User login
Special Report II: Tackling Burnout
Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences.
From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus.
From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout.
Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.
There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.
2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated.
3) Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.
How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model?
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:
- Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting.
- Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
- The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
- Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
- Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.
The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation.
*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5
Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences.
From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus.
From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout.
Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.
There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.
2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated.
3) Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.
How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model?
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:
- Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting.
- Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
- The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
- Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
- Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.
The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation.
*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5
Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences.
From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus.
From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout.
Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.
There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.
2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated.
3) Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.
How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model?
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:
- Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting.
- Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
- The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
- Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
- Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.
The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation.
*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5
Transplantation palliative care: The time is ripe
Over 10 years ago, a challenge was made in a surgical publication for increased collaboration between the fields of transplantation and palliative care.1
Since that time not much progress has been made bringing these fields together in a consistent way that would mutually benefit patients and the specialties. However, other progress has been made, particularly in the field of palliative care, which could brighten the prospects and broaden the opportunities to accomplish collaboration between palliative care and transplantation.
Growth of palliative services
During the past decade there has been a robust proliferation of hospital-based palliative care programs in the United States. In all, 67% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds report palliative care teams, up from 63% in 2011 and 53% in 2008.
Only a decade ago, critical care and palliative care were generally considered mutually exclusive. Evidence is trickling in to suggest that this is no longer the case. Although palliative care was not an integral part of critical care at that time, patients, families, and even practitioners began to demand these services. Cook and Rocker have eloquently advocated the rightful place of palliative care in the ICU.2
Studies in recent years have shown that the integration of palliative care into critical care decreases in length of ICU and hospital stay, decreases costs, enhances patient/family satisfaction, and promotes a more rapid consensus about goals of care, without increasing mortality. The ICU experience to date could be considered a reassuring precedent for transplantation palliative care.
Integration of palliative care with transplantation
Early palliative care intervention has been shown to improve symptom burden and depression scores in end-stage liver disease patients awaiting transplant. In addition, early palliative care consultation in conjunction with cancer treatment has been associated with increased survival in non–small-cell lung cancer patients. It has been demonstrated that early integration of palliative care in the surgical ICU alongside disease-directed curative care can be accomplished without change in mortality, while improving end-of-life practice in liver transplant patients.3
What palliative care can do for transplant patients
What does palliative care mean for the person (and family) awaiting transplantation? For the cirrhotic patient with cachexia, ascites, and encephalopathy, it means access to the services of a team trained in the management of these symptoms. Palliative care teams can also provide psychosocial and spiritual support for patients and families who are intimidated by the complex navigation of the health care system and the existential threat that end-stage organ failure presents to them. Skilled palliative care and services can be the difference between failing and extended life with a higher quality of life for these very sick patients
Resuscitation of a patient, whether through restoration of organ function or interdicting the progression of disease, begins with resuscitation of hope. Nothing achieves this more quickly than amelioration of burdensome symptoms for the patient and family.
The barriers for transplant surgeons and teams referring and incorporating palliative care services in their practices are multiple and profound. The unique dilemma facing the transplant team is to balance the treatment of the failing organ, the treatment of the patient (and family and friends), and the best use of the graft, a precious gift of society.
Palliative surgery has been defined as any invasive procedure in which the main intention is to mitigate physical symptoms in patients with noncurable disease without causing premature death. The very success of transplantation over the past 3 decades has obscured our memory of transplantation as a type of palliative surgery. It is a well-known axiom of reconstructive surgery that the reconstructed site should be compared to what was there, not to “normal.” Even in the current era of improved immunosuppression and posttransplant support services, one could hardly describe even a successful transplant patient’s experience as “normal.” These patients’ lives may be extended and/or enhanced but they need palliative care before, during, and after transplantation. The growing availability of trained palliative care clinicians and teams, the increased familiarity of palliative and end-of-life care to surgical residents and fellows, and quality metrics measuring palliative care outcomes will provide reassurance and guidance to address reservations about the convergence of the two seemingly opposite realities.
A modest proposal
We propose that palliative care be presented to the entire spectrum of transplantation care: on the ward, in the ICU, and after transplantation. More specific “triggers” for palliative care for referral of transplant patients should be identified. Wentlandt et al.4 have described a promising model for an ambulatory clinic, which provides early, integrated palliative care to patients awaiting and receiving organ transplantation. In addition, we propose an application for grant funding for a conference and eventual formation of a work group of transplant surgeons and team members, palliative care clinicians, and patient/families who have experienced one of the aspects of the transplant spectrum. We await the subspecialty certification in hospice and palliative medicine of a transplant surgeon. Outside of transplantation, every other surgical specialty in the United States has diplomates certified in hospice and palliative medicine. We await the benefits that will accrue from research about the merging of these fields.
1. Molmenti EP, Dunn GP: Transplantation and palliative care: The convergence of two seemingly opposite realities. Surg Clin North Am. 2005;85:373-82.
2. Cook D, Rocker G. Dying with dignity in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2506-14.
3. Lamba S, Murphy P, McVicker S, Smith JH, and Mosenthal AC. Changing end-of-life care practice for liver transplant patients: structured palliative care intervention in the surgical intensive care unit. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012; 44(4):508-19.
4. Wentlandt, K., Dall’Osto, A., Freeman, N., Le, L. W., Kaya, E., Ross, H., Singer, L. G., Abbey, S., Clarke, H. and Zimmermann, C. (2016), The Transplant Palliative Care Clinic: An early palliative care model for patients in a transplant program. Clin Transplant. 2016 Nov 4; doi: 10.1111/ctr.12838.
Dr. Azoulay is a transplantation specialist of Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, and the University of Paris. Dr. Dunn is medical director of the Palliative Care Consultation Service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, and vice-chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.
Over 10 years ago, a challenge was made in a surgical publication for increased collaboration between the fields of transplantation and palliative care.1
Since that time not much progress has been made bringing these fields together in a consistent way that would mutually benefit patients and the specialties. However, other progress has been made, particularly in the field of palliative care, which could brighten the prospects and broaden the opportunities to accomplish collaboration between palliative care and transplantation.
Growth of palliative services
During the past decade there has been a robust proliferation of hospital-based palliative care programs in the United States. In all, 67% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds report palliative care teams, up from 63% in 2011 and 53% in 2008.
Only a decade ago, critical care and palliative care were generally considered mutually exclusive. Evidence is trickling in to suggest that this is no longer the case. Although palliative care was not an integral part of critical care at that time, patients, families, and even practitioners began to demand these services. Cook and Rocker have eloquently advocated the rightful place of palliative care in the ICU.2
Studies in recent years have shown that the integration of palliative care into critical care decreases in length of ICU and hospital stay, decreases costs, enhances patient/family satisfaction, and promotes a more rapid consensus about goals of care, without increasing mortality. The ICU experience to date could be considered a reassuring precedent for transplantation palliative care.
Integration of palliative care with transplantation
Early palliative care intervention has been shown to improve symptom burden and depression scores in end-stage liver disease patients awaiting transplant. In addition, early palliative care consultation in conjunction with cancer treatment has been associated with increased survival in non–small-cell lung cancer patients. It has been demonstrated that early integration of palliative care in the surgical ICU alongside disease-directed curative care can be accomplished without change in mortality, while improving end-of-life practice in liver transplant patients.3
What palliative care can do for transplant patients
What does palliative care mean for the person (and family) awaiting transplantation? For the cirrhotic patient with cachexia, ascites, and encephalopathy, it means access to the services of a team trained in the management of these symptoms. Palliative care teams can also provide psychosocial and spiritual support for patients and families who are intimidated by the complex navigation of the health care system and the existential threat that end-stage organ failure presents to them. Skilled palliative care and services can be the difference between failing and extended life with a higher quality of life for these very sick patients
Resuscitation of a patient, whether through restoration of organ function or interdicting the progression of disease, begins with resuscitation of hope. Nothing achieves this more quickly than amelioration of burdensome symptoms for the patient and family.
The barriers for transplant surgeons and teams referring and incorporating palliative care services in their practices are multiple and profound. The unique dilemma facing the transplant team is to balance the treatment of the failing organ, the treatment of the patient (and family and friends), and the best use of the graft, a precious gift of society.
Palliative surgery has been defined as any invasive procedure in which the main intention is to mitigate physical symptoms in patients with noncurable disease without causing premature death. The very success of transplantation over the past 3 decades has obscured our memory of transplantation as a type of palliative surgery. It is a well-known axiom of reconstructive surgery that the reconstructed site should be compared to what was there, not to “normal.” Even in the current era of improved immunosuppression and posttransplant support services, one could hardly describe even a successful transplant patient’s experience as “normal.” These patients’ lives may be extended and/or enhanced but they need palliative care before, during, and after transplantation. The growing availability of trained palliative care clinicians and teams, the increased familiarity of palliative and end-of-life care to surgical residents and fellows, and quality metrics measuring palliative care outcomes will provide reassurance and guidance to address reservations about the convergence of the two seemingly opposite realities.
A modest proposal
We propose that palliative care be presented to the entire spectrum of transplantation care: on the ward, in the ICU, and after transplantation. More specific “triggers” for palliative care for referral of transplant patients should be identified. Wentlandt et al.4 have described a promising model for an ambulatory clinic, which provides early, integrated palliative care to patients awaiting and receiving organ transplantation. In addition, we propose an application for grant funding for a conference and eventual formation of a work group of transplant surgeons and team members, palliative care clinicians, and patient/families who have experienced one of the aspects of the transplant spectrum. We await the subspecialty certification in hospice and palliative medicine of a transplant surgeon. Outside of transplantation, every other surgical specialty in the United States has diplomates certified in hospice and palliative medicine. We await the benefits that will accrue from research about the merging of these fields.
1. Molmenti EP, Dunn GP: Transplantation and palliative care: The convergence of two seemingly opposite realities. Surg Clin North Am. 2005;85:373-82.
2. Cook D, Rocker G. Dying with dignity in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2506-14.
3. Lamba S, Murphy P, McVicker S, Smith JH, and Mosenthal AC. Changing end-of-life care practice for liver transplant patients: structured palliative care intervention in the surgical intensive care unit. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012; 44(4):508-19.
4. Wentlandt, K., Dall’Osto, A., Freeman, N., Le, L. W., Kaya, E., Ross, H., Singer, L. G., Abbey, S., Clarke, H. and Zimmermann, C. (2016), The Transplant Palliative Care Clinic: An early palliative care model for patients in a transplant program. Clin Transplant. 2016 Nov 4; doi: 10.1111/ctr.12838.
Dr. Azoulay is a transplantation specialist of Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, and the University of Paris. Dr. Dunn is medical director of the Palliative Care Consultation Service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, and vice-chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.
Over 10 years ago, a challenge was made in a surgical publication for increased collaboration between the fields of transplantation and palliative care.1
Since that time not much progress has been made bringing these fields together in a consistent way that would mutually benefit patients and the specialties. However, other progress has been made, particularly in the field of palliative care, which could brighten the prospects and broaden the opportunities to accomplish collaboration between palliative care and transplantation.
Growth of palliative services
During the past decade there has been a robust proliferation of hospital-based palliative care programs in the United States. In all, 67% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds report palliative care teams, up from 63% in 2011 and 53% in 2008.
Only a decade ago, critical care and palliative care were generally considered mutually exclusive. Evidence is trickling in to suggest that this is no longer the case. Although palliative care was not an integral part of critical care at that time, patients, families, and even practitioners began to demand these services. Cook and Rocker have eloquently advocated the rightful place of palliative care in the ICU.2
Studies in recent years have shown that the integration of palliative care into critical care decreases in length of ICU and hospital stay, decreases costs, enhances patient/family satisfaction, and promotes a more rapid consensus about goals of care, without increasing mortality. The ICU experience to date could be considered a reassuring precedent for transplantation palliative care.
Integration of palliative care with transplantation
Early palliative care intervention has been shown to improve symptom burden and depression scores in end-stage liver disease patients awaiting transplant. In addition, early palliative care consultation in conjunction with cancer treatment has been associated with increased survival in non–small-cell lung cancer patients. It has been demonstrated that early integration of palliative care in the surgical ICU alongside disease-directed curative care can be accomplished without change in mortality, while improving end-of-life practice in liver transplant patients.3
What palliative care can do for transplant patients
What does palliative care mean for the person (and family) awaiting transplantation? For the cirrhotic patient with cachexia, ascites, and encephalopathy, it means access to the services of a team trained in the management of these symptoms. Palliative care teams can also provide psychosocial and spiritual support for patients and families who are intimidated by the complex navigation of the health care system and the existential threat that end-stage organ failure presents to them. Skilled palliative care and services can be the difference between failing and extended life with a higher quality of life for these very sick patients
Resuscitation of a patient, whether through restoration of organ function or interdicting the progression of disease, begins with resuscitation of hope. Nothing achieves this more quickly than amelioration of burdensome symptoms for the patient and family.
The barriers for transplant surgeons and teams referring and incorporating palliative care services in their practices are multiple and profound. The unique dilemma facing the transplant team is to balance the treatment of the failing organ, the treatment of the patient (and family and friends), and the best use of the graft, a precious gift of society.
Palliative surgery has been defined as any invasive procedure in which the main intention is to mitigate physical symptoms in patients with noncurable disease without causing premature death. The very success of transplantation over the past 3 decades has obscured our memory of transplantation as a type of palliative surgery. It is a well-known axiom of reconstructive surgery that the reconstructed site should be compared to what was there, not to “normal.” Even in the current era of improved immunosuppression and posttransplant support services, one could hardly describe even a successful transplant patient’s experience as “normal.” These patients’ lives may be extended and/or enhanced but they need palliative care before, during, and after transplantation. The growing availability of trained palliative care clinicians and teams, the increased familiarity of palliative and end-of-life care to surgical residents and fellows, and quality metrics measuring palliative care outcomes will provide reassurance and guidance to address reservations about the convergence of the two seemingly opposite realities.
A modest proposal
We propose that palliative care be presented to the entire spectrum of transplantation care: on the ward, in the ICU, and after transplantation. More specific “triggers” for palliative care for referral of transplant patients should be identified. Wentlandt et al.4 have described a promising model for an ambulatory clinic, which provides early, integrated palliative care to patients awaiting and receiving organ transplantation. In addition, we propose an application for grant funding for a conference and eventual formation of a work group of transplant surgeons and team members, palliative care clinicians, and patient/families who have experienced one of the aspects of the transplant spectrum. We await the subspecialty certification in hospice and palliative medicine of a transplant surgeon. Outside of transplantation, every other surgical specialty in the United States has diplomates certified in hospice and palliative medicine. We await the benefits that will accrue from research about the merging of these fields.
1. Molmenti EP, Dunn GP: Transplantation and palliative care: The convergence of two seemingly opposite realities. Surg Clin North Am. 2005;85:373-82.
2. Cook D, Rocker G. Dying with dignity in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2506-14.
3. Lamba S, Murphy P, McVicker S, Smith JH, and Mosenthal AC. Changing end-of-life care practice for liver transplant patients: structured palliative care intervention in the surgical intensive care unit. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012; 44(4):508-19.
4. Wentlandt, K., Dall’Osto, A., Freeman, N., Le, L. W., Kaya, E., Ross, H., Singer, L. G., Abbey, S., Clarke, H. and Zimmermann, C. (2016), The Transplant Palliative Care Clinic: An early palliative care model for patients in a transplant program. Clin Transplant. 2016 Nov 4; doi: 10.1111/ctr.12838.
Dr. Azoulay is a transplantation specialist of Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, and the University of Paris. Dr. Dunn is medical director of the Palliative Care Consultation Service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, and vice-chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.
Update on Management of Atopic Dermatitis in Young Children
Update on Management of Atopic Dermatitis in Young Children
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition associated with skin barrier impairment and immune system dysregulation.1 Development of AD in young children can present challenges in determining appropriate treatment regimens. Natural remedies for AD often are promoted on social media over traditional treatments, including topical corticosteroids (TCSs), which can contribute to corticophobia.2 Dermatologists play a critical role not only in optimizing topical therapy but also addressing patient interest in natural approaches to AD, including diet-related questions. This article outlines the role of diet and probiotics in pediatric AD and reviews the topical treatments currently approved for this patient population.
Diet and Probiotics
With a growing focus on natural therapies for AD, dietary interventions have come to the forefront. A prevalent theme among patients and their families is addressing gut health and allergic triggers. Broad elimination diets have not shown clinical benefit in patients with AD regardless of age,3 and in children, they may result in nutritional deficiencies, poor growth, and increased risk for IgE-mediated food allergies.4 If a true food allergy is identified based on positive IgE and an acute clinical reaction, elimination of the allergen may provide some benefit.5
The link between gut microbiota and skin health has driven an interest in the role of probiotics in the treatment of pediatric AD. A meta-analysis of 20 articles concluded that, whether administered to infants or breastfeeding mothers, use of probiotics overall led to a significant reduction in AD risk in infants (P=.001). Lactobacillus and mixed strains were effective.6 While broad elimination diets are not used to treat AD, probiotic supplementation can be considered for prevention of AD.
Topical Corticosteroids
Topical corticosteroids are the cornerstone of AD treatment; however, corticophobia among patients is on the rise, leading to poor adherence and suboptimal control of AD.7 Mild cutaneous adverse effects (AEs) including skin atrophy, striae, and telangiectasias may occur. Rarely, systemic AEs occur due to absorption of TCSs into the bloodstream, mainly with application of potent steroids over large body surface areas or under occlusion.8 When the optimal potency of a TCS is chosen and used appropriately, incidence of AEs from TCS use is very low.9
Counseling parents about risk factors that can lead to AEs during treatment with TCSs and formulating regimens that minimize these risks while maintaining efficacy increases adherence and outcomes. Pulse maintenance dosing of TCSs typically involves application 1 to 2 times weekly to areas of the skin that are prone to frequent outbreaks. Pulse maintenance dosing can reduce the incidence of AD flares while also decreasing the total amount of topical medication needed as compared to the reactive approach alone, thereby reducing risk for AEs.8
Steroid-Sparing Topical Treatments
Although TCSs are considered first-line agents, recently there has been an advent of steroid-sparing topical agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric patients with AD, including topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, a Janus kinase inhibitor, and aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists. Offering steroid-sparing agents in these patients can help ease parental anxiety regarding TCS overuse.
Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors—Pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% are approved for patients aged 2 years and older and have anti-inflammatory and antipruritic effects equivalent to low-potency TCS. Tacrolimus ointment 0.1% is approved for patients aged 16 years and older with similar efficacy to a midpotency TCSs. Pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% often are used off-label in children younger than 2 years, as supported by clinical trials showing their safety and efficacy.10
Topical calcineurin inhibitors can replace or supplement TCSs, making TCIs a desirable option for avoidance of steroid-related AEs. The addition of a TCI to spot treatment or a pulse regimen in a young patient can reassure them and their caregivers that the provider is proactively reducing the risk of TCS overuse. The largest barrier to TCI use is the FDA’s black box warning based on the oral formulation of tacrolimus, citing a potential increased risk for lymphoma and skin cancer; however, there is no evidence for substantial systemic absorption of topical pimecrolimus or tacrolimus.11 Large task-force reviews have found no association between TCI use and development of malignancy.12,13 Based on the current data, counseling patients and their caregivers that this risk primarily is theoretical may help them more confidently integrate TCIs into their treatment regimen. Burning and tingling may occur in a minority of pediatric patients using TCIs for AD. Applying the medication to open wounds or inflamed skin increases the risk for stinging, but pretreatment with a short course of TCSs before transitioning to a TCI may boost tolerance.14
Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitors—Crisaborole ointment 2%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is approved for children aged 3 months and older with mild to moderate AD. Its use has been more limited than TCSs and TCIs, as local irritation including stinging and burning can occur in up to 50% of patients.15 One study comparing crisaborole 2% with tacrolimus 0.03% revealed greater improvement with tacrolimus.16 A second phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for once-daily use in children aged 6 years and older with mild to moderate AD is roflumilast cream 0.15%. Roflumilast reduces eczema severity and pruritus, with AEs also limited to application-site stinging and burning.17
Janus Kinase Inhibitor—Ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, a Janus kinase inhibitor, has been approved by the FDA since 2023 for twice-daily use in children aged 12 years and older with AD. Similar to TCIs, ruxolitinib cream carries a black box warning. Short-term safety data on ruxolitinib cream have revealed low levels of ruxolitinib concentration in plasma18; however, long-term studies on topical Janus kinase inhibitors for AD in pediatric and adult populations are lacking. To reduce the risk for systemic absorption, recommendations include limiting usage to 60 g per week and limiting treatment to less than 20% of the body surface area.19 Ruxolitinib has efficacy similar to or possibly superior to triamcinolone 0.1%.20 Ruxolitinib is emerging as a promising nonsteroidal option that potentially is highly efficacious and well tolerated without cutaneous AEs.
Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Agonist—Tapinarof cream 1% is an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that has been approved by the FDA since 2024 for children aged 2 years and older as a once-daily treatment for moderate to severe AD. Adverse events include folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, and headache, which are mostly mild or moderate.21
Final Thoughts
Topical management of pediatric AD includes traditional therapy with TCSs and newer steroid-sparing agents, which can help address corticophobia. Anticipatory guidance regarding the safety and long-term effects of individual therapies is critical to ensuring patient adherence to treatment regimens. Probiotics may help prevent pediatric AD, but future studies are needed to determine their role in treatment.
- Weidinger S, Beck LA, Bieber T, et al. Atopic dermatitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4:1.
- Voillot P, Riche B, Portafax M, et al. Social media platforms listening study on atopic dermatitis: quantitative and qualitative findings. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24:E31140.
- Bath-Hextall F, Delamere FM, Williams HC. Dietary exclusions for improving established atopic eczema in adults and children: systematic review. Allergy. 2009;64:258-264.
- Rustad AM, Nickles MA, Bilimoria SN, et al. The role of diet modification in atopic dermatitis: navigating the complexity. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022;23:27-36.
- Khan A, Adalsteinsson J, Whitaker-Worth DL. Atopic dermatitis and nutrition. Clin Dermatol. 2022;40:135-144.
- Chen L, Ni Y, Wu X, et al. Probiotics for the prevention of atopic dermatitis in infants from different geographic regions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33:2931-2939.
- Herzum A, Occella C, Gariazzo L, et al. Corticophobia among parents of children with atopic dermatitis: assessing major and minor risk factors for high TOPICOP scores. J Clin Med. 2023;12:6813.
- Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:116-132.
- Callen J, Chamlin S, Eichenfield LF, et al. A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:203-221.
- Reitamo S, Rustin M, Ruzicka T, et al. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment compared with that of hydrocortisone butyrate ointment in adult patients with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;109:547-555.
- Thaçi D, Salgo R. Malignancy concerns of topical calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis: facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol. 2010;28:52-56.
- Berger TG, Duvic M, Van Voorhees AS, et al. The use of topical calcineurin inhibitors in dermatology: safety concerns. report of the AAD Association Task Force. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54:818-823.
- Fonacier L, Spergel J, Charlesworth EN, et al. Report of the Topical Calcineurin Inhibitor Task Force of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115:1249-1253.
- Eichenfield LF, Lucky AW, Boguniewicz M, et al. Safety and efficacy of pimecrolimus (ASM 981) cream 1% in the treatment of mild and moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:495-504.
- Lin CPL, Gordon S, Her MJ, et al. A retrospective study: application site pain with the use of crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1451-1453.
- Ryan Wolf J, Chen A, Wieser J, et al. Improved patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes distinguish tacrolimus 0.03% from crisaborole in children with atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024;38:1364-1372.
- Simpson EL, Eichenfield LF, Alonso-Llamazares J, et al. Roflumilast cream, 0.15%, for atopic dermatitis in adults and children: INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2 randomized clinical trials. JAMA Dermatol. 2024;160:1161-1170.
- Papp K, Szepietowski JC, Kircik L, et al. Long-term safety and disease control with ruxolitinib cream in atopic dermatitis: results from two phase 3 studies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:1008-1016.
- Sidbury R, Alikhan A, Bercovitch L, et al. Guidelines of carefor the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:E1-E20.
- Sadeghi S, Mohandesi NA. Efficacy and safety of topical JAK inhibitors in the treatment of atopic dermatitis in paediatrics and adults: a systematic review. Exp Dermatol. 2023;32:599-610.
- Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024;91:457-465.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition associated with skin barrier impairment and immune system dysregulation.1 Development of AD in young children can present challenges in determining appropriate treatment regimens. Natural remedies for AD often are promoted on social media over traditional treatments, including topical corticosteroids (TCSs), which can contribute to corticophobia.2 Dermatologists play a critical role not only in optimizing topical therapy but also addressing patient interest in natural approaches to AD, including diet-related questions. This article outlines the role of diet and probiotics in pediatric AD and reviews the topical treatments currently approved for this patient population.
Diet and Probiotics
With a growing focus on natural therapies for AD, dietary interventions have come to the forefront. A prevalent theme among patients and their families is addressing gut health and allergic triggers. Broad elimination diets have not shown clinical benefit in patients with AD regardless of age,3 and in children, they may result in nutritional deficiencies, poor growth, and increased risk for IgE-mediated food allergies.4 If a true food allergy is identified based on positive IgE and an acute clinical reaction, elimination of the allergen may provide some benefit.5
The link between gut microbiota and skin health has driven an interest in the role of probiotics in the treatment of pediatric AD. A meta-analysis of 20 articles concluded that, whether administered to infants or breastfeeding mothers, use of probiotics overall led to a significant reduction in AD risk in infants (P=.001). Lactobacillus and mixed strains were effective.6 While broad elimination diets are not used to treat AD, probiotic supplementation can be considered for prevention of AD.
Topical Corticosteroids
Topical corticosteroids are the cornerstone of AD treatment; however, corticophobia among patients is on the rise, leading to poor adherence and suboptimal control of AD.7 Mild cutaneous adverse effects (AEs) including skin atrophy, striae, and telangiectasias may occur. Rarely, systemic AEs occur due to absorption of TCSs into the bloodstream, mainly with application of potent steroids over large body surface areas or under occlusion.8 When the optimal potency of a TCS is chosen and used appropriately, incidence of AEs from TCS use is very low.9
Counseling parents about risk factors that can lead to AEs during treatment with TCSs and formulating regimens that minimize these risks while maintaining efficacy increases adherence and outcomes. Pulse maintenance dosing of TCSs typically involves application 1 to 2 times weekly to areas of the skin that are prone to frequent outbreaks. Pulse maintenance dosing can reduce the incidence of AD flares while also decreasing the total amount of topical medication needed as compared to the reactive approach alone, thereby reducing risk for AEs.8
Steroid-Sparing Topical Treatments
Although TCSs are considered first-line agents, recently there has been an advent of steroid-sparing topical agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric patients with AD, including topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, a Janus kinase inhibitor, and aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists. Offering steroid-sparing agents in these patients can help ease parental anxiety regarding TCS overuse.
Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors—Pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% are approved for patients aged 2 years and older and have anti-inflammatory and antipruritic effects equivalent to low-potency TCS. Tacrolimus ointment 0.1% is approved for patients aged 16 years and older with similar efficacy to a midpotency TCSs. Pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% often are used off-label in children younger than 2 years, as supported by clinical trials showing their safety and efficacy.10
Topical calcineurin inhibitors can replace or supplement TCSs, making TCIs a desirable option for avoidance of steroid-related AEs. The addition of a TCI to spot treatment or a pulse regimen in a young patient can reassure them and their caregivers that the provider is proactively reducing the risk of TCS overuse. The largest barrier to TCI use is the FDA’s black box warning based on the oral formulation of tacrolimus, citing a potential increased risk for lymphoma and skin cancer; however, there is no evidence for substantial systemic absorption of topical pimecrolimus or tacrolimus.11 Large task-force reviews have found no association between TCI use and development of malignancy.12,13 Based on the current data, counseling patients and their caregivers that this risk primarily is theoretical may help them more confidently integrate TCIs into their treatment regimen. Burning and tingling may occur in a minority of pediatric patients using TCIs for AD. Applying the medication to open wounds or inflamed skin increases the risk for stinging, but pretreatment with a short course of TCSs before transitioning to a TCI may boost tolerance.14
Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitors—Crisaborole ointment 2%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is approved for children aged 3 months and older with mild to moderate AD. Its use has been more limited than TCSs and TCIs, as local irritation including stinging and burning can occur in up to 50% of patients.15 One study comparing crisaborole 2% with tacrolimus 0.03% revealed greater improvement with tacrolimus.16 A second phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for once-daily use in children aged 6 years and older with mild to moderate AD is roflumilast cream 0.15%. Roflumilast reduces eczema severity and pruritus, with AEs also limited to application-site stinging and burning.17
Janus Kinase Inhibitor—Ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, a Janus kinase inhibitor, has been approved by the FDA since 2023 for twice-daily use in children aged 12 years and older with AD. Similar to TCIs, ruxolitinib cream carries a black box warning. Short-term safety data on ruxolitinib cream have revealed low levels of ruxolitinib concentration in plasma18; however, long-term studies on topical Janus kinase inhibitors for AD in pediatric and adult populations are lacking. To reduce the risk for systemic absorption, recommendations include limiting usage to 60 g per week and limiting treatment to less than 20% of the body surface area.19 Ruxolitinib has efficacy similar to or possibly superior to triamcinolone 0.1%.20 Ruxolitinib is emerging as a promising nonsteroidal option that potentially is highly efficacious and well tolerated without cutaneous AEs.
Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Agonist—Tapinarof cream 1% is an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that has been approved by the FDA since 2024 for children aged 2 years and older as a once-daily treatment for moderate to severe AD. Adverse events include folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, and headache, which are mostly mild or moderate.21
Final Thoughts
Topical management of pediatric AD includes traditional therapy with TCSs and newer steroid-sparing agents, which can help address corticophobia. Anticipatory guidance regarding the safety and long-term effects of individual therapies is critical to ensuring patient adherence to treatment regimens. Probiotics may help prevent pediatric AD, but future studies are needed to determine their role in treatment.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition associated with skin barrier impairment and immune system dysregulation.1 Development of AD in young children can present challenges in determining appropriate treatment regimens. Natural remedies for AD often are promoted on social media over traditional treatments, including topical corticosteroids (TCSs), which can contribute to corticophobia.2 Dermatologists play a critical role not only in optimizing topical therapy but also addressing patient interest in natural approaches to AD, including diet-related questions. This article outlines the role of diet and probiotics in pediatric AD and reviews the topical treatments currently approved for this patient population.
Diet and Probiotics
With a growing focus on natural therapies for AD, dietary interventions have come to the forefront. A prevalent theme among patients and their families is addressing gut health and allergic triggers. Broad elimination diets have not shown clinical benefit in patients with AD regardless of age,3 and in children, they may result in nutritional deficiencies, poor growth, and increased risk for IgE-mediated food allergies.4 If a true food allergy is identified based on positive IgE and an acute clinical reaction, elimination of the allergen may provide some benefit.5
The link between gut microbiota and skin health has driven an interest in the role of probiotics in the treatment of pediatric AD. A meta-analysis of 20 articles concluded that, whether administered to infants or breastfeeding mothers, use of probiotics overall led to a significant reduction in AD risk in infants (P=.001). Lactobacillus and mixed strains were effective.6 While broad elimination diets are not used to treat AD, probiotic supplementation can be considered for prevention of AD.
Topical Corticosteroids
Topical corticosteroids are the cornerstone of AD treatment; however, corticophobia among patients is on the rise, leading to poor adherence and suboptimal control of AD.7 Mild cutaneous adverse effects (AEs) including skin atrophy, striae, and telangiectasias may occur. Rarely, systemic AEs occur due to absorption of TCSs into the bloodstream, mainly with application of potent steroids over large body surface areas or under occlusion.8 When the optimal potency of a TCS is chosen and used appropriately, incidence of AEs from TCS use is very low.9
Counseling parents about risk factors that can lead to AEs during treatment with TCSs and formulating regimens that minimize these risks while maintaining efficacy increases adherence and outcomes. Pulse maintenance dosing of TCSs typically involves application 1 to 2 times weekly to areas of the skin that are prone to frequent outbreaks. Pulse maintenance dosing can reduce the incidence of AD flares while also decreasing the total amount of topical medication needed as compared to the reactive approach alone, thereby reducing risk for AEs.8
Steroid-Sparing Topical Treatments
Although TCSs are considered first-line agents, recently there has been an advent of steroid-sparing topical agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric patients with AD, including topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, a Janus kinase inhibitor, and aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists. Offering steroid-sparing agents in these patients can help ease parental anxiety regarding TCS overuse.
Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors—Pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% are approved for patients aged 2 years and older and have anti-inflammatory and antipruritic effects equivalent to low-potency TCS. Tacrolimus ointment 0.1% is approved for patients aged 16 years and older with similar efficacy to a midpotency TCSs. Pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% often are used off-label in children younger than 2 years, as supported by clinical trials showing their safety and efficacy.10
Topical calcineurin inhibitors can replace or supplement TCSs, making TCIs a desirable option for avoidance of steroid-related AEs. The addition of a TCI to spot treatment or a pulse regimen in a young patient can reassure them and their caregivers that the provider is proactively reducing the risk of TCS overuse. The largest barrier to TCI use is the FDA’s black box warning based on the oral formulation of tacrolimus, citing a potential increased risk for lymphoma and skin cancer; however, there is no evidence for substantial systemic absorption of topical pimecrolimus or tacrolimus.11 Large task-force reviews have found no association between TCI use and development of malignancy.12,13 Based on the current data, counseling patients and their caregivers that this risk primarily is theoretical may help them more confidently integrate TCIs into their treatment regimen. Burning and tingling may occur in a minority of pediatric patients using TCIs for AD. Applying the medication to open wounds or inflamed skin increases the risk for stinging, but pretreatment with a short course of TCSs before transitioning to a TCI may boost tolerance.14
Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitors—Crisaborole ointment 2%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is approved for children aged 3 months and older with mild to moderate AD. Its use has been more limited than TCSs and TCIs, as local irritation including stinging and burning can occur in up to 50% of patients.15 One study comparing crisaborole 2% with tacrolimus 0.03% revealed greater improvement with tacrolimus.16 A second phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for once-daily use in children aged 6 years and older with mild to moderate AD is roflumilast cream 0.15%. Roflumilast reduces eczema severity and pruritus, with AEs also limited to application-site stinging and burning.17
Janus Kinase Inhibitor—Ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, a Janus kinase inhibitor, has been approved by the FDA since 2023 for twice-daily use in children aged 12 years and older with AD. Similar to TCIs, ruxolitinib cream carries a black box warning. Short-term safety data on ruxolitinib cream have revealed low levels of ruxolitinib concentration in plasma18; however, long-term studies on topical Janus kinase inhibitors for AD in pediatric and adult populations are lacking. To reduce the risk for systemic absorption, recommendations include limiting usage to 60 g per week and limiting treatment to less than 20% of the body surface area.19 Ruxolitinib has efficacy similar to or possibly superior to triamcinolone 0.1%.20 Ruxolitinib is emerging as a promising nonsteroidal option that potentially is highly efficacious and well tolerated without cutaneous AEs.
Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Agonist—Tapinarof cream 1% is an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that has been approved by the FDA since 2024 for children aged 2 years and older as a once-daily treatment for moderate to severe AD. Adverse events include folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, and headache, which are mostly mild or moderate.21
Final Thoughts
Topical management of pediatric AD includes traditional therapy with TCSs and newer steroid-sparing agents, which can help address corticophobia. Anticipatory guidance regarding the safety and long-term effects of individual therapies is critical to ensuring patient adherence to treatment regimens. Probiotics may help prevent pediatric AD, but future studies are needed to determine their role in treatment.
- Weidinger S, Beck LA, Bieber T, et al. Atopic dermatitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4:1.
- Voillot P, Riche B, Portafax M, et al. Social media platforms listening study on atopic dermatitis: quantitative and qualitative findings. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24:E31140.
- Bath-Hextall F, Delamere FM, Williams HC. Dietary exclusions for improving established atopic eczema in adults and children: systematic review. Allergy. 2009;64:258-264.
- Rustad AM, Nickles MA, Bilimoria SN, et al. The role of diet modification in atopic dermatitis: navigating the complexity. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022;23:27-36.
- Khan A, Adalsteinsson J, Whitaker-Worth DL. Atopic dermatitis and nutrition. Clin Dermatol. 2022;40:135-144.
- Chen L, Ni Y, Wu X, et al. Probiotics for the prevention of atopic dermatitis in infants from different geographic regions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33:2931-2939.
- Herzum A, Occella C, Gariazzo L, et al. Corticophobia among parents of children with atopic dermatitis: assessing major and minor risk factors for high TOPICOP scores. J Clin Med. 2023;12:6813.
- Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:116-132.
- Callen J, Chamlin S, Eichenfield LF, et al. A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:203-221.
- Reitamo S, Rustin M, Ruzicka T, et al. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment compared with that of hydrocortisone butyrate ointment in adult patients with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;109:547-555.
- Thaçi D, Salgo R. Malignancy concerns of topical calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis: facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol. 2010;28:52-56.
- Berger TG, Duvic M, Van Voorhees AS, et al. The use of topical calcineurin inhibitors in dermatology: safety concerns. report of the AAD Association Task Force. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54:818-823.
- Fonacier L, Spergel J, Charlesworth EN, et al. Report of the Topical Calcineurin Inhibitor Task Force of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115:1249-1253.
- Eichenfield LF, Lucky AW, Boguniewicz M, et al. Safety and efficacy of pimecrolimus (ASM 981) cream 1% in the treatment of mild and moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:495-504.
