poultry populations, including backyard flocks. Sporadic infections have been identified in a diverse group of mammals, including foxes, raccoons, baby goats, bears, and harbor seals. In March of this year, HPAI A(H5N1) was detected for the first time in United States dairy cattle. As we go to press, the United States Department of Agriculture has detected HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle on 36 farms in 9 states.
Human infections are rare, but often severe. Following a 1997 outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in Hong Kong, 18 people were infected and 6 died. Since then, more than 900 cases have been reported in humans and approximately half of these have been fatal. The spectrum of disease includes asymptomatic infection and mild disease, as occurred recently in Texas. A dairy farm worker who was exposed to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with HPAI A(H5N1) developed conjunctivitis and no other symptoms. An individual infected in Colorado in 2022 had no symptoms other than fatigue and recovered.
Human-to-human transmission was not identified with either of these cases, although very limited, non-sustained transmission has been observed in the past, usually in family members of infected people after prolonged close exposure.
Right now, most people in the United States are not at risk for HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
Careful history taking with our illustrative and hypothetical case revealed exposure to farm animals but in a state without known cases of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle. State health department officials nevertheless agreed with further testing of the patient. Some influenza diagnostic tests cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can detect some novel influenza A viruses such as HPAI A(H5N1) but cannot distinguish between infection with seasonal influenza A or novel influenza A viruses. Molecular assays may give an “influenza A untypeable” result, as in our case. The CDC urges further testing on these untypeable specimens at local or state public health laboratories. When HPAI A(H5N1) is suspected, a negative result on a commercially available test is not considered sufficient to exclude the possibility of infection.
Our patient was admitted to the hospital and droplet, contact, and airborne precautions were instituted along with antiviral treatment with oseltamivir. Preliminary analysis of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses predicts susceptibility to currently available antivirals. The admitting physician confirmed that the boy had received influenza vaccine in the preceding season but, unfortunately, seasonal vaccines do not protect against HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
Advice for Clinicians
Given the recent media attention and public health focus on HPAI A(H5N1), frontline clinicians may start receiving questions from patients and families and perhaps requests for testing. At this point, testing is generally recommended only for individuals with risk factors or known exposures. Healthcare providers with questions about testing are encouraged to reach out to their local or state health departments.
Public health authorities have provided recommendations for protection from HPAI. These include avoiding unprotected exposures to sick or dead wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and wild or domesticated animals (including cattle). People should avoid unprotected contact with animals with suspected or confirmed HPAI A(H5N1)-virus infection or products from these animals, including raw or unpasteurized milk and raw milk products.
We can, however, reassure families that the commercial milk supply is safe. In late April, the FDA reported that HPAI viral fragments were found in one of five retail milk samples by polymerase chain reaction testing. Additional testing did not detect any live, infectious virus, indicating the effectiveness of pasteurization at inactivating the virus. Of importance to pediatricians and others pediatric clinicians, limited sampling of retail powdered infant formula and powdered milk products marketed as toddler formula revealed no viral fragments or viable virus.
The million-dollar question is whether HPAI A(H5N1) could start a new pandemic. To date, the virus has not acquired the mutations that would make it easily transmissible from person to person. If that changes and the virus does start spreading more widely, candidate vaccines that could protect against HPAI A(H5N1) have been developed and are part of the national stockpile. Let’s hope we don’t need them.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases and the physician lead for Red Book Online. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)
Imagine this: A 15-year-old male presents to an urgent care center with a one-day history of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. He is mildly tachypneic with bilateral scattered crackles on lung exam. A rapid test for COVID-19 and influenza is positive for influenza A — a surprising result in June.