- Lin CPL, Gordon S, Her MJ, et al. A retrospective study: application site pain with the use of crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1451-1453.
- Ryan Wolf J, Chen A, Wieser J, et al. Improved patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes distinguish tacrolimus 0.03% from crisaborole in children with atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024;38:1364-1372.
- Simpson EL, Eichenfield LF, Alonso-Llamazares J, et al. Roflumilast cream, 0.15%, for atopic dermatitis in adults and children: INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2 randomized clinical trials. JAMA Dermatol. 2024;160:1161-1170.
- Papp K, Szepietowski JC, Kircik L, et al. Long-term safety and disease control with ruxolitinib cream in atopic dermatitis: results from two phase 3 studies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:1008-1016.
- Sidbury R, Alikhan A, Bercovitch L, et al. Guidelines of carefor the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:E1-E20.
- Sadeghi S, Mohandesi NA. Efficacy and safety of topical JAK inhibitors in the treatment of atopic dermatitis in paediatrics and adults: a systematic review. Exp Dermatol. 2023;32:599-610.
- Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024;91:457-465.
- Weidinger S, Beck LA, Bieber T, et al. Atopic dermatitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4:1.
- Voillot P, Riche B, Portafax M, et al. Social media platforms listening study on atopic dermatitis: quantitative and qualitative findings. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24:E31140.
- Bath-Hextall F, Delamere FM, Williams HC. Dietary exclusions for improving established atopic eczema in adults and children: systematic review. Allergy. 2009;64:258-264.
- Rustad AM, Nickles MA, Bilimoria SN, et al. The role of diet modification in atopic dermatitis: navigating the complexity. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022;23:27-36.
- Khan A, Adalsteinsson J, Whitaker-Worth DL. Atopic dermatitis and nutrition. Clin Dermatol. 2022;40:135-144.
- Chen L, Ni Y, Wu X, et al. Probiotics for the prevention of atopic dermatitis in infants from different geographic regions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33:2931-2939.
- Herzum A, Occella C, Gariazzo L, et al. Corticophobia among parents of children with atopic dermatitis: assessing major and minor risk factors for high TOPICOP scores. J Clin Med. 2023;12:6813.
- Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:116-132.
- Callen J, Chamlin S, Eichenfield LF, et al. A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:203-221.
- Reitamo S, Rustin M, Ruzicka T, et al. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment compared with that of hydrocortisone butyrate ointment in adult patients with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;109:547-555.
- Thaçi D, Salgo R. Malignancy concerns of topical calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis: facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol. 2010;28:52-56.
- Berger TG, Duvic M, Van Voorhees AS, et al. The use of topical calcineurin inhibitors in dermatology: safety concerns. report of the AAD Association Task Force. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54:818-823.
- Fonacier L, Spergel J, Charlesworth EN, et al. Report of the Topical Calcineurin Inhibitor Task Force of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115:1249-1253.
- Eichenfield LF, Lucky AW, Boguniewicz M, et al. Safety and efficacy of pimecrolimus (ASM 981) cream 1% in the treatment of mild and moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:495-504.
- Lin CPL, Gordon S, Her MJ, et al. A retrospective study: application site pain with the use of crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1451-1453.
- Ryan Wolf J, Chen A, Wieser J, et al. Improved patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes distinguish tacrolimus 0.03% from crisaborole in children with atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024;38:1364-1372.
- Simpson EL, Eichenfield LF, Alonso-Llamazares J, et al. Roflumilast cream, 0.15%, for atopic dermatitis in adults and children: INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2 randomized clinical trials. JAMA Dermatol. 2024;160:1161-1170.
- Papp K, Szepietowski JC, Kircik L, et al. Long-term safety and disease control with ruxolitinib cream in atopic dermatitis: results from two phase 3 studies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:1008-1016.
- Sidbury R, Alikhan A, Bercovitch L, et al. Guidelines of carefor the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:E1-E20.
- Sadeghi S, Mohandesi NA. Efficacy and safety of topical JAK inhibitors in the treatment of atopic dermatitis in paediatrics and adults: a systematic review. Exp Dermatol. 2023;32:599-610.
- Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024;91:457-465.
Update on Management of Atopic Dermatitis in Young Children
Update on Management of Atopic Dermatitis in Young Children
COVID-19 Vaccines: Navigating the Chaos of Conflicting Guidance
Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.
The receding of the pandemic and the understandable desire to return to normalcy has made COVID-19 vaccines a lower priority for many of our patients. However, family physicians should keep in mind that from October 1, 2024, to September 6, 2025, COVID-19 was responsible for an estimated 3.2 to 4.6 million outpatient visits, 360,000 to 520,000 hospitalizations, and 42,000 to 60,000 deaths.
In a previous commentary, I discussed the worsening disconnect between the evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations and increasing reluctance of patients and parents to receive them, fueled by misinformation from federal health agencies and the packing of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) with vaccine skeptics. Since then, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, has fired Dr Susan Monarez, his handpicked director of the CDC. This caused three senior CDC officials to resign in protest and precipitated further turmoil at the embattled agency.
The FDA has approved 3 updated COVID-19 vaccines targeted to currently circulating strains: an mRNA vaccine from Moderna (Spikevax) for those aged 6 months or older; an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty) for those aged ≥ 5 years; and a protein subunit vaccine from Novavax (Nuvaxovid) for those aged ≥ 12 years. However, approvals restricting the scope of these approvals to certain high-risk groups, combined with the ACIP’s recent decision to not explicitly recommend them for any group, have complicated access for many patients.
Medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have published their own recommendations (Table). Of note, in opposition to the FDA and ACIP, the AAP and AAFP strongly recommend routine vaccination for children aged 6 to 23 months because they have the highest risk for hospitalization. The AAFP and ACOG both recommend COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy to protect the pregnant patient and provide passive antibody protection to their infants up to 6 months of age. The Vaccine Integrity Project’s review of 12 safety studies published since June 2024 found that mRNA vaccines were not associated with increases in any adverse maternal or infant outcomes and had a possible protective effect against preterm birth.
In my previous commentary, 70% of Medscape readers indicated that they would follow vaccination recommendations from AAP even if they differed from CDC guidance. Administering vaccines outside of FDA labeling indications (i.e., “off label”) typically requires a physician’s prescription, which will almost certainly reduce COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children and pregnant patients, given that most people received these shots in pharmacies during the 2024-25 season. CVS and Walgreens, the country’s two largest pharmacy chains, are requiring physician prescriptions or waiting for ACIP guidance to make the new vaccines available in many states. However, an increasing number of states have implemented executive orders or passed legislation to permit pharmacists to provide vaccines to anyone who wants them. For example, the Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy voted unanimously to issue guidance that would allow pharmacists to administer any vaccines recommended by AAFP, AAP, or ACOG.
Erosion of vaccine uptake could easily worsen the burden of illness for our patients and the health system. Navigating the unnecessarily complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines will be challenging, but it remains worthwhile.
Risk group | FDA | ACIP/HHS | AAFP | AAP | ACOG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adults aged > 65 | Approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend | N/A | N/A |
6 months to 64 years with high-risk condition | Approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend | Recommend | NA |
Pregnant patients | Unclear, but pregnancy included as high-risk condition | Not approved | Recommend | NA | Recommend |
Children and adults without risk factors | Not approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend for age 6-23 months and administer to all others who desire it | Recommend for age 6-23 months and administer to all others who desire it | NA |
Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: UpToDate; American Academy of Family Physicians; Archdiocese of Washington; Association of Prevention Teaching and Research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.
The receding of the pandemic and the understandable desire to return to normalcy has made COVID-19 vaccines a lower priority for many of our patients. However, family physicians should keep in mind that from October 1, 2024, to September 6, 2025, COVID-19 was responsible for an estimated 3.2 to 4.6 million outpatient visits, 360,000 to 520,000 hospitalizations, and 42,000 to 60,000 deaths.
In a previous commentary, I discussed the worsening disconnect between the evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations and increasing reluctance of patients and parents to receive them, fueled by misinformation from federal health agencies and the packing of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) with vaccine skeptics. Since then, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, has fired Dr Susan Monarez, his handpicked director of the CDC. This caused three senior CDC officials to resign in protest and precipitated further turmoil at the embattled agency.
The FDA has approved 3 updated COVID-19 vaccines targeted to currently circulating strains: an mRNA vaccine from Moderna (Spikevax) for those aged 6 months or older; an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty) for those aged ≥ 5 years; and a protein subunit vaccine from Novavax (Nuvaxovid) for those aged ≥ 12 years. However, approvals restricting the scope of these approvals to certain high-risk groups, combined with the ACIP’s recent decision to not explicitly recommend them for any group, have complicated access for many patients.
Medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have published their own recommendations (Table). Of note, in opposition to the FDA and ACIP, the AAP and AAFP strongly recommend routine vaccination for children aged 6 to 23 months because they have the highest risk for hospitalization. The AAFP and ACOG both recommend COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy to protect the pregnant patient and provide passive antibody protection to their infants up to 6 months of age. The Vaccine Integrity Project’s review of 12 safety studies published since June 2024 found that mRNA vaccines were not associated with increases in any adverse maternal or infant outcomes and had a possible protective effect against preterm birth.
In my previous commentary, 70% of Medscape readers indicated that they would follow vaccination recommendations from AAP even if they differed from CDC guidance. Administering vaccines outside of FDA labeling indications (i.e., “off label”) typically requires a physician’s prescription, which will almost certainly reduce COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children and pregnant patients, given that most people received these shots in pharmacies during the 2024-25 season. CVS and Walgreens, the country’s two largest pharmacy chains, are requiring physician prescriptions or waiting for ACIP guidance to make the new vaccines available in many states. However, an increasing number of states have implemented executive orders or passed legislation to permit pharmacists to provide vaccines to anyone who wants them. For example, the Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy voted unanimously to issue guidance that would allow pharmacists to administer any vaccines recommended by AAFP, AAP, or ACOG.
Erosion of vaccine uptake could easily worsen the burden of illness for our patients and the health system. Navigating the unnecessarily complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines will be challenging, but it remains worthwhile.
Risk group | FDA | ACIP/HHS | AAFP | AAP | ACOG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adults aged > 65 | Approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend | N/A | N/A |
6 months to 64 years with high-risk condition | Approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend | Recommend | NA |
Pregnant patients | Unclear, but pregnancy included as high-risk condition | Not approved | Recommend | NA | Recommend |
Children and adults without risk factors | Not approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend for age 6-23 months and administer to all others who desire it | Recommend for age 6-23 months and administer to all others who desire it | NA |
Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: UpToDate; American Academy of Family Physicians; Archdiocese of Washington; Association of Prevention Teaching and Research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.
The receding of the pandemic and the understandable desire to return to normalcy has made COVID-19 vaccines a lower priority for many of our patients. However, family physicians should keep in mind that from October 1, 2024, to September 6, 2025, COVID-19 was responsible for an estimated 3.2 to 4.6 million outpatient visits, 360,000 to 520,000 hospitalizations, and 42,000 to 60,000 deaths.
In a previous commentary, I discussed the worsening disconnect between the evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations and increasing reluctance of patients and parents to receive them, fueled by misinformation from federal health agencies and the packing of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) with vaccine skeptics. Since then, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, has fired Dr Susan Monarez, his handpicked director of the CDC. This caused three senior CDC officials to resign in protest and precipitated further turmoil at the embattled agency.
The FDA has approved 3 updated COVID-19 vaccines targeted to currently circulating strains: an mRNA vaccine from Moderna (Spikevax) for those aged 6 months or older; an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty) for those aged ≥ 5 years; and a protein subunit vaccine from Novavax (Nuvaxovid) for those aged ≥ 12 years. However, approvals restricting the scope of these approvals to certain high-risk groups, combined with the ACIP’s recent decision to not explicitly recommend them for any group, have complicated access for many patients.
Medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have published their own recommendations (Table). Of note, in opposition to the FDA and ACIP, the AAP and AAFP strongly recommend routine vaccination for children aged 6 to 23 months because they have the highest risk for hospitalization. The AAFP and ACOG both recommend COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy to protect the pregnant patient and provide passive antibody protection to their infants up to 6 months of age. The Vaccine Integrity Project’s review of 12 safety studies published since June 2024 found that mRNA vaccines were not associated with increases in any adverse maternal or infant outcomes and had a possible protective effect against preterm birth.
In my previous commentary, 70% of Medscape readers indicated that they would follow vaccination recommendations from AAP even if they differed from CDC guidance. Administering vaccines outside of FDA labeling indications (i.e., “off label”) typically requires a physician’s prescription, which will almost certainly reduce COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children and pregnant patients, given that most people received these shots in pharmacies during the 2024-25 season. CVS and Walgreens, the country’s two largest pharmacy chains, are requiring physician prescriptions or waiting for ACIP guidance to make the new vaccines available in many states. However, an increasing number of states have implemented executive orders or passed legislation to permit pharmacists to provide vaccines to anyone who wants them. For example, the Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy voted unanimously to issue guidance that would allow pharmacists to administer any vaccines recommended by AAFP, AAP, or ACOG.
Erosion of vaccine uptake could easily worsen the burden of illness for our patients and the health system. Navigating the unnecessarily complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines will be challenging, but it remains worthwhile.
Risk group | FDA | ACIP/HHS | AAFP | AAP | ACOG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adults aged > 65 | Approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend | N/A | N/A |
6 months to 64 years with high-risk condition | Approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend | Recommend | NA |
Pregnant patients | Unclear, but pregnancy included as high-risk condition | Not approved | Recommend | NA | Recommend |
Children and adults without risk factors | Not approved | Shared decision-making | Recommend for age 6-23 months and administer to all others who desire it | Recommend for age 6-23 months and administer to all others who desire it | NA |
Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: UpToDate; American Academy of Family Physicians; Archdiocese of Washington; Association of Prevention Teaching and Research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AI in Mammography: Inside the Tangible Benefits Ready Now
In this Practical AI column, we’ve explored everything from large language models to the nuances of trial matching, but one of the most immediate and impactful applications of AI is unfolding right now in breast imaging. For oncologists, this isn’t an abstract future — with new screening guidelines, dense-breast mandates, and a shrinking radiology workforce, it’s the imaging reports and patient questions landing in your clinic today.
Here is what oncologists need to know, and how to put it to work for their patients.
Why AI in Mammography Matters
More than 200 million women undergo breast cancer screening each year. In the US alone, 10% of the 40 million women screened annually require additional diagnostic imaging, and 4%–5% of these women are eventually diagnosed with breast cancer.
Two major shifts are redefining breast cancer screening in the US: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) now recommends biennial screening from age 40 to 74 years, and notifying patients of breast density is a federal requirement as of September 10, 2024. That means more mammograms, more patient questions, and more downstream oncology decisions. Patients will increasingly ask about “dense” breast results and what to do next. Add a national radiologist shortage into the mix, and the pressure on timely callbacks, biopsies, and treatment planning will only grow.
Can AI Help Without Compromising Care?
The short answer is yes. With AI, we may be able to transform these rate-limiting steps into opportunities for earlier detection, decentralized screening, and smarter triage and save hundreds of thousands of women from an unnecessary diagnostic procedure, if implemented deliberately.
Don’t Confuse Today’s AI With Yesterday’s CAD
Think of older computer-aided detection (CAD) like a 1990s chemotherapy drug: It sometimes helped, but it came with significant toxicity and rarely delivered consistent survival benefits. Today’s deep-learning AI is closer to targeted therapy — trained on millions of “trial participants” (mammograms), more precise, and applied in specific contexts where it adds value. If you once dismissed CAD as noise, it’s time to revisit what AI can now offer.
The role of AI is broader than drawing boxes. It provides second readings, worklist triage, risk prediction, density assessment, and decision support. FDA has cleared several AI tools for both 2D and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), which include iCAD ProFound (DBT), ScreenPoint Transpara (2D/DBT), and Lunit INSIGHT DBT.
Some of the strongest evidence for AI in mammography is as a second reader during screening. Large trials show that AI plus one radiologist can match reading from two radiologists, cutting workload by about 40%. For example, the MASAI randomized trial showed that AI-supported screening achieved similar cancer detection but cut human screen-reading workload about 44% vs standard double reading (39,996 vs 40,024 participants). The primary interval cancer outcomes are maturing, but the safety analysis is reassuring.
Reducing second reads and arbitration time are important for clinicians because it frees capacity for callbacks and diagnostic workups. This will be especially key given that screening now starts at age 40. That will mean about 21 to 22 million more women are newly eligible, translating to about 10 to 11 million additional mammograms each year under biennial screening.
Another important area where AI can make its mark in mammography is triage and time to diagnosis. The results from a randomized implementation study showed that AI-prioritized worklists accelerated time to additional imaging and biopsy diagnosis without harming efficiency for others — exactly the kind of outcome patients feel.
Multiple studies have demonstrated improved diagnostic performance and shorter reading times when AI supports DBT interpretation, which is important because DBT can otherwise be time intensive.
We are also seeing rapid advancement in risk-based screening, moving beyond a single dense vs not dense approach. Deep-learning risk models, such as Mirai, predict 1- to 5-year breast cancer risk directly from the mammogram, and these tools are now being assessed prospectively to guide supplemental MRI. Cost-effectiveness modeling supports risk-stratified intervals vs one-size-fits-all schedules.
Finally, automated density tools, such as Transpara Density and Volpara, offer objective, reproducible volumetric measures that map to the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System, which is useful for Mammography Quality Standards Act-required reporting and as inputs to risk calculators.
While early evidence suggests AI may help surface future or interval cancers earlier, including more invasive tumors, the definitive impacts on interval cancer rates and mortality require longitudinal follow-up, which is now in progress.
Pitfalls to Watch For
Bias is real. Studies show false-positive differences by race, age, and density. AI can even infer racial identity from images, potentially amplifying disparities. Performance can also shift by vendor, demographics, and prevalence.
A Radiology study of 4855 DBT exams showed that an algorithm produced more false-positive case scores in Black patients and older patients (aged 71-80 years) patients and in women with extremely dense breasts. This can happen because AI can infer proxies for race directly from images, even when humans cannot, and this can propagate disparities if not addressed. External validations and reviews emphasize that performance can shift with device manufacturer, demographics, and prevalence, which is why all tools need to undergo local validation and calibration.
Here’s a pragmatic adoption checklist before going live with an AI tool.
- Confirm FDA clearance: Verify the name and version of the algorithm, imaging modes (2D vs DBT), and operating points. Confirm 510(k) numbers.
- Local validation: Test on your patient mix and vendor stack (Hologic, GE, Siemens, Fuji). Compare this to your baseline recall rate, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), cancer detection rate, and reading time. Commit to recalibration if drift occurs.
- Equity plan: Monitor false-positive and negative false-rates by age, race/ethnicity, and density; document corrective actions if disparities emerge. (This isn’t optional.)