An oxygen saturation of 90% prompts transfer to the emergency department at the local children’s hospital. The emergency medicine fellow is skeptical of the presumptive diagnosis. Influenza in the summer in a boy who had not traveled outside his small hometown in the southeastern United States? A respiratory viral panel also detected influenza A, but the specimen did not type as influenza A H1 or H3. This result prompted the laboratory technician to place a call to the ordering physician. “Does this patient have risk factors for avian flu?” the tech asked.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) is not a new virus. It was discovered in waterfowl in China in 1996 and has since evolved into multiple clades and subclades, spreading to every continent on the globe except Oceania. It is called highly pathogenic because it kills a large number of the birds that it infects. In 2021, Clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI A(H5N1) viruses emerged in North America, causing large outbreaks in wild birds and farmed poultry populations, including backyard flocks. Sporadic infections have been identified in a diverse group of mammals, including foxes, raccoons, baby goats, bears, and harbor seals. In March of this year, HPAI A(H5N1) was detected for the first time in United States dairy cattle. As we go to press, the United States Department of Agriculture has detected HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle on 36 farms in 9 states.
Human infections are rare, but often severe. Following a 1997 outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in Hong Kong, 18 people were infected and 6 died. Since then, more than 900 cases have been reported in humans and approximately half of these have been fatal. The spectrum of disease includes asymptomatic infection and mild disease, as occurred recently in Texas. A dairy farm worker who was exposed to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with HPAI A(H5N1) developed conjunctivitis and no other symptoms. An individual infected in Colorado in 2022 had no symptoms other than fatigue and recovered.
Human-to-human transmission was not identified with either of these cases, although very limited, non-sustained transmission has been observed in the past, usually in family members of infected people after prolonged close exposure.
Right now, most people in the United States are not at risk for HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
Careful history taking with our illustrative and hypothetical case revealed exposure to farm animals but in a state without known cases of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle. State health department officials nevertheless agreed with further testing of the patient. Some influenza diagnostic tests cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can detect some novel influenza A viruses such as HPAI A(H5N1) but cannot distinguish between infection with seasonal influenza A or novel influenza A viruses. Molecular assays may give an “influenza A untypeable” result, as in our case. The CDC urges further testing on these untypeable specimens at local or state public health laboratories. When HPAI A(H5N1) is suspected, a negative result on a commercially available test is not considered sufficient to exclude the possibility of infection.
Our patient was admitted to the hospital and droplet, contact, and airborne precautions were instituted along with antiviral treatment with oseltamivir. Preliminary analysis of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses predicts susceptibility to currently available antivirals. The admitting physician confirmed that the boy had received influenza vaccine in the preceding season but, unfortunately, seasonal vaccines do not protect against HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
Advice for Clinicians
Given the recent media attention and public health focus on HPAI A(H5N1), frontline clinicians may start receiving questions from patients and families and perhaps requests for testing. At this point, testing is generally recommended only for individuals with risk factors or known exposures. Healthcare providers with questions about testing are encouraged to reach out to their local or state health departments.
Public health authorities have provided recommendations for protection from HPAI. These include avoiding unprotected exposures to sick or dead wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and wild or domesticated animals (including cattle). People should avoid unprotected contact with animals with suspected or confirmed HPAI A(H5N1)-virus infection or products from these animals, including raw or unpasteurized milk and raw milk products.
We can, however, reassure families that the commercial milk supply is safe. In late April, the FDA reported that HPAI viral fragments were found in one of five retail milk samples by polymerase chain reaction testing. Additional testing did not detect any live, infectious virus, indicating the effectiveness of pasteurization at inactivating the virus. Of importance to pediatricians and others pediatric clinicians, limited sampling of retail powdered infant formula and powdered milk products marketed as toddler formula revealed no viral fragments or viable virus.
The million-dollar question is whether HPAI A(H5N1) could start a new pandemic. To date, the virus has not acquired the mutations that would make it easily transmissible from person to person. If that changes and the virus does start spreading more widely, candidate vaccines that could protect against HPAI A(H5N1) have been developed and are part of the national stockpile. Let’s hope we don’t need them.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases and the physician lead for Red Book Online. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)
Survey Spotlights Identification of Dermatologic Adverse Events From Cancer Therapies
“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.
The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”
To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.
Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).
“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”
Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”
Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.
“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”
Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.
The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”
To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.
Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).
“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”
Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”
Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.
“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”
Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.
The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”
To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.
Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).
“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”
Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”
Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.
“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”
Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAD 2024