- Workflow clarity: Is AI a second reader, an additional reader, or a triage tool? Who arbitrates discordance? What’s the escalation path for high-risk or interval cancer-like patterns?
- Regulatory strategy: Confirm whether the vendor has (or will file) a Predetermined Change Control Plan so models can be updated safely without repeated submissions. Also confirm how you’ll be notified about performance-relevant changes.
- Data governance: Audit logs of AI outputs, retention, protected health information handling, and the patient communication policy for AI-assisted reads.
After going live, set up a quarterly dashboard. It should include cancer detection rate per 1000 patients, recall rate, PPV1, interval cancer rate (as it matures), reading time, and turnaround time to diagnostic imaging or biopsy — all stratified by age, race/ethnicity, and density.
Here, I dissect what this discussion means through the lens of Moravec’s paradox (machines excel at what clinicians find hard, and vice versa) and offer a possible playbook for putting these tools to work.
What to Tell Patients
When speaking with patients, emphasize that a radiologist still reads their mammogram. AI helps with consistency and efficiency; it doesn’t replace human oversight. Patients with dense breasts should still expect a standard notice; discussion of individualized risk factors, such as family history, genetics, and prior biopsies; and consideration of supplemental imaging if risk warrants. But it’s also important to tell these patients that while dense breasts are common, they do not automatically mean high cancer risk.
As for screening schedules, remind patients that screening is at least biennial from 40 to 74 years of age per the USPSTF guidelines; however, specialty groups may recommend starting on an annual schedule at 40.
What You Can Implement Now
There are multiple practical use cases you can introduce now. One is to use AI as a second reader or an additional reader safety net to preserve detection while reducing human workload. This helps your breast center absorb screening expansion to age 40 without diluting quality. Another is to turn on AI triage to shorten the time to callback and biopsy for the few who need it most — patients notice and appreciate faster answers. You can also begin adopting automated density plus risk models to move beyond “dense/not dense.” For selected patients, AI-informed risk can justify MRI or tailored intervals.
Here’s a quick cheat sheet (for your next leadership or tumor-board meeting).
Do:
- Use AI as a second or additional reader or triage tool, not as a black box.
- Track cancer detection rate, recall, PPV1, interval cancers, and reading time, stratified by age, race, and breast density.
- Pair automated density with AI risk to personalize screening and supplemental imaging.
- Enroll patients in future clinical trials, such as PRISM, the first large-scale randomized controlled trial of AI for screening mammography. This US-based, $16 million, seven-site study is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Don’t:
- Assume “AI = CAD.” The 2015 CAD story is over; modern deep learning systems are different and require different oversight.
- Go live without a local validation and equity plan or without clarity on software updates.
- Forget to remind patients that screening starts at age 40, and dense breast notifications are now universal. Use the visit to discuss risk, supplemental imaging, and why a human still directs their care.
The Bottom Line
AI won’t replace radiologists or read mammograms for us — just as PET scans didn’t replace oncologists and stethoscopes didn’t make cardiologists obsolete. What it will do is catch what the tired human eye might miss, shave days off anxious waiting, and turn breast density into data instead of doubt. For oncologists, that means staging sooner, enrolling smarter, and spending more time talking with patients instead of chasing callbacks.
In short, AI may not take the picture, but it helps us frame the story, making it sharper, faster, and with fewer blind spots. By pairing this powerful technology with rigorous, equity-focused local validation and transparent governance under the FDA’s emerging Predetermined Change Control Plan framework, we can realize the tangible benefits of practical AI for our patients without widening disparities.
Now, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, how about we add on AI to that pink ribbon — how cool would that be?
Thoughts? Drop me a line at [email protected]. Let’s keep the conversation — and pink ribbons — going.
Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the co-founder and chief medical AI officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as Systemwide Chief of Hematology and Oncology at St. Luke’s University Health Network, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In this Practical AI column, we’ve explored everything from large language models to the nuances of trial matching, but one of the most immediate and impactful applications of AI is unfolding right now in breast imaging. For oncologists, this isn’t an abstract future — with new screening guidelines, dense-breast mandates, and a shrinking radiology workforce, it’s the imaging reports and patient questions landing in your clinic today.
Here is what oncologists need to know, and how to put it to work for their patients.
Why AI in Mammography Matters
More than 200 million women undergo breast cancer screening each year. In the US alone, 10% of the 40 million women screened annually require additional diagnostic imaging, and 4%–5% of these women are eventually diagnosed with breast cancer.
Two major shifts are redefining breast cancer screening in the US: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) now recommends biennial screening from age 40 to 74 years, and notifying patients of breast density is a federal requirement as of September 10, 2024. That means more mammograms, more patient questions, and more downstream oncology decisions. Patients will increasingly ask about “dense” breast results and what to do next. Add a national radiologist shortage into the mix, and the pressure on timely callbacks, biopsies, and treatment planning will only grow.
Can AI Help Without Compromising Care?
The short answer is yes. With AI, we may be able to transform these rate-limiting steps into opportunities for earlier detection, decentralized screening, and smarter triage and save hundreds of thousands of women from an unnecessary diagnostic procedure, if implemented deliberately.
Don’t Confuse Today’s AI With Yesterday’s CAD
Think of older computer-aided detection (CAD) like a 1990s chemotherapy drug: It sometimes helped, but it came with significant toxicity and rarely delivered consistent survival benefits. Today’s deep-learning AI is closer to targeted therapy — trained on millions of “trial participants” (mammograms), more precise, and applied in specific contexts where it adds value. If you once dismissed CAD as noise, it’s time to revisit what AI can now offer.
The role of AI is broader than drawing boxes. It provides second readings, worklist triage, risk prediction, density assessment, and decision support. FDA has cleared several AI tools for both 2D and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), which include iCAD ProFound (DBT), ScreenPoint Transpara (2D/DBT), and Lunit INSIGHT DBT.
Some of the strongest evidence for AI in mammography is as a second reader during screening. Large trials show that AI plus one radiologist can match reading from two radiologists, cutting workload by about 40%. For example, the MASAI randomized trial showed that AI-supported screening achieved similar cancer detection but cut human screen-reading workload about 44% vs standard double reading (39,996 vs 40,024 participants). The primary interval cancer outcomes are maturing, but the safety analysis is reassuring.
Reducing second reads and arbitration time are important for clinicians because it frees capacity for callbacks and diagnostic workups. This will be especially key given that screening now starts at age 40. That will mean about 21 to 22 million more women are newly eligible, translating to about 10 to 11 million additional mammograms each year under biennial screening.
Another important area where AI can make its mark in mammography is triage and time to diagnosis. The results from a randomized implementation study showed that AI-prioritized worklists accelerated time to additional imaging and biopsy diagnosis without harming efficiency for others — exactly the kind of outcome patients feel.
Multiple studies have demonstrated improved diagnostic performance and shorter reading times when AI supports DBT interpretation, which is important because DBT can otherwise be time intensive.
We are also seeing rapid advancement in risk-based screening, moving beyond a single dense vs not dense approach. Deep-learning risk models, such as Mirai, predict 1- to 5-year breast cancer risk directly from the mammogram, and these tools are now being assessed prospectively to guide supplemental MRI. Cost-effectiveness modeling supports risk-stratified intervals vs one-size-fits-all schedules.
Finally, automated density tools, such as Transpara Density and Volpara, offer objective, reproducible volumetric measures that map to the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System, which is useful for Mammography Quality Standards Act-required reporting and as inputs to risk calculators.
While early evidence suggests AI may help surface future or interval cancers earlier, including more invasive tumors, the definitive impacts on interval cancer rates and mortality require longitudinal follow-up, which is now in progress.
Pitfalls to Watch For
Bias is real. Studies show false-positive differences by race, age, and density. AI can even infer racial identity from images, potentially amplifying disparities. Performance can also shift by vendor, demographics, and prevalence.
A Radiology study of 4855 DBT exams showed that an algorithm produced more false-positive case scores in Black patients and older patients (aged 71-80 years) patients and in women with extremely dense breasts. This can happen because AI can infer proxies for race directly from images, even when humans cannot, and this can propagate disparities if not addressed. External validations and reviews emphasize that performance can shift with device manufacturer, demographics, and prevalence, which is why all tools need to undergo local validation and calibration.
Here’s a pragmatic adoption checklist before going live with an AI tool.
- Confirm FDA clearance: Verify the name and version of the algorithm, imaging modes (2D vs DBT), and operating points. Confirm 510(k) numbers.
- Local validation: Test on your patient mix and vendor stack (Hologic, GE, Siemens, Fuji). Compare this to your baseline recall rate, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), cancer detection rate, and reading time. Commit to recalibration if drift occurs.
- Equity plan: Monitor false-positive and negative false-rates by age, race/ethnicity, and density; document corrective actions if disparities emerge. (This isn’t optional.)
- Workflow clarity: Is AI a second reader, an additional reader, or a triage tool? Who arbitrates discordance? What’s the escalation path for high-risk or interval cancer-like patterns?
- Regulatory strategy: Confirm whether the vendor has (or will file) a Predetermined Change Control Plan so models can be updated safely without repeated submissions. Also confirm how you’ll be notified about performance-relevant changes.
- Data governance: Audit logs of AI outputs, retention, protected health information handling, and the patient communication policy for AI-assisted reads.
After going live, set up a quarterly dashboard. It should include cancer detection rate per 1000 patients, recall rate, PPV1, interval cancer rate (as it matures), reading time, and turnaround time to diagnostic imaging or biopsy — all stratified by age, race/ethnicity, and density.
Here, I dissect what this discussion means through the lens of Moravec’s paradox (machines excel at what clinicians find hard, and vice versa) and offer a possible playbook for putting these tools to work.
What to Tell Patients
When speaking with patients, emphasize that a radiologist still reads their mammogram. AI helps with consistency and efficiency; it doesn’t replace human oversight. Patients with dense breasts should still expect a standard notice; discussion of individualized risk factors, such as family history, genetics, and prior biopsies; and consideration of supplemental imaging if risk warrants. But it’s also important to tell these patients that while dense breasts are common, they do not automatically mean high cancer risk.
As for screening schedules, remind patients that screening is at least biennial from 40 to 74 years of age per the USPSTF guidelines; however, specialty groups may recommend starting on an annual schedule at 40.
What You Can Implement Now
There are multiple practical use cases you can introduce now. One is to use AI as a second reader or an additional reader safety net to preserve detection while reducing human workload. This helps your breast center absorb screening expansion to age 40 without diluting quality. Another is to turn on AI triage to shorten the time to callback and biopsy for the few who need it most — patients notice and appreciate faster answers. You can also begin adopting automated density plus risk models to move beyond “dense/not dense.” For selected patients, AI-informed risk can justify MRI or tailored intervals.
Here’s a quick cheat sheet (for your next leadership or tumor-board meeting).
Do:
- Use AI as a second or additional reader or triage tool, not as a black box.
- Track cancer detection rate, recall, PPV1, interval cancers, and reading time, stratified by age, race, and breast density.
- Pair automated density with AI risk to personalize screening and supplemental imaging.
- Enroll patients in future clinical trials, such as PRISM, the first large-scale randomized controlled trial of AI for screening mammography. This US-based, $16 million, seven-site study is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Don’t:
- Assume “AI = CAD.” The 2015 CAD story is over; modern deep learning systems are different and require different oversight.
- Go live without a local validation and equity plan or without clarity on software updates.
- Forget to remind patients that screening starts at age 40, and dense breast notifications are now universal. Use the visit to discuss risk, supplemental imaging, and why a human still directs their care.
The Bottom Line
AI won’t replace radiologists or read mammograms for us — just as PET scans didn’t replace oncologists and stethoscopes didn’t make cardiologists obsolete. What it will do is catch what the tired human eye might miss, shave days off anxious waiting, and turn breast density into data instead of doubt. For oncologists, that means staging sooner, enrolling smarter, and spending more time talking with patients instead of chasing callbacks.
In short, AI may not take the picture, but it helps us frame the story, making it sharper, faster, and with fewer blind spots. By pairing this powerful technology with rigorous, equity-focused local validation and transparent governance under the FDA’s emerging Predetermined Change Control Plan framework, we can realize the tangible benefits of practical AI for our patients without widening disparities.
Now, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, how about we add on AI to that pink ribbon — how cool would that be?
Thoughts? Drop me a line at [email protected]. Let’s keep the conversation — and pink ribbons — going.
Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the co-founder and chief medical AI officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as Systemwide Chief of Hematology and Oncology at St. Luke’s University Health Network, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In this Practical AI column, we’ve explored everything from large language models to the nuances of trial matching, but one of the most immediate and impactful applications of AI is unfolding right now in breast imaging. For oncologists, this isn’t an abstract future — with new screening guidelines, dense-breast mandates, and a shrinking radiology workforce, it’s the imaging reports and patient questions landing in your clinic today.
Here is what oncologists need to know, and how to put it to work for their patients.
Why AI in Mammography Matters
More than 200 million women undergo breast cancer screening each year. In the US alone, 10% of the 40 million women screened annually require additional diagnostic imaging, and 4%–5% of these women are eventually diagnosed with breast cancer.
Two major shifts are redefining breast cancer screening in the US: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) now recommends biennial screening from age 40 to 74 years, and notifying patients of breast density is a federal requirement as of September 10, 2024. That means more mammograms, more patient questions, and more downstream oncology decisions. Patients will increasingly ask about “dense” breast results and what to do next. Add a national radiologist shortage into the mix, and the pressure on timely callbacks, biopsies, and treatment planning will only grow.
Can AI Help Without Compromising Care?
The short answer is yes. With AI, we may be able to transform these rate-limiting steps into opportunities for earlier detection, decentralized screening, and smarter triage and save hundreds of thousands of women from an unnecessary diagnostic procedure, if implemented deliberately.
Don’t Confuse Today’s AI With Yesterday’s CAD
Think of older computer-aided detection (CAD) like a 1990s chemotherapy drug: It sometimes helped, but it came with significant toxicity and rarely delivered consistent survival benefits. Today’s deep-learning AI is closer to targeted therapy — trained on millions of “trial participants” (mammograms), more precise, and applied in specific contexts where it adds value. If you once dismissed CAD as noise, it’s time to revisit what AI can now offer.
The role of AI is broader than drawing boxes. It provides second readings, worklist triage, risk prediction, density assessment, and decision support. FDA has cleared several AI tools for both 2D and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), which include iCAD ProFound (DBT), ScreenPoint Transpara (2D/DBT), and Lunit INSIGHT DBT.
Some of the strongest evidence for AI in mammography is as a second reader during screening. Large trials show that AI plus one radiologist can match reading from two radiologists, cutting workload by about 40%. For example, the MASAI randomized trial showed that AI-supported screening achieved similar cancer detection but cut human screen-reading workload about 44% vs standard double reading (39,996 vs 40,024 participants). The primary interval cancer outcomes are maturing, but the safety analysis is reassuring.
Reducing second reads and arbitration time are important for clinicians because it frees capacity for callbacks and diagnostic workups. This will be especially key given that screening now starts at age 40. That will mean about 21 to 22 million more women are newly eligible, translating to about 10 to 11 million additional mammograms each year under biennial screening.
Another important area where AI can make its mark in mammography is triage and time to diagnosis. The results from a randomized implementation study showed that AI-prioritized worklists accelerated time to additional imaging and biopsy diagnosis without harming efficiency for others — exactly the kind of outcome patients feel.
Multiple studies have demonstrated improved diagnostic performance and shorter reading times when AI supports DBT interpretation, which is important because DBT can otherwise be time intensive.
We are also seeing rapid advancement in risk-based screening, moving beyond a single dense vs not dense approach. Deep-learning risk models, such as Mirai, predict 1- to 5-year breast cancer risk directly from the mammogram, and these tools are now being assessed prospectively to guide supplemental MRI. Cost-effectiveness modeling supports risk-stratified intervals vs one-size-fits-all schedules.
Finally, automated density tools, such as Transpara Density and Volpara, offer objective, reproducible volumetric measures that map to the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System, which is useful for Mammography Quality Standards Act-required reporting and as inputs to risk calculators.
While early evidence suggests AI may help surface future or interval cancers earlier, including more invasive tumors, the definitive impacts on interval cancer rates and mortality require longitudinal follow-up, which is now in progress.
Pitfalls to Watch For
Bias is real. Studies show false-positive differences by race, age, and density. AI can even infer racial identity from images, potentially amplifying disparities. Performance can also shift by vendor, demographics, and prevalence.
A Radiology study of 4855 DBT exams showed that an algorithm produced more false-positive case scores in Black patients and older patients (aged 71-80 years) patients and in women with extremely dense breasts. This can happen because AI can infer proxies for race directly from images, even when humans cannot, and this can propagate disparities if not addressed. External validations and reviews emphasize that performance can shift with device manufacturer, demographics, and prevalence, which is why all tools need to undergo local validation and calibration.
Here’s a pragmatic adoption checklist before going live with an AI tool.
- Confirm FDA clearance: Verify the name and version of the algorithm, imaging modes (2D vs DBT), and operating points. Confirm 510(k) numbers.
- Local validation: Test on your patient mix and vendor stack (Hologic, GE, Siemens, Fuji). Compare this to your baseline recall rate, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), cancer detection rate, and reading time. Commit to recalibration if drift occurs.
- Equity plan: Monitor false-positive and negative false-rates by age, race/ethnicity, and density; document corrective actions if disparities emerge. (This isn’t optional.)
- Workflow clarity: Is AI a second reader, an additional reader, or a triage tool? Who arbitrates discordance? What’s the escalation path for high-risk or interval cancer-like patterns?
- Regulatory strategy: Confirm whether the vendor has (or will file) a Predetermined Change Control Plan so models can be updated safely without repeated submissions. Also confirm how you’ll be notified about performance-relevant changes.
- Data governance: Audit logs of AI outputs, retention, protected health information handling, and the patient communication policy for AI-assisted reads.
After going live, set up a quarterly dashboard. It should include cancer detection rate per 1000 patients, recall rate, PPV1, interval cancer rate (as it matures), reading time, and turnaround time to diagnostic imaging or biopsy — all stratified by age, race/ethnicity, and density.
Here, I dissect what this discussion means through the lens of Moravec’s paradox (machines excel at what clinicians find hard, and vice versa) and offer a possible playbook for putting these tools to work.
What to Tell Patients
When speaking with patients, emphasize that a radiologist still reads their mammogram. AI helps with consistency and efficiency; it doesn’t replace human oversight. Patients with dense breasts should still expect a standard notice; discussion of individualized risk factors, such as family history, genetics, and prior biopsies; and consideration of supplemental imaging if risk warrants. But it’s also important to tell these patients that while dense breasts are common, they do not automatically mean high cancer risk.
As for screening schedules, remind patients that screening is at least biennial from 40 to 74 years of age per the USPSTF guidelines; however, specialty groups may recommend starting on an annual schedule at 40.
What You Can Implement Now
There are multiple practical use cases you can introduce now. One is to use AI as a second reader or an additional reader safety net to preserve detection while reducing human workload. This helps your breast center absorb screening expansion to age 40 without diluting quality. Another is to turn on AI triage to shorten the time to callback and biopsy for the few who need it most — patients notice and appreciate faster answers. You can also begin adopting automated density plus risk models to move beyond “dense/not dense.” For selected patients, AI-informed risk can justify MRI or tailored intervals.
Here’s a quick cheat sheet (for your next leadership or tumor-board meeting).
Do:
- Use AI as a second or additional reader or triage tool, not as a black box.
- Track cancer detection rate, recall, PPV1, interval cancers, and reading time, stratified by age, race, and breast density.
- Pair automated density with AI risk to personalize screening and supplemental imaging.
- Enroll patients in future clinical trials, such as PRISM, the first large-scale randomized controlled trial of AI for screening mammography. This US-based, $16 million, seven-site study is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Don’t:
- Assume “AI = CAD.” The 2015 CAD story is over; modern deep learning systems are different and require different oversight.
- Go live without a local validation and equity plan or without clarity on software updates.
- Forget to remind patients that screening starts at age 40, and dense breast notifications are now universal. Use the visit to discuss risk, supplemental imaging, and why a human still directs their care.
The Bottom Line
AI won’t replace radiologists or read mammograms for us — just as PET scans didn’t replace oncologists and stethoscopes didn’t make cardiologists obsolete. What it will do is catch what the tired human eye might miss, shave days off anxious waiting, and turn breast density into data instead of doubt. For oncologists, that means staging sooner, enrolling smarter, and spending more time talking with patients instead of chasing callbacks.
In short, AI may not take the picture, but it helps us frame the story, making it sharper, faster, and with fewer blind spots. By pairing this powerful technology with rigorous, equity-focused local validation and transparent governance under the FDA’s emerging Predetermined Change Control Plan framework, we can realize the tangible benefits of practical AI for our patients without widening disparities.
Now, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, how about we add on AI to that pink ribbon — how cool would that be?
Thoughts? Drop me a line at [email protected]. Let’s keep the conversation — and pink ribbons — going.
Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the co-founder and chief medical AI officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as Systemwide Chief of Hematology and Oncology at St. Luke’s University Health Network, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Celebrating VA Physicians in Gastroenterology
Last month, I had the privilege of joining more than one hundred physician colleagues in Washington, DC, for AGA Advocacy Day. While standing amidst the majesty of the Capital, I found myself deeply appreciative for those who dedicate their time and energy to public service. Many of these dedicated federal workers choose to be in DC because of a sincere belief in their mission.
Among these mission-driven public servants are federal employees who work in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As a member of this group, I come to work energized by the mission to care for those who have served in our military. In my clinical practice, I am reminded regularly of the sacrifices of veterans and their families. This month, and especially on Veterans Day, I hope we will take a moment to express gratitude to veterans for their service to our country.
Many young gastroenterologists may not know that it was the landmark VA Cooperative Study #380, led by Dr. David Lieberman (Portland VA) that helped push Medicare to cover reimbursement for screening colonoscopy. Today, one of the most important ongoing studies in our field – VA Cooperative Study #577 – continues the VA tradition of high-impact health services research. Launched in 2012, the study has enrolled 50,000 veterans to compare FIT and colonoscopy. It is led by Dr. Jason Dominitz (Seattle VA) and Dr. Doug Robertson (White River Junction VA).
Beyond research, VA gastroenterologists play a critical role in training the next generation of clinicians. Over 700 gastroenterologists count the VA as a clinical home, making it the largest GI group practice in the country. Many of us — myself included — were trained or mentored by VA physicians whose dedication to service and science has shaped our careers and the field at large.
This month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News has stories about other important contributions to our field. The stories and perspective pieces on Artificial Intelligence are particularly poignant given the announcement last month on the awarding of the Nobel Prize in economics to researchers who study “creative destruction,” the way in which one technological innovation renders others obsolete. Perhaps this award offers another reason to reemphasize and embrace the “art” of medicine.
The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.
Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF
Associate Editor
Last month, I had the privilege of joining more than one hundred physician colleagues in Washington, DC, for AGA Advocacy Day. While standing amidst the majesty of the Capital, I found myself deeply appreciative for those who dedicate their time and energy to public service. Many of these dedicated federal workers choose to be in DC because of a sincere belief in their mission.
Among these mission-driven public servants are federal employees who work in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As a member of this group, I come to work energized by the mission to care for those who have served in our military. In my clinical practice, I am reminded regularly of the sacrifices of veterans and their families. This month, and especially on Veterans Day, I hope we will take a moment to express gratitude to veterans for their service to our country.
Many young gastroenterologists may not know that it was the landmark VA Cooperative Study #380, led by Dr. David Lieberman (Portland VA) that helped push Medicare to cover reimbursement for screening colonoscopy. Today, one of the most important ongoing studies in our field – VA Cooperative Study #577 – continues the VA tradition of high-impact health services research. Launched in 2012, the study has enrolled 50,000 veterans to compare FIT and colonoscopy. It is led by Dr. Jason Dominitz (Seattle VA) and Dr. Doug Robertson (White River Junction VA).
Beyond research, VA gastroenterologists play a critical role in training the next generation of clinicians. Over 700 gastroenterologists count the VA as a clinical home, making it the largest GI group practice in the country. Many of us — myself included — were trained or mentored by VA physicians whose dedication to service and science has shaped our careers and the field at large.
This month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News has stories about other important contributions to our field. The stories and perspective pieces on Artificial Intelligence are particularly poignant given the announcement last month on the awarding of the Nobel Prize in economics to researchers who study “creative destruction,” the way in which one technological innovation renders others obsolete. Perhaps this award offers another reason to reemphasize and embrace the “art” of medicine.
The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.
Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF
Associate Editor
Last month, I had the privilege of joining more than one hundred physician colleagues in Washington, DC, for AGA Advocacy Day. While standing amidst the majesty of the Capital, I found myself deeply appreciative for those who dedicate their time and energy to public service. Many of these dedicated federal workers choose to be in DC because of a sincere belief in their mission.
Among these mission-driven public servants are federal employees who work in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As a member of this group, I come to work energized by the mission to care for those who have served in our military. In my clinical practice, I am reminded regularly of the sacrifices of veterans and their families. This month, and especially on Veterans Day, I hope we will take a moment to express gratitude to veterans for their service to our country.
Many young gastroenterologists may not know that it was the landmark VA Cooperative Study #380, led by Dr. David Lieberman (Portland VA) that helped push Medicare to cover reimbursement for screening colonoscopy. Today, one of the most important ongoing studies in our field – VA Cooperative Study #577 – continues the VA tradition of high-impact health services research. Launched in 2012, the study has enrolled 50,000 veterans to compare FIT and colonoscopy. It is led by Dr. Jason Dominitz (Seattle VA) and Dr. Doug Robertson (White River Junction VA).
Beyond research, VA gastroenterologists play a critical role in training the next generation of clinicians. Over 700 gastroenterologists count the VA as a clinical home, making it the largest GI group practice in the country. Many of us — myself included — were trained or mentored by VA physicians whose dedication to service and science has shaped our careers and the field at large.
This month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News has stories about other important contributions to our field. The stories and perspective pieces on Artificial Intelligence are particularly poignant given the announcement last month on the awarding of the Nobel Prize in economics to researchers who study “creative destruction,” the way in which one technological innovation renders others obsolete. Perhaps this award offers another reason to reemphasize and embrace the “art” of medicine.
The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.
Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF
Associate Editor
AI in Gastroenterology and Endoscopy
Dear colleagues,
Since our last Perspectives feature on artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology and hepatology, the field has experienced remarkable growth in both innovation and clinical adoption. AI tools that were once conceptual are now entering everyday practice, with many more on the horizon poised to transform how we diagnose, treat, and manage patients.
Dr. Yuvaraj Singh, Dr. Alessandro Colletta, and Dr. Neil Marya discuss how purpose-built AI models can reduce diagnostic uncertainty in advanced endoscopy. From cholangioscopy systems that outperform standard ERCP sampling in distinguishing malignant biliary strictures to EUS-based platforms that differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer, they envision a near-term future in which machine intelligence enhances accuracy, accelerates decision-making, and refines interpretation—without replacing the clinician’s expertise.
Complementing this, Dr. Dennis Shung takes a broader view across the endoscopy unit and outpatient clinic. He highlights the promise of AI for polyp detection, digital biopsy, and automated reporting, while underscoring the importance of human oversight, workflow integration, and safeguards against misinformation. Dr. Shung also emphasizes the pivotal role professional societies can play in establishing clear standards, ethical boundaries, and trusted frameworks for AI deployment in GI practice.
We hope these perspectives spark practical conversations about when—and how—to integrate AI in your own practice. As always, we welcome your feedback and real-world experience. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
AI Models in Advanced Endoscopy
BY YUVARAJ SINGH, MD; ALESSANDRO COLLETTA, MD; NEIL MARYA, MD
As the adage goes, “if tumor is the rumor, then tissue is the issue, because cancer may be the answer.”
Establishing an accurate diagnosis is the essential first step toward curing or palliating malignancy. From detecting an early neoplastic lesion, to distinguishing between malignant and benign pathology, or to determining when and where to obtain tissue, endoscopists are frequently faced with the challenge of transforming diagnostic suspicion into certainty.
Artificial intelligence (AI), designed to replicate human cognition such as pattern recognition and decision-making, has emerged as a technology to assist gastroenterologists in addressing a variety of different tasks during endoscopy. AI research in gastrointestinal endoscopy has initially focused on computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps. More recently, however, there has been increased emphasis on developing AI to assist advanced endoscopists.
For instance, in biliary endoscopy, AI is being explored to improve the notoriously challenging diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, where conventional tissue sampling often falls short of providing a definitive diagnosis. Similarly, in the pancreas, AI models are showing potential to differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a distinction with profound therapeutic implications. Even pancreatic cysts are beginning to benefit from AI models that refine risk stratification and guide management. Together, these advances underscore how AI is not merely an adjunct but a potentially massive catalyst for reimagining the diagnostic role of advanced endoscopists.
Classifying biliary strictures (MBS) accurately remains a challenge. Standard ERCP-based sampling techniques (forceps biopsy and brush cytology) are suboptimal diagnostic tools with false negative rates for detecting MBS of less than 50%. The diagnostic uncertainty related to biliary stricture classification carries significant consequences for patients. For example, patients with biliary cancer without positive cytology have treatments delayed until a malignant diagnosis is established.
Ancillary technologies to enhance ERCP-based tissue acquisition are still weighed down by low sensitivity and accuracy; even with ancillary use of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), diagnostic yield remains limited. EUS-FNA can help with distal biliary strictures, but this technique risks needle-tract seeding in cases of perihilar disease. Cholangioscopy allows for direct visualization and targeted sampling; however, cholangioscopy-guided forceps biopsies are burdened by low sensitivities.1 Additionally, physician interpretation of visual findings during cholangioscopy often suffers from poor interobserver agreement and poor accuracy.2
To improve the classification of biliary strictures, several groups have studied the application of AI for cholangioscopy footage of biliary pathology. In our lab, we trained an AI incorporating over 2.3 million cholangioscopy still images and nearly 20,000 expert-annotated frames to enhance its development. The AI closely mirrored expert labeling of cholangioscopy images of malignant pathology and, when tested on full cholangioscopy videos of indeterminate biliary strictures, the AI achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 91%—outperforming both brush cytology (63%) and forceps biopsy (61%).3
The results from this initial study were later validated across multiple centers. AI-assisted cholangioscopy could thus offer a reproducible, real-world solution to one of the most persistent diagnostic dilemmas advanced endoscopists face—helping clinicians act earlier and with greater confidence when evaluating indeterminate strictures.
Moving from the biliary tree to the pancreas, autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a benign fibro-inflammatory disease that often frustrates advanced endoscopists as it closely mimics the appearance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The stakes are high: despite modern diagnostic techniques, including advanced imaging, some patients with pancreatic resections for “suspected PDAC” are still found to have AIP on final pathology. Conventional tools to distinguish AIP from PDAC have gaps: serum IgG4 and EUS-guided biopsies are both specific but insensitive.
Using EUS videos and images of various pancreas pathologies at Mayo Clinic, we developed an AI to tackle this dilemma. After intensive training, the EUS AI achieved a greater accuracy for distinguishing AIP from PDAC than a group of expert Mayo clinic endosonographers.5 In practice, an EUS-AI can identify AIP patterns in real-time, guiding clinicians toward steroid trials or biopsies and reducing the need for unnecessary surgeries.
Looking ahead, there are multiple opportunities for integration of AI into advanced endoscopy practices. Ongoing research suggests that AI could soon assist with identification of pancreas cysts most at risk for malignant transformation, classification of high risk Barrett’s esophagus, and even help with rapid on-site assessment of cytologic specimens obtained during EUS. Beyond diagnosis, AI could likely play an important role in guiding therapeutic interventions. For example, an ERCP AI in the future may be able to provide cannulation assistance or an AI assistant could help endosonographers during deployments of lumen apposing metal stents.
By enhancing image interpretation and procedural consistency, AI has the potential to uphold the fundamental principle of primum non nocere, enabling us to intervene with precision while minimizing harm. AI can also bridge grey zones in clinical practice and narrow diagnostic uncertainty in real time. Importantly, these systems can help clinicians achieve expertise in a fraction of the time it traditionally takes to acquire comparable human proficiency, while offering wider availability across practice settings and reducing interobserver variability that has long challenged endoscopic interpretation.
Currently, adoption is limited by high bias risk, lack of external validation, and interpretability Still, the trajectory of AI suggests a future where these computer technologies will not only support but also elevate human expertise, reshaping the standards of care of diseases managed by advanced endoscopists.
Dr. Singh, Dr. Colletta, and Dr. Marya are based at the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. Dr. Marya is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and has no other disclosures. Dr. Singh and Dr. Colletta have no disclosures.
References
1. Navaneethan U, et al. Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017.
2. Stassen PMC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.06.027.
3. Marya NB, et al. Identification of patients with malignant biliary strictures using a cholangioscopy-based deep learning artificial intelligence (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.08.021.
4. Marya NB, et al. Multicenter validation of a cholangioscopy artificial intelligence system for the evaluation of biliary tract disease. Endoscopy. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1055/a-2650-0789.
5. Marya NB, et al. Utilisation of artificial intelligence for the development of an EUS-convolutional neural network model trained to enhance the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322821.
AI in General GI and Endoscopy
BY DENNIS L. SHUNG, MD, MHS, PHD
The practice of gastroenterology is changing, but much of it will be rooted in the same – careful, focused attention on endoscopic procedures, and compassionate, attentive care in clinic. Artificial intelligence (AI), like the Industrial Revolution before, is going to transform our practice. This comes with upsides and downsides, and highlights the need for strong leadership from our societies to safeguard the technology for practitioners and patients.
What are the upsides?
AI has the potential to serve as a second set of eyes in detecting colon polyps, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR).1 AI can be applied to all areas of the gastrointestinal tract, providing digital biopsies, guiding resection, and ensuring quality, which are all now possible with powerful new endoscopy foundation models, such as GastroNet-5M.2
Additionally. the advent of automating the collection of data into reports may herald the end of our days as data entry clerks. Generative AI also has the potential to give us all the best information at our fingertips, suggesting guideline-based care, providing the most up to date evidence, and guiding the differential diagnosis. The potential for patient-facing AI systems could lead to better health literacy, more meaningful engagement, and improved patient satisfaction.3
What are the downsides?
For endoscopy, AI cannot make up for poor technique to ensure adequate mucosal exposure by the endoscopist, and an increase in AI-supported ADR does not yet convincingly translate into concrete gains in colorectal cancer-related mortality. For the foreseeable future, AI cannot make a connection with the patient in front of us, which is critical in diagnosing and treating patients.
Currently, AI appears to worsen loneliness4, and does not necessarily deepen the bonds or provide the positive touch that can heal, and which for many of us, was the reason we became physicians. Finally, as information proliferates, the information risk to patients and providers is growing – in the future, trusted sources to monitor, curate, and guide AI will be ever more important.
Black Swans
As AI begins to mature, there are risks that lurk beneath the surface. When regulatory bodies begin to look at AI-assisted diagnostics or therapeutics as the new standard of care, reimbursement models may adjust, and providers may be left behind. The rapid proliferation and haphazard adoption of AI could lead to overdependence and deskilling or result in weird and as yet unknown errors that are difficult to troubleshoot.
What is the role of the GI societies?
Specialty societies like AGA are taking leadership roles in determining the bounds of where AIs may tread, not just in providing information to their membership but also in digesting evidence and synthesizing recommendations. Societies must balance the real promise of AI in endoscopy with the practice realities for members, and provide living guidelines that reflect the consensus of members regarding scope of practice with the ability to update as new data become available.5
Societies also have a role as advocates for safety, taking ownership of high-quality content to prevent misinformation. AGA recently announced the development of a chat interface that will be focused on providing its members the highest quality information, and serve as a portal to identify and respond to its members’ information needs. By staying united rather than fragmenting, societies can maintain bounds to protect its members and their patients and advance areas where there is clinical need, together.
Dr. Shung is senior associate consultant, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and director of clinical generative artificial intelligence and informatics, Department of Medicine, at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.
References
1. Soleymanjahi S, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Dec. doi:10.7326/annals-24-00981.
2. Jong MR, et al. GastroNet-5M: A Multicenter Dataset for Developing Foundation Models in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.07.030.
3. Soroush A, et al. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Medicine and Impact on Gastroenterology. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.03.038.
4. Mengying Fang C, et al. How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study. arXiv e-prints. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17473.
5. Sultan S, et al. AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Apr. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.002.
Dear colleagues,
Since our last Perspectives feature on artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology and hepatology, the field has experienced remarkable growth in both innovation and clinical adoption. AI tools that were once conceptual are now entering everyday practice, with many more on the horizon poised to transform how we diagnose, treat, and manage patients.
Dr. Yuvaraj Singh, Dr. Alessandro Colletta, and Dr. Neil Marya discuss how purpose-built AI models can reduce diagnostic uncertainty in advanced endoscopy. From cholangioscopy systems that outperform standard ERCP sampling in distinguishing malignant biliary strictures to EUS-based platforms that differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer, they envision a near-term future in which machine intelligence enhances accuracy, accelerates decision-making, and refines interpretation—without replacing the clinician’s expertise.
Complementing this, Dr. Dennis Shung takes a broader view across the endoscopy unit and outpatient clinic. He highlights the promise of AI for polyp detection, digital biopsy, and automated reporting, while underscoring the importance of human oversight, workflow integration, and safeguards against misinformation. Dr. Shung also emphasizes the pivotal role professional societies can play in establishing clear standards, ethical boundaries, and trusted frameworks for AI deployment in GI practice.
We hope these perspectives spark practical conversations about when—and how—to integrate AI in your own practice. As always, we welcome your feedback and real-world experience. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
AI Models in Advanced Endoscopy
BY YUVARAJ SINGH, MD; ALESSANDRO COLLETTA, MD; NEIL MARYA, MD
As the adage goes, “if tumor is the rumor, then tissue is the issue, because cancer may be the answer.”
Establishing an accurate diagnosis is the essential first step toward curing or palliating malignancy. From detecting an early neoplastic lesion, to distinguishing between malignant and benign pathology, or to determining when and where to obtain tissue, endoscopists are frequently faced with the challenge of transforming diagnostic suspicion into certainty.
Artificial intelligence (AI), designed to replicate human cognition such as pattern recognition and decision-making, has emerged as a technology to assist gastroenterologists in addressing a variety of different tasks during endoscopy. AI research in gastrointestinal endoscopy has initially focused on computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps. More recently, however, there has been increased emphasis on developing AI to assist advanced endoscopists.
For instance, in biliary endoscopy, AI is being explored to improve the notoriously challenging diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, where conventional tissue sampling often falls short of providing a definitive diagnosis. Similarly, in the pancreas, AI models are showing potential to differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a distinction with profound therapeutic implications. Even pancreatic cysts are beginning to benefit from AI models that refine risk stratification and guide management. Together, these advances underscore how AI is not merely an adjunct but a potentially massive catalyst for reimagining the diagnostic role of advanced endoscopists.
Classifying biliary strictures (MBS) accurately remains a challenge. Standard ERCP-based sampling techniques (forceps biopsy and brush cytology) are suboptimal diagnostic tools with false negative rates for detecting MBS of less than 50%. The diagnostic uncertainty related to biliary stricture classification carries significant consequences for patients. For example, patients with biliary cancer without positive cytology have treatments delayed until a malignant diagnosis is established.
Ancillary technologies to enhance ERCP-based tissue acquisition are still weighed down by low sensitivity and accuracy; even with ancillary use of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), diagnostic yield remains limited. EUS-FNA can help with distal biliary strictures, but this technique risks needle-tract seeding in cases of perihilar disease. Cholangioscopy allows for direct visualization and targeted sampling; however, cholangioscopy-guided forceps biopsies are burdened by low sensitivities.1 Additionally, physician interpretation of visual findings during cholangioscopy often suffers from poor interobserver agreement and poor accuracy.2
To improve the classification of biliary strictures, several groups have studied the application of AI for cholangioscopy footage of biliary pathology. In our lab, we trained an AI incorporating over 2.3 million cholangioscopy still images and nearly 20,000 expert-annotated frames to enhance its development. The AI closely mirrored expert labeling of cholangioscopy images of malignant pathology and, when tested on full cholangioscopy videos of indeterminate biliary strictures, the AI achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 91%—outperforming both brush cytology (63%) and forceps biopsy (61%).3
The results from this initial study were later validated across multiple centers. AI-assisted cholangioscopy could thus offer a reproducible, real-world solution to one of the most persistent diagnostic dilemmas advanced endoscopists face—helping clinicians act earlier and with greater confidence when evaluating indeterminate strictures.
Moving from the biliary tree to the pancreas, autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a benign fibro-inflammatory disease that often frustrates advanced endoscopists as it closely mimics the appearance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The stakes are high: despite modern diagnostic techniques, including advanced imaging, some patients with pancreatic resections for “suspected PDAC” are still found to have AIP on final pathology. Conventional tools to distinguish AIP from PDAC have gaps: serum IgG4 and EUS-guided biopsies are both specific but insensitive.
Using EUS videos and images of various pancreas pathologies at Mayo Clinic, we developed an AI to tackle this dilemma. After intensive training, the EUS AI achieved a greater accuracy for distinguishing AIP from PDAC than a group of expert Mayo clinic endosonographers.5 In practice, an EUS-AI can identify AIP patterns in real-time, guiding clinicians toward steroid trials or biopsies and reducing the need for unnecessary surgeries.
Looking ahead, there are multiple opportunities for integration of AI into advanced endoscopy practices. Ongoing research suggests that AI could soon assist with identification of pancreas cysts most at risk for malignant transformation, classification of high risk Barrett’s esophagus, and even help with rapid on-site assessment of cytologic specimens obtained during EUS. Beyond diagnosis, AI could likely play an important role in guiding therapeutic interventions. For example, an ERCP AI in the future may be able to provide cannulation assistance or an AI assistant could help endosonographers during deployments of lumen apposing metal stents.
By enhancing image interpretation and procedural consistency, AI has the potential to uphold the fundamental principle of primum non nocere, enabling us to intervene with precision while minimizing harm. AI can also bridge grey zones in clinical practice and narrow diagnostic uncertainty in real time. Importantly, these systems can help clinicians achieve expertise in a fraction of the time it traditionally takes to acquire comparable human proficiency, while offering wider availability across practice settings and reducing interobserver variability that has long challenged endoscopic interpretation.
Currently, adoption is limited by high bias risk, lack of external validation, and interpretability Still, the trajectory of AI suggests a future where these computer technologies will not only support but also elevate human expertise, reshaping the standards of care of diseases managed by advanced endoscopists.
Dr. Singh, Dr. Colletta, and Dr. Marya are based at the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. Dr. Marya is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and has no other disclosures. Dr. Singh and Dr. Colletta have no disclosures.
References
1. Navaneethan U, et al. Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017.
2. Stassen PMC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.06.027.
3. Marya NB, et al. Identification of patients with malignant biliary strictures using a cholangioscopy-based deep learning artificial intelligence (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.08.021.
4. Marya NB, et al. Multicenter validation of a cholangioscopy artificial intelligence system for the evaluation of biliary tract disease. Endoscopy. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1055/a-2650-0789.
5. Marya NB, et al. Utilisation of artificial intelligence for the development of an EUS-convolutional neural network model trained to enhance the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322821.
AI in General GI and Endoscopy
BY DENNIS L. SHUNG, MD, MHS, PHD
The practice of gastroenterology is changing, but much of it will be rooted in the same – careful, focused attention on endoscopic procedures, and compassionate, attentive care in clinic. Artificial intelligence (AI), like the Industrial Revolution before, is going to transform our practice. This comes with upsides and downsides, and highlights the need for strong leadership from our societies to safeguard the technology for practitioners and patients.
What are the upsides?
AI has the potential to serve as a second set of eyes in detecting colon polyps, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR).1 AI can be applied to all areas of the gastrointestinal tract, providing digital biopsies, guiding resection, and ensuring quality, which are all now possible with powerful new endoscopy foundation models, such as GastroNet-5M.2
Additionally. the advent of automating the collection of data into reports may herald the end of our days as data entry clerks. Generative AI also has the potential to give us all the best information at our fingertips, suggesting guideline-based care, providing the most up to date evidence, and guiding the differential diagnosis. The potential for patient-facing AI systems could lead to better health literacy, more meaningful engagement, and improved patient satisfaction.3
What are the downsides?
For endoscopy, AI cannot make up for poor technique to ensure adequate mucosal exposure by the endoscopist, and an increase in AI-supported ADR does not yet convincingly translate into concrete gains in colorectal cancer-related mortality. For the foreseeable future, AI cannot make a connection with the patient in front of us, which is critical in diagnosing and treating patients.
Currently, AI appears to worsen loneliness4, and does not necessarily deepen the bonds or provide the positive touch that can heal, and which for many of us, was the reason we became physicians. Finally, as information proliferates, the information risk to patients and providers is growing – in the future, trusted sources to monitor, curate, and guide AI will be ever more important.
Black Swans
As AI begins to mature, there are risks that lurk beneath the surface. When regulatory bodies begin to look at AI-assisted diagnostics or therapeutics as the new standard of care, reimbursement models may adjust, and providers may be left behind. The rapid proliferation and haphazard adoption of AI could lead to overdependence and deskilling or result in weird and as yet unknown errors that are difficult to troubleshoot.
What is the role of the GI societies?
Specialty societies like AGA are taking leadership roles in determining the bounds of where AIs may tread, not just in providing information to their membership but also in digesting evidence and synthesizing recommendations. Societies must balance the real promise of AI in endoscopy with the practice realities for members, and provide living guidelines that reflect the consensus of members regarding scope of practice with the ability to update as new data become available.5
Societies also have a role as advocates for safety, taking ownership of high-quality content to prevent misinformation. AGA recently announced the development of a chat interface that will be focused on providing its members the highest quality information, and serve as a portal to identify and respond to its members’ information needs. By staying united rather than fragmenting, societies can maintain bounds to protect its members and their patients and advance areas where there is clinical need, together.
Dr. Shung is senior associate consultant, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and director of clinical generative artificial intelligence and informatics, Department of Medicine, at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.
References
1. Soleymanjahi S, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Dec. doi:10.7326/annals-24-00981.
2. Jong MR, et al. GastroNet-5M: A Multicenter Dataset for Developing Foundation Models in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.07.030.
3. Soroush A, et al. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Medicine and Impact on Gastroenterology. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.03.038.
4. Mengying Fang C, et al. How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study. arXiv e-prints. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17473.
5. Sultan S, et al. AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Apr. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.002.
Dear colleagues,
Since our last Perspectives feature on artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology and hepatology, the field has experienced remarkable growth in both innovation and clinical adoption. AI tools that were once conceptual are now entering everyday practice, with many more on the horizon poised to transform how we diagnose, treat, and manage patients.
Dr. Yuvaraj Singh, Dr. Alessandro Colletta, and Dr. Neil Marya discuss how purpose-built AI models can reduce diagnostic uncertainty in advanced endoscopy. From cholangioscopy systems that outperform standard ERCP sampling in distinguishing malignant biliary strictures to EUS-based platforms that differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer, they envision a near-term future in which machine intelligence enhances accuracy, accelerates decision-making, and refines interpretation—without replacing the clinician’s expertise.
Complementing this, Dr. Dennis Shung takes a broader view across the endoscopy unit and outpatient clinic. He highlights the promise of AI for polyp detection, digital biopsy, and automated reporting, while underscoring the importance of human oversight, workflow integration, and safeguards against misinformation. Dr. Shung also emphasizes the pivotal role professional societies can play in establishing clear standards, ethical boundaries, and trusted frameworks for AI deployment in GI practice.
We hope these perspectives spark practical conversations about when—and how—to integrate AI in your own practice. As always, we welcome your feedback and real-world experience. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
AI Models in Advanced Endoscopy
BY YUVARAJ SINGH, MD; ALESSANDRO COLLETTA, MD; NEIL MARYA, MD
As the adage goes, “if tumor is the rumor, then tissue is the issue, because cancer may be the answer.”
Establishing an accurate diagnosis is the essential first step toward curing or palliating malignancy. From detecting an early neoplastic lesion, to distinguishing between malignant and benign pathology, or to determining when and where to obtain tissue, endoscopists are frequently faced with the challenge of transforming diagnostic suspicion into certainty.
Artificial intelligence (AI), designed to replicate human cognition such as pattern recognition and decision-making, has emerged as a technology to assist gastroenterologists in addressing a variety of different tasks during endoscopy. AI research in gastrointestinal endoscopy has initially focused on computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps. More recently, however, there has been increased emphasis on developing AI to assist advanced endoscopists.
For instance, in biliary endoscopy, AI is being explored to improve the notoriously challenging diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, where conventional tissue sampling often falls short of providing a definitive diagnosis. Similarly, in the pancreas, AI models are showing potential to differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a distinction with profound therapeutic implications. Even pancreatic cysts are beginning to benefit from AI models that refine risk stratification and guide management. Together, these advances underscore how AI is not merely an adjunct but a potentially massive catalyst for reimagining the diagnostic role of advanced endoscopists.
Classifying biliary strictures (MBS) accurately remains a challenge. Standard ERCP-based sampling techniques (forceps biopsy and brush cytology) are suboptimal diagnostic tools with false negative rates for detecting MBS of less than 50%. The diagnostic uncertainty related to biliary stricture classification carries significant consequences for patients. For example, patients with biliary cancer without positive cytology have treatments delayed until a malignant diagnosis is established.
Ancillary technologies to enhance ERCP-based tissue acquisition are still weighed down by low sensitivity and accuracy; even with ancillary use of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), diagnostic yield remains limited. EUS-FNA can help with distal biliary strictures, but this technique risks needle-tract seeding in cases of perihilar disease. Cholangioscopy allows for direct visualization and targeted sampling; however, cholangioscopy-guided forceps biopsies are burdened by low sensitivities.1 Additionally, physician interpretation of visual findings during cholangioscopy often suffers from poor interobserver agreement and poor accuracy.2
To improve the classification of biliary strictures, several groups have studied the application of AI for cholangioscopy footage of biliary pathology. In our lab, we trained an AI incorporating over 2.3 million cholangioscopy still images and nearly 20,000 expert-annotated frames to enhance its development. The AI closely mirrored expert labeling of cholangioscopy images of malignant pathology and, when tested on full cholangioscopy videos of indeterminate biliary strictures, the AI achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 91%—outperforming both brush cytology (63%) and forceps biopsy (61%).3
The results from this initial study were later validated across multiple centers. AI-assisted cholangioscopy could thus offer a reproducible, real-world solution to one of the most persistent diagnostic dilemmas advanced endoscopists face—helping clinicians act earlier and with greater confidence when evaluating indeterminate strictures.
Moving from the biliary tree to the pancreas, autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a benign fibro-inflammatory disease that often frustrates advanced endoscopists as it closely mimics the appearance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The stakes are high: despite modern diagnostic techniques, including advanced imaging, some patients with pancreatic resections for “suspected PDAC” are still found to have AIP on final pathology. Conventional tools to distinguish AIP from PDAC have gaps: serum IgG4 and EUS-guided biopsies are both specific but insensitive.
Using EUS videos and images of various pancreas pathologies at Mayo Clinic, we developed an AI to tackle this dilemma. After intensive training, the EUS AI achieved a greater accuracy for distinguishing AIP from PDAC than a group of expert Mayo clinic endosonographers.5 In practice, an EUS-AI can identify AIP patterns in real-time, guiding clinicians toward steroid trials or biopsies and reducing the need for unnecessary surgeries.
Looking ahead, there are multiple opportunities for integration of AI into advanced endoscopy practices. Ongoing research suggests that AI could soon assist with identification of pancreas cysts most at risk for malignant transformation, classification of high risk Barrett’s esophagus, and even help with rapid on-site assessment of cytologic specimens obtained during EUS. Beyond diagnosis, AI could likely play an important role in guiding therapeutic interventions. For example, an ERCP AI in the future may be able to provide cannulation assistance or an AI assistant could help endosonographers during deployments of lumen apposing metal stents.
By enhancing image interpretation and procedural consistency, AI has the potential to uphold the fundamental principle of primum non nocere, enabling us to intervene with precision while minimizing harm. AI can also bridge grey zones in clinical practice and narrow diagnostic uncertainty in real time. Importantly, these systems can help clinicians achieve expertise in a fraction of the time it traditionally takes to acquire comparable human proficiency, while offering wider availability across practice settings and reducing interobserver variability that has long challenged endoscopic interpretation.
Currently, adoption is limited by high bias risk, lack of external validation, and interpretability Still, the trajectory of AI suggests a future where these computer technologies will not only support but also elevate human expertise, reshaping the standards of care of diseases managed by advanced endoscopists.
Dr. Singh, Dr. Colletta, and Dr. Marya are based at the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. Dr. Marya is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and has no other disclosures. Dr. Singh and Dr. Colletta have no disclosures.
References
1. Navaneethan U, et al. Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017.
2. Stassen PMC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.06.027.
3. Marya NB, et al. Identification of patients with malignant biliary strictures using a cholangioscopy-based deep learning artificial intelligence (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.08.021.
4. Marya NB, et al. Multicenter validation of a cholangioscopy artificial intelligence system for the evaluation of biliary tract disease. Endoscopy. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1055/a-2650-0789.
5. Marya NB, et al. Utilisation of artificial intelligence for the development of an EUS-convolutional neural network model trained to enhance the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322821.
AI in General GI and Endoscopy
BY DENNIS L. SHUNG, MD, MHS, PHD
The practice of gastroenterology is changing, but much of it will be rooted in the same – careful, focused attention on endoscopic procedures, and compassionate, attentive care in clinic. Artificial intelligence (AI), like the Industrial Revolution before, is going to transform our practice. This comes with upsides and downsides, and highlights the need for strong leadership from our societies to safeguard the technology for practitioners and patients.
What are the upsides?
AI has the potential to serve as a second set of eyes in detecting colon polyps, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR).1 AI can be applied to all areas of the gastrointestinal tract, providing digital biopsies, guiding resection, and ensuring quality, which are all now possible with powerful new endoscopy foundation models, such as GastroNet-5M.2
Additionally. the advent of automating the collection of data into reports may herald the end of our days as data entry clerks. Generative AI also has the potential to give us all the best information at our fingertips, suggesting guideline-based care, providing the most up to date evidence, and guiding the differential diagnosis. The potential for patient-facing AI systems could lead to better health literacy, more meaningful engagement, and improved patient satisfaction.3
What are the downsides?
For endoscopy, AI cannot make up for poor technique to ensure adequate mucosal exposure by the endoscopist, and an increase in AI-supported ADR does not yet convincingly translate into concrete gains in colorectal cancer-related mortality. For the foreseeable future, AI cannot make a connection with the patient in front of us, which is critical in diagnosing and treating patients.
Currently, AI appears to worsen loneliness4, and does not necessarily deepen the bonds or provide the positive touch that can heal, and which for many of us, was the reason we became physicians. Finally, as information proliferates, the information risk to patients and providers is growing – in the future, trusted sources to monitor, curate, and guide AI will be ever more important.
Black Swans
As AI begins to mature, there are risks that lurk beneath the surface. When regulatory bodies begin to look at AI-assisted diagnostics or therapeutics as the new standard of care, reimbursement models may adjust, and providers may be left behind. The rapid proliferation and haphazard adoption of AI could lead to overdependence and deskilling or result in weird and as yet unknown errors that are difficult to troubleshoot.
What is the role of the GI societies?
Specialty societies like AGA are taking leadership roles in determining the bounds of where AIs may tread, not just in providing information to their membership but also in digesting evidence and synthesizing recommendations. Societies must balance the real promise of AI in endoscopy with the practice realities for members, and provide living guidelines that reflect the consensus of members regarding scope of practice with the ability to update as new data become available.5
Societies also have a role as advocates for safety, taking ownership of high-quality content to prevent misinformation. AGA recently announced the development of a chat interface that will be focused on providing its members the highest quality information, and serve as a portal to identify and respond to its members’ information needs. By staying united rather than fragmenting, societies can maintain bounds to protect its members and their patients and advance areas where there is clinical need, together.
Dr. Shung is senior associate consultant, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and director of clinical generative artificial intelligence and informatics, Department of Medicine, at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.
References
1. Soleymanjahi S, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Dec. doi:10.7326/annals-24-00981.
2. Jong MR, et al. GastroNet-5M: A Multicenter Dataset for Developing Foundation Models in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.07.030.
3. Soroush A, et al. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Medicine and Impact on Gastroenterology. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.03.038.
4. Mengying Fang C, et al. How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study. arXiv e-prints. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17473.
5. Sultan S, et al. AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Apr. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.002.
American Hunger Games: Food Insecurity Among the Military and Veterans
American Hunger Games: Food Insecurity Among the Military and Veterans
The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.
Analects by Confucius1
From ancient festivals to modern holidays, autumn has long been associated with the gathering of the harvest. Friends and families come together around tables laden with delicious food to enjoy the pleasures of peace and plenty. During these celebrations, we must never forget that without the strength of the nation’s military and the service of its veterans, this freedom and abundance would not be possible. Our debt of gratitude to the current and former members of the armed services makes the fact that a substantial minority experiences food insecurity not only a human tragedy, but a travesty of the nation’s promise to support those who wear or have worn the uniform.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 charged the Secretary of Defense to investigate food insecurity among active-duty service members and their dependents.2 The RAND Corporation conducted the assessment and, based on the results of its analysis, made recommendations to reduce hunger among armed forces members and their families.3
The RAND study found that 10% of active-duty military met US Department of Agriculture (USDA) criteria for very low food security; another 15% were classified as having low food security. The USDA defines food insecurity with hunger as “reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.” USDA defines low food security as “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.”4
As someone who grew up on an Army base with the commissary a short trip from military housing, I was unpleasantly surprised that food insecurity was more common among in-service members living on post. I was even more dismayed to read that a variety of factors constrained 14% of active-duty military experiencing food insecurity to seek public assistance to feed themselves and their families. As with so many health care and social services, (eg, mental health care), those wearing the uniform were concerned that participating in a food assistance program would damage their career or stigmatize them. Others did not seek help, perhaps because they believed they were not eligible, and in many cases were correct: they did not qualify for food banks or food stamps due to receiving other benefits. A variety of factors contribute to periods of food insecurity among military families, including remote or rural bases that lack access to grocery stores or jobs for partners or other family members, and low base military pay.5
Food insecurity is an even more serious concern among veterans who are frequently older and have more comorbidities, often leading to unemployment and homelessness. Feeding America, the nation’s largest organization of community food banks, estimates that 1 in 9 working-age veterans are food insecure.5 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) statistics indicate that veterans are 7% more likely to experience food insecurity than other sectors of the population.6 The Veterans Health Administration has recognized that food insecurity is directly related to medical problems already common among veterans, including diabetes, obesity, and depression. Women and minority veterans are the most at risk of food insecurity.7
Recognizing that many veterans are at risk of food insecurity, the US Department of Defense and VA have taken steps to try and reduce hunger among those who serve. In response to the shocking statistic that food insecurity was found in 27% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the VA and Rockefeller Foundation are partnering on the Food as Medicine initiative to improve veteran nutrition as a means of improving nutrition-related health consequences of food insecurity.8
Like many federal practitioners, I was unaware of the food insecurity assistance available to active-duty service members or veterans, or how to help individuals access it. In addition to the resources outlined in the Table, there are many community-based options open to anyone, including veterans and service members.
I have written columns on many difficult issues in my years as the Editor-in-Chief of Federal Practitioner, but personally this is one of the most distressing editorials I have ever published. That individuals dedicated to defending our rights and protecting our safety should be compelled to go hungry or not know if they have enough money at the end of the month to buy food is manifestly unjust. It is challenging when faced with such a large-scale injustice to think we cannot make a difference, but that resignation or abdication only magnifies this inequity. I have a friend who kept giving back even after they retired from federal service: they volunteered at a community garden and brought produce to the local food bank and helped distribute it. That may seem too much for those still working yet almost anyone can pick up a few items on their weekly shopping trip and donate them to a food drive.
As we approach Veterans Day, let’s not just express our gratitude to our military and veterans in words but in deeds like feeding the hungry and urging elected representatives to fulfill their commitment to ensure that service members and veterans and their families do not experience food insecurity. Confucian wisdom written in a very distant time and vastly dissimilar context still rings true: there are direct and critical links between food and trust and between hunger and the military.1
Dawson MM. The Wisdom of Confucius: A Collection of the Ethical Sayings of Confucius and of his disciples. International Pocket Library; 1932.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. 116th Cong (2019), Public Law 116-92. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ92/html/PLAW-116publ92.htm
Asch BJ, Rennane S, Trail TE, et al. Food insecurity among members of the armed forces and their dependents. RAND Corporation. January 3, 2023. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1230-1.html
US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Food Security in the U.S.—Definitions of Food Security. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. January 10, 2025. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security
Active military and veteran food insecurity. Feeding America. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/food-insecurity-in-veterans
Pradun S. Find access to stop food insecurity in your community. VA News. September 19, 2025. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://news.va.gov/142733/find-access-stop-food-insecurity-your-community/
Cohen AJ, Dosa DM, Rudolph JL, et al. Risk factors for veteran food insecurity: findings from a National US Department of Veterans Affairs Food Insecurity Screener. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25:819-828. doi:10.1017/S1368980021004584
Chen C. VA and Rockefeller Foundation collaborate to access food for Veterans. VA News. September 5, 2023. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://news.va.gov/123228/va-rockefeller-foundation-expand-access-to-food/
The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.
Analects by Confucius1
From ancient festivals to modern holidays, autumn has long been associated with the gathering of the harvest. Friends and families come together around tables laden with delicious food to enjoy the pleasures of peace and plenty. During these celebrations, we must never forget that without the strength of the nation’s military and the service of its veterans, this freedom and abundance would not be possible. Our debt of gratitude to the current and former members of the armed services makes the fact that a substantial minority experiences food insecurity not only a human tragedy, but a travesty of the nation’s promise to support those who wear or have worn the uniform.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 charged the Secretary of Defense to investigate food insecurity among active-duty service members and their dependents.2 The RAND Corporation conducted the assessment and, based on the results of its analysis, made recommendations to reduce hunger among armed forces members and their families.3
The RAND study found that 10% of active-duty military met US Department of Agriculture (USDA) criteria for very low food security; another 15% were classified as having low food security. The USDA defines food insecurity with hunger as “reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.” USDA defines low food security as “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.”4
As someone who grew up on an Army base with the commissary a short trip from military housing, I was unpleasantly surprised that food insecurity was more common among in-service members living on post. I was even more dismayed to read that a variety of factors constrained 14% of active-duty military experiencing food insecurity to seek public assistance to feed themselves and their families. As with so many health care and social services, (eg, mental health care), those wearing the uniform were concerned that participating in a food assistance program would damage their career or stigmatize them. Others did not seek help, perhaps because they believed they were not eligible, and in many cases were correct: they did not qualify for food banks or food stamps due to receiving other benefits. A variety of factors contribute to periods of food insecurity among military families, including remote or rural bases that lack access to grocery stores or jobs for partners or other family members, and low base military pay.5
Food insecurity is an even more serious concern among veterans who are frequently older and have more comorbidities, often leading to unemployment and homelessness. Feeding America, the nation’s largest organization of community food banks, estimates that 1 in 9 working-age veterans are food insecure.5 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) statistics indicate that veterans are 7% more likely to experience food insecurity than other sectors of the population.6 The Veterans Health Administration has recognized that food insecurity is directly related to medical problems already common among veterans, including diabetes, obesity, and depression. Women and minority veterans are the most at risk of food insecurity.7
Recognizing that many veterans are at risk of food insecurity, the US Department of Defense and VA have taken steps to try and reduce hunger among those who serve. In response to the shocking statistic that food insecurity was found in 27% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the VA and Rockefeller Foundation are partnering on the Food as Medicine initiative to improve veteran nutrition as a means of improving nutrition-related health consequences of food insecurity.8
Like many federal practitioners, I was unaware of the food insecurity assistance available to active-duty service members or veterans, or how to help individuals access it. In addition to the resources outlined in the Table, there are many community-based options open to anyone, including veterans and service members.
I have written columns on many difficult issues in my years as the Editor-in-Chief of Federal Practitioner, but personally this is one of the most distressing editorials I have ever published. That individuals dedicated to defending our rights and protecting our safety should be compelled to go hungry or not know if they have enough money at the end of the month to buy food is manifestly unjust. It is challenging when faced with such a large-scale injustice to think we cannot make a difference, but that resignation or abdication only magnifies this inequity. I have a friend who kept giving back even after they retired from federal service: they volunteered at a community garden and brought produce to the local food bank and helped distribute it. That may seem too much for those still working yet almost anyone can pick up a few items on their weekly shopping trip and donate them to a food drive.
As we approach Veterans Day, let’s not just express our gratitude to our military and veterans in words but in deeds like feeding the hungry and urging elected representatives to fulfill their commitment to ensure that service members and veterans and their families do not experience food insecurity. Confucian wisdom written in a very distant time and vastly dissimilar context still rings true: there are direct and critical links between food and trust and between hunger and the military.1
The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.
Analects by Confucius1
From ancient festivals to modern holidays, autumn has long been associated with the gathering of the harvest. Friends and families come together around tables laden with delicious food to enjoy the pleasures of peace and plenty. During these celebrations, we must never forget that without the strength of the nation’s military and the service of its veterans, this freedom and abundance would not be possible. Our debt of gratitude to the current and former members of the armed services makes the fact that a substantial minority experiences food insecurity not only a human tragedy, but a travesty of the nation’s promise to support those who wear or have worn the uniform.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 charged the Secretary of Defense to investigate food insecurity among active-duty service members and their dependents.2 The RAND Corporation conducted the assessment and, based on the results of its analysis, made recommendations to reduce hunger among armed forces members and their families.3
The RAND study found that 10% of active-duty military met US Department of Agriculture (USDA) criteria for very low food security; another 15% were classified as having low food security. The USDA defines food insecurity with hunger as “reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.” USDA defines low food security as “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.”4
As someone who grew up on an Army base with the commissary a short trip from military housing, I was unpleasantly surprised that food insecurity was more common among in-service members living on post. I was even more dismayed to read that a variety of factors constrained 14% of active-duty military experiencing food insecurity to seek public assistance to feed themselves and their families. As with so many health care and social services, (eg, mental health care), those wearing the uniform were concerned that participating in a food assistance program would damage their career or stigmatize them. Others did not seek help, perhaps because they believed they were not eligible, and in many cases were correct: they did not qualify for food banks or food stamps due to receiving other benefits. A variety of factors contribute to periods of food insecurity among military families, including remote or rural bases that lack access to grocery stores or jobs for partners or other family members, and low base military pay.5
Food insecurity is an even more serious concern among veterans who are frequently older and have more comorbidities, often leading to unemployment and homelessness. Feeding America, the nation’s largest organization of community food banks, estimates that 1 in 9 working-age veterans are food insecure.5 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) statistics indicate that veterans are 7% more likely to experience food insecurity than other sectors of the population.6 The Veterans Health Administration has recognized that food insecurity is directly related to medical problems already common among veterans, including diabetes, obesity, and depression. Women and minority veterans are the most at risk of food insecurity.7
Recognizing that many veterans are at risk of food insecurity, the US Department of Defense and VA have taken steps to try and reduce hunger among those who serve. In response to the shocking statistic that food insecurity was found in 27% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the VA and Rockefeller Foundation are partnering on the Food as Medicine initiative to improve veteran nutrition as a means of improving nutrition-related health consequences of food insecurity.8
Like many federal practitioners, I was unaware of the food insecurity assistance available to active-duty service members or veterans, or how to help individuals access it. In addition to the resources outlined in the Table, there are many community-based options open to anyone, including veterans and service members.
I have written columns on many difficult issues in my years as the Editor-in-Chief of Federal Practitioner, but personally this is one of the most distressing editorials I have ever published. That individuals dedicated to defending our rights and protecting our safety should be compelled to go hungry or not know if they have enough money at the end of the month to buy food is manifestly unjust. It is challenging when faced with such a large-scale injustice to think we cannot make a difference, but that resignation or abdication only magnifies this inequity. I have a friend who kept giving back even after they retired from federal service: they volunteered at a community garden and brought produce to the local food bank and helped distribute it. That may seem too much for those still working yet almost anyone can pick up a few items on their weekly shopping trip and donate them to a food drive.
As we approach Veterans Day, let’s not just express our gratitude to our military and veterans in words but in deeds like feeding the hungry and urging elected representatives to fulfill their commitment to ensure that service members and veterans and their families do not experience food insecurity. Confucian wisdom written in a very distant time and vastly dissimilar context still rings true: there are direct and critical links between food and trust and between hunger and the military.1
Dawson MM. The Wisdom of Confucius: A Collection of the Ethical Sayings of Confucius and of his disciples. International Pocket Library; 1932.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. 116th Cong (2019), Public Law 116-92. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ92/html/PLAW-116publ92.htm
Asch BJ, Rennane S, Trail TE, et al. Food insecurity among members of the armed forces and their dependents. RAND Corporation. January 3, 2023. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1230-1.html
US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Food Security in the U.S.—Definitions of Food Security. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. January 10, 2025. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security
Active military and veteran food insecurity. Feeding America. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/food-insecurity-in-veterans
Pradun S. Find access to stop food insecurity in your community. VA News. September 19, 2025. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://news.va.gov/142733/find-access-stop-food-insecurity-your-community/
Cohen AJ, Dosa DM, Rudolph JL, et al. Risk factors for veteran food insecurity: findings from a National US Department of Veterans Affairs Food Insecurity Screener. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25:819-828. doi:10.1017/S1368980021004584
Chen C. VA and Rockefeller Foundation collaborate to access food for Veterans. VA News. September 5, 2023. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://news.va.gov/123228/va-rockefeller-foundation-expand-access-to-food/
Dawson MM. The Wisdom of Confucius: A Collection of the Ethical Sayings of Confucius and of his disciples. International Pocket Library; 1932.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. 116th Cong (2019), Public Law 116-92. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ92/html/PLAW-116publ92.htm
Asch BJ, Rennane S, Trail TE, et al. Food insecurity among members of the armed forces and their dependents. RAND Corporation. January 3, 2023. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1230-1.html
US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Food Security in the U.S.—Definitions of Food Security. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. January 10, 2025. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security
Active military and veteran food insecurity. Feeding America. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/food-insecurity-in-veterans
Pradun S. Find access to stop food insecurity in your community. VA News. September 19, 2025. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://news.va.gov/142733/find-access-stop-food-insecurity-your-community/
Cohen AJ, Dosa DM, Rudolph JL, et al. Risk factors for veteran food insecurity: findings from a National US Department of Veterans Affairs Food Insecurity Screener. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25:819-828. doi:10.1017/S1368980021004584
Chen C. VA and Rockefeller Foundation collaborate to access food for Veterans. VA News. September 5, 2023. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://news.va.gov/123228/va-rockefeller-foundation-expand-access-to-food/
American Hunger Games: Food Insecurity Among the Military and Veterans
American Hunger Games: Food Insecurity Among the Military and Veterans
Letter: Another View on Private Equity in GI
An October 1 article in GI & Hepatology News cautioned physicians against partnering with private equity firms, warning that they target “quick profits and quick exits, which can be inconsistent with quality long-term patient care.”
But several recent studies – and my own experience – show that .
A 2024 study conducted by Avalere Health found that per-beneficiary Medicare expenditures for physicians who shifted from an unaffiliated practice model to a PE-affiliated model declined by $963 in the 12 months following the transition. By contrast, per-beneficiary Medicare expenditures for physicians who shifted from an unaffiliated model to a hospital-affiliated one increased more than $1,300.
A 2025 peer-reviewed study published in Journal of Market Access & Health Policy found that physicians affiliated with private equity were far more likely to perform common high-volume procedures in the lowest-cost site of care – an ambulatory surgery center or medical office – than in higher-cost hospital outpatient departments. Physicians affiliated with hospitals were far more likely to perform procedures in HOPDs.
Partnering with a private equity-backed management services organization has enabled my practice to afford advanced technologies we never could have deployed on our own. Those technologies have helped improve our polyp detection rates, reduce the incidence of colon cancer, and more efficiently care for patients with ulcerative colitis. We also now provide patients seamless access to digital platforms that help them better manage chronic conditions.
Independent medical practice is under duress. Partnering with a private equity-backed management services organization is one of the most effective ways for a physician practice to retain its independence – and continue offering patients affordable, high-quality care.
George Dickstein, MD, AGAF, is senior vice president of clinical affairs, Massachusetts, for Gastro Health, and chairperson of Gastro Health’s Physician Leadership Council. He is based in Framingham, Mass. GI & Hepatology News encourages readers to submit letters to the editor to debate topics raised in the newspaper.
An October 1 article in GI & Hepatology News cautioned physicians against partnering with private equity firms, warning that they target “quick profits and quick exits, which can be inconsistent with quality long-term patient care.”
But several recent studies – and my own experience – show that .
A 2024 study conducted by Avalere Health found that per-beneficiary Medicare expenditures for physicians who shifted from an unaffiliated practice model to a PE-affiliated model declined by $963 in the 12 months following the transition. By contrast, per-beneficiary Medicare expenditures for physicians who shifted from an unaffiliated model to a hospital-affiliated one increased more than $1,300.
A 2025 peer-reviewed study published in Journal of Market Access & Health Policy found that physicians affiliated with private equity were far more likely to perform common high-volume procedures in the lowest-cost site of care – an ambulatory surgery center or medical office – than in higher-cost hospital outpatient departments. Physicians affiliated with hospitals were far more likely to perform procedures in HOPDs.
Partnering with a private equity-backed management services organization has enabled my practice to afford advanced technologies we never could have deployed on our own. Those technologies have helped improve our polyp detection rates, reduce the incidence of colon cancer, and more efficiently care for patients with ulcerative colitis. We also now provide patients seamless access to digital platforms that help them better manage chronic conditions.
Independent medical practice is under duress. Partnering with a private equity-backed management services organization is one of the most effective ways for a physician practice to retain its independence – and continue offering patients affordable, high-quality care.
George Dickstein, MD, AGAF, is senior vice president of clinical affairs, Massachusetts, for Gastro Health, and chairperson of Gastro Health’s Physician Leadership Council. He is based in Framingham, Mass. GI & Hepatology News encourages readers to submit letters to the editor to debate topics raised in the newspaper.
An October 1 article in GI & Hepatology News cautioned physicians against partnering with private equity firms, warning that they target “quick profits and quick exits, which can be inconsistent with quality long-term patient care.”
But several recent studies – and my own experience – show that .
A 2024 study conducted by Avalere Health found that per-beneficiary Medicare expenditures for physicians who shifted from an unaffiliated practice model to a PE-affiliated model declined by $963 in the 12 months following the transition. By contrast, per-beneficiary Medicare expenditures for physicians who shifted from an unaffiliated model to a hospital-affiliated one increased more than $1,300.
A 2025 peer-reviewed study published in Journal of Market Access & Health Policy found that physicians affiliated with private equity were far more likely to perform common high-volume procedures in the lowest-cost site of care – an ambulatory surgery center or medical office – than in higher-cost hospital outpatient departments. Physicians affiliated with hospitals were far more likely to perform procedures in HOPDs.
Partnering with a private equity-backed management services organization has enabled my practice to afford advanced technologies we never could have deployed on our own. Those technologies have helped improve our polyp detection rates, reduce the incidence of colon cancer, and more efficiently care for patients with ulcerative colitis. We also now provide patients seamless access to digital platforms that help them better manage chronic conditions.
Independent medical practice is under duress. Partnering with a private equity-backed management services organization is one of the most effective ways for a physician practice to retain its independence – and continue offering patients affordable, high-quality care.
George Dickstein, MD, AGAF, is senior vice president of clinical affairs, Massachusetts, for Gastro Health, and chairperson of Gastro Health’s Physician Leadership Council. He is based in Framingham, Mass. GI & Hepatology News encourages readers to submit letters to the editor to debate topics raised in the newspaper.
Shaping the Future of Dermatology Practice: Leadership Insight From Susan C. Taylor, MD
Shaping the Future of Dermatology Practice: Leadership Insight From Susan C. Taylor, MD
What are the American Academy of Dermatology’s (AAD’s) top advocacy priorities related to Medicare physician reimbursement?
Dr. Taylor: Medicare physician payment has failed to keep up with inflation, threatening the viability of medical practices. The AAD urges Congress to stabilize the Medicare payment system to ensure continued patient access to essential health care by
What is the AAD’s stance on transitioning from traditional fee-for-service to value-based care models in dermatology under Medicare?
Dr. Taylor: Current value-based programs are extremely burdensome, have not demonstrated improved patient care, and are not clinically relevant to physicians or patients. The AAD has serious concerns about the viability and effectiveness of the Quality Payment Program (QPP), especially the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Numerous studies have highlighted persistent challenges associated with MIPS, including practices serving high-risk patients and those that are small or in rural areas. For instance, researchers examined whether MIPS disproportionately penalized surgeons who care for these patients and found a connection between caring for these patients, lower MIPS scores, and a higher likelihood of facing negative payment adjustments.
Additionally, the US Government Accountability Office was tasked with reviewing several aspects concerning small and rural practices in relation to Medicare payment incentive programs, including MIPS. Findings indicated that physician practices with 15 or fewer providers, whether located in rural or nonrural areas, had a higher likelihood of receiving negative payment adjustments in Medicare incentive programs compared to larger practices. To maximize participation and facilitate the best possible outcomes for dermatologists within the MIPS program, the AAD maintains that we must continue to develop and advocate that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approve dermatology-specific measures for MIPS reporting.
Does the AAD have plans to develop or expand dermatology-specific quality measures that are more clinically relevant and less administratively taxing?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD is committed to ensuring that dermatologists can be successful in the QPP and its MIPS Value Pathways and Advanced Alternative Payment Model programs. These payment pathways for QPP-eligible participants allow physicians to increase their future Medicare reimbursements but also penalize those who do not meet performance objectives. The AAD is constantly reviewing and proposing new dermatology-specific quality measures to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services based on member feedback to reduce administrative burdens of MIPS reporting. All of our quality measures are developed by dermatologists for dermatologists.
How is the AAD supporting practices dealing with insurer-mandated switch policies that disrupt continuity of care and increase documentation burden?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD works with private payers to alleviate administrative burdens for dermatologists, maintain appropriate reimbursement for services provided, and ensure patients can access covered quality care by building and maintaining relationships with public and private payers. This critical collaboration addresses immediate needs affecting our members’ ability to deliver care, such as when policy changes affect claims and formulary coverage or payment. Our coordinated strategy ensures payer policies align with everyday practice for dermatologists so they can focus on treating patients. The AAD has resources and tools to guide dermatology practices in appropriate documentation and coding.
What initiatives is the AAD pursuing to specifically support independent or small dermatology practices in coping with administrative overload?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD is continuously advocating for our small and independent dermatology practices. In every comment letter we submit on proposed medical practice reporting regulation, we demand small practice exemptions. Moreover, the AAD has resources and practical tools for all types of practices to cope with administrative burdens, including MIPS reporting requirements. These resources and tools were created by dermatologists for dermatologists to take the guesswork out of administrative compliance. DataDerm is the AAD’s clinical data registry used for MIPS reporting. Since its launch in 2016, DataDerm has become dermatology’s largest clinical data registry, capturing information on more than 16 million unique patients and 69 million encounters. It supports the advancement of skin disease diagnosis and treatment, informs clinical practice, streamlines MIPS reporting, and drives clinically relevant research using real-world data.
What are the biggest contributors to physician burnout right now? What resources does AAD offer to support dermatologists in managing burnout?
Dr. Taylor: The biggest contributors to burnout that dermatologists are facing are demanding workloads, administrative burdens, and loss of autonomy. Dermatologists welcome medical challenges, but they face growing administrative and regulatory burdens that take time away from patient care and contribute to burnout. Taking a wellness-centered approach can help, which is why the AAD includes both practical tools to reduce burdens and strategies to sustain your practice in its online resources. The burnout and wellness section of the AAD website can help with administrative burdens, building a supportive work culture, recognizing drivers of burnout, reconnecting with your purpose, and more.
How is the AAD working to ensure that the expanding scope of practice does not compromise patient safety, particularly when it comes to diagnosis and treatment of complex skin cancers or prescribing systemic medications?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD advocates to ensure that each member of the care team is practicing at a level consistent with their training and education and opposes scope-of-practice expansions for physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other nonphysician clinicians that threaten patient safety by allowing them to practice independently and advertise as skin experts. Each state has its own scope-of-practice laws governing what nonphysicians can do, whether supervision is required, and how they can represent their training, both in advertising and in a medical practice. The AAD supports appropriate safeguards to ensure patient safety and a focus on the highest-quality appropriate care as the nonphysician workforce expands. The AAD encourages patients to report adverse outcomes to the appropriate state licensing boards.
Is the AAD developing or recommending best practices for dermatologists who supervise NPs or PAs, especially in large practices or retail clinics where oversight can be inconsistent?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD firmly believes that the optimal quality of medical care is delivered when a qualified and licensed physician provides direct on-site supervision to all qualified nonphysician personnel. A medical director of a medical spa facility should be a physician licensed in the state where the facility is located and also should be clearly identified by state licensure and any state-recognized board certification as well as by medical specialty, training, and education. The individual also should be identified as the medical director in all marketing materials and on websites and social media accounts related to the medical spa facility. The AAD would like to see policies that would provide increased transparency in state licensure and specialty board certification including requiring disclosure that a physician is certified or eligible for certification by a private or public board, parent association, or multidisciplinary board or association; requiring disclosure of the certifying board or association with one’s field of study or specialty; requiring display of visible identification—including one’s state licensure, professional degree, field of study, and the use of clarifying titles—in facilities, in marketing materials, and on websites and social media; and requiring all personnel in private medical practices, hospitals, clinics, or other settings employing physicians and/or other personnel that offer medical, surgical, or aesthetic procedures to wear a photo identification name tag during all patient encounters.
What are the American Academy of Dermatology’s (AAD’s) top advocacy priorities related to Medicare physician reimbursement?
Dr. Taylor: Medicare physician payment has failed to keep up with inflation, threatening the viability of medical practices. The AAD urges Congress to stabilize the Medicare payment system to ensure continued patient access to essential health care by
What is the AAD’s stance on transitioning from traditional fee-for-service to value-based care models in dermatology under Medicare?
Dr. Taylor: Current value-based programs are extremely burdensome, have not demonstrated improved patient care, and are not clinically relevant to physicians or patients. The AAD has serious concerns about the viability and effectiveness of the Quality Payment Program (QPP), especially the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Numerous studies have highlighted persistent challenges associated with MIPS, including practices serving high-risk patients and those that are small or in rural areas. For instance, researchers examined whether MIPS disproportionately penalized surgeons who care for these patients and found a connection between caring for these patients, lower MIPS scores, and a higher likelihood of facing negative payment adjustments.
Additionally, the US Government Accountability Office was tasked with reviewing several aspects concerning small and rural practices in relation to Medicare payment incentive programs, including MIPS. Findings indicated that physician practices with 15 or fewer providers, whether located in rural or nonrural areas, had a higher likelihood of receiving negative payment adjustments in Medicare incentive programs compared to larger practices. To maximize participation and facilitate the best possible outcomes for dermatologists within the MIPS program, the AAD maintains that we must continue to develop and advocate that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approve dermatology-specific measures for MIPS reporting.
Does the AAD have plans to develop or expand dermatology-specific quality measures that are more clinically relevant and less administratively taxing?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD is committed to ensuring that dermatologists can be successful in the QPP and its MIPS Value Pathways and Advanced Alternative Payment Model programs. These payment pathways for QPP-eligible participants allow physicians to increase their future Medicare reimbursements but also penalize those who do not meet performance objectives. The AAD is constantly reviewing and proposing new dermatology-specific quality measures to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services based on member feedback to reduce administrative burdens of MIPS reporting. All of our quality measures are developed by dermatologists for dermatologists.
How is the AAD supporting practices dealing with insurer-mandated switch policies that disrupt continuity of care and increase documentation burden?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD works with private payers to alleviate administrative burdens for dermatologists, maintain appropriate reimbursement for services provided, and ensure patients can access covered quality care by building and maintaining relationships with public and private payers. This critical collaboration addresses immediate needs affecting our members’ ability to deliver care, such as when policy changes affect claims and formulary coverage or payment. Our coordinated strategy ensures payer policies align with everyday practice for dermatologists so they can focus on treating patients. The AAD has resources and tools to guide dermatology practices in appropriate documentation and coding.
What initiatives is the AAD pursuing to specifically support independent or small dermatology practices in coping with administrative overload?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD is continuously advocating for our small and independent dermatology practices. In every comment letter we submit on proposed medical practice reporting regulation, we demand small practice exemptions. Moreover, the AAD has resources and practical tools for all types of practices to cope with administrative burdens, including MIPS reporting requirements. These resources and tools were created by dermatologists for dermatologists to take the guesswork out of administrative compliance. DataDerm is the AAD’s clinical data registry used for MIPS reporting. Since its launch in 2016, DataDerm has become dermatology’s largest clinical data registry, capturing information on more than 16 million unique patients and 69 million encounters. It supports the advancement of skin disease diagnosis and treatment, informs clinical practice, streamlines MIPS reporting, and drives clinically relevant research using real-world data.
What are the biggest contributors to physician burnout right now? What resources does AAD offer to support dermatologists in managing burnout?
Dr. Taylor: The biggest contributors to burnout that dermatologists are facing are demanding workloads, administrative burdens, and loss of autonomy. Dermatologists welcome medical challenges, but they face growing administrative and regulatory burdens that take time away from patient care and contribute to burnout. Taking a wellness-centered approach can help, which is why the AAD includes both practical tools to reduce burdens and strategies to sustain your practice in its online resources. The burnout and wellness section of the AAD website can help with administrative burdens, building a supportive work culture, recognizing drivers of burnout, reconnecting with your purpose, and more.
How is the AAD working to ensure that the expanding scope of practice does not compromise patient safety, particularly when it comes to diagnosis and treatment of complex skin cancers or prescribing systemic medications?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD advocates to ensure that each member of the care team is practicing at a level consistent with their training and education and opposes scope-of-practice expansions for physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other nonphysician clinicians that threaten patient safety by allowing them to practice independently and advertise as skin experts. Each state has its own scope-of-practice laws governing what nonphysicians can do, whether supervision is required, and how they can represent their training, both in advertising and in a medical practice. The AAD supports appropriate safeguards to ensure patient safety and a focus on the highest-quality appropriate care as the nonphysician workforce expands. The AAD encourages patients to report adverse outcomes to the appropriate state licensing boards.
Is the AAD developing or recommending best practices for dermatologists who supervise NPs or PAs, especially in large practices or retail clinics where oversight can be inconsistent?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD firmly believes that the optimal quality of medical care is delivered when a qualified and licensed physician provides direct on-site supervision to all qualified nonphysician personnel. A medical director of a medical spa facility should be a physician licensed in the state where the facility is located and also should be clearly identified by state licensure and any state-recognized board certification as well as by medical specialty, training, and education. The individual also should be identified as the medical director in all marketing materials and on websites and social media accounts related to the medical spa facility. The AAD would like to see policies that would provide increased transparency in state licensure and specialty board certification including requiring disclosure that a physician is certified or eligible for certification by a private or public board, parent association, or multidisciplinary board or association; requiring disclosure of the certifying board or association with one’s field of study or specialty; requiring display of visible identification—including one’s state licensure, professional degree, field of study, and the use of clarifying titles—in facilities, in marketing materials, and on websites and social media; and requiring all personnel in private medical practices, hospitals, clinics, or other settings employing physicians and/or other personnel that offer medical, surgical, or aesthetic procedures to wear a photo identification name tag during all patient encounters.
What are the American Academy of Dermatology’s (AAD’s) top advocacy priorities related to Medicare physician reimbursement?
Dr. Taylor: Medicare physician payment has failed to keep up with inflation, threatening the viability of medical practices. The AAD urges Congress to stabilize the Medicare payment system to ensure continued patient access to essential health care by
What is the AAD’s stance on transitioning from traditional fee-for-service to value-based care models in dermatology under Medicare?
Dr. Taylor: Current value-based programs are extremely burdensome, have not demonstrated improved patient care, and are not clinically relevant to physicians or patients. The AAD has serious concerns about the viability and effectiveness of the Quality Payment Program (QPP), especially the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Numerous studies have highlighted persistent challenges associated with MIPS, including practices serving high-risk patients and those that are small or in rural areas. For instance, researchers examined whether MIPS disproportionately penalized surgeons who care for these patients and found a connection between caring for these patients, lower MIPS scores, and a higher likelihood of facing negative payment adjustments.
Additionally, the US Government Accountability Office was tasked with reviewing several aspects concerning small and rural practices in relation to Medicare payment incentive programs, including MIPS. Findings indicated that physician practices with 15 or fewer providers, whether located in rural or nonrural areas, had a higher likelihood of receiving negative payment adjustments in Medicare incentive programs compared to larger practices. To maximize participation and facilitate the best possible outcomes for dermatologists within the MIPS program, the AAD maintains that we must continue to develop and advocate that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approve dermatology-specific measures for MIPS reporting.
Does the AAD have plans to develop or expand dermatology-specific quality measures that are more clinically relevant and less administratively taxing?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD is committed to ensuring that dermatologists can be successful in the QPP and its MIPS Value Pathways and Advanced Alternative Payment Model programs. These payment pathways for QPP-eligible participants allow physicians to increase their future Medicare reimbursements but also penalize those who do not meet performance objectives. The AAD is constantly reviewing and proposing new dermatology-specific quality measures to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services based on member feedback to reduce administrative burdens of MIPS reporting. All of our quality measures are developed by dermatologists for dermatologists.
How is the AAD supporting practices dealing with insurer-mandated switch policies that disrupt continuity of care and increase documentation burden?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD works with private payers to alleviate administrative burdens for dermatologists, maintain appropriate reimbursement for services provided, and ensure patients can access covered quality care by building and maintaining relationships with public and private payers. This critical collaboration addresses immediate needs affecting our members’ ability to deliver care, such as when policy changes affect claims and formulary coverage or payment. Our coordinated strategy ensures payer policies align with everyday practice for dermatologists so they can focus on treating patients. The AAD has resources and tools to guide dermatology practices in appropriate documentation and coding.
What initiatives is the AAD pursuing to specifically support independent or small dermatology practices in coping with administrative overload?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD is continuously advocating for our small and independent dermatology practices. In every comment letter we submit on proposed medical practice reporting regulation, we demand small practice exemptions. Moreover, the AAD has resources and practical tools for all types of practices to cope with administrative burdens, including MIPS reporting requirements. These resources and tools were created by dermatologists for dermatologists to take the guesswork out of administrative compliance. DataDerm is the AAD’s clinical data registry used for MIPS reporting. Since its launch in 2016, DataDerm has become dermatology’s largest clinical data registry, capturing information on more than 16 million unique patients and 69 million encounters. It supports the advancement of skin disease diagnosis and treatment, informs clinical practice, streamlines MIPS reporting, and drives clinically relevant research using real-world data.
What are the biggest contributors to physician burnout right now? What resources does AAD offer to support dermatologists in managing burnout?
Dr. Taylor: The biggest contributors to burnout that dermatologists are facing are demanding workloads, administrative burdens, and loss of autonomy. Dermatologists welcome medical challenges, but they face growing administrative and regulatory burdens that take time away from patient care and contribute to burnout. Taking a wellness-centered approach can help, which is why the AAD includes both practical tools to reduce burdens and strategies to sustain your practice in its online resources. The burnout and wellness section of the AAD website can help with administrative burdens, building a supportive work culture, recognizing drivers of burnout, reconnecting with your purpose, and more.
How is the AAD working to ensure that the expanding scope of practice does not compromise patient safety, particularly when it comes to diagnosis and treatment of complex skin cancers or prescribing systemic medications?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD advocates to ensure that each member of the care team is practicing at a level consistent with their training and education and opposes scope-of-practice expansions for physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other nonphysician clinicians that threaten patient safety by allowing them to practice independently and advertise as skin experts. Each state has its own scope-of-practice laws governing what nonphysicians can do, whether supervision is required, and how they can represent their training, both in advertising and in a medical practice. The AAD supports appropriate safeguards to ensure patient safety and a focus on the highest-quality appropriate care as the nonphysician workforce expands. The AAD encourages patients to report adverse outcomes to the appropriate state licensing boards.
Is the AAD developing or recommending best practices for dermatologists who supervise NPs or PAs, especially in large practices or retail clinics where oversight can be inconsistent?
Dr. Taylor: The AAD firmly believes that the optimal quality of medical care is delivered when a qualified and licensed physician provides direct on-site supervision to all qualified nonphysician personnel. A medical director of a medical spa facility should be a physician licensed in the state where the facility is located and also should be clearly identified by state licensure and any state-recognized board certification as well as by medical specialty, training, and education. The individual also should be identified as the medical director in all marketing materials and on websites and social media accounts related to the medical spa facility. The AAD would like to see policies that would provide increased transparency in state licensure and specialty board certification including requiring disclosure that a physician is certified or eligible for certification by a private or public board, parent association, or multidisciplinary board or association; requiring disclosure of the certifying board or association with one’s field of study or specialty; requiring display of visible identification—including one’s state licensure, professional degree, field of study, and the use of clarifying titles—in facilities, in marketing materials, and on websites and social media; and requiring all personnel in private medical practices, hospitals, clinics, or other settings employing physicians and/or other personnel that offer medical, surgical, or aesthetic procedures to wear a photo identification name tag during all patient encounters.
Shaping the Future of Dermatology Practice: Leadership Insight From Susan C. Taylor, MD
Shaping the Future of Dermatology Practice: Leadership Insight From Susan C. Taylor, MD
