User login
Dana-Farber Moves to Retract, Correct Dozens of Cancer Papers Amid Allegations
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Licensing Hurdles Keep Foreign-Trained Docs in Nonphysician Roles
Foreign-trained doctors can supplement the nation’s waning physician workforce and bring diverse perspectives to patient care, but a new study finds that most never enter comparable roles after immigration, raising questions about the feasibility of educational and licensing pathways for international medical graduates (IMGs).
Conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the nonprofit Upwardly Global, the study analyzed the data of 300 physicians who immigrated to the United States between 2004 and 2022.
Although 85% of IMGs found employment, only 1 in 3 became a medical resident or doctor.
Despite the study’s small sample size, it highlights the hurdles IMGs face, the authors noted.
If unable to complete these steps, IMGs may pursue other healthcare jobs for which they’re overqualified and underpaid, given their experience. The study found that 23% of IMGs who were not on track to become physicians worked as medical assistants. Others became clinical researchers, medical interpreters, and case managers.
Russian ob/gyn Maxim Nikolaevskiy moved to the US in 2018 and understands why some IMGs switch career paths. His wife, who also trained as a physician in Russia, opted to enroll in a respiratory therapy program after they immigrated to Minnesota, whereas he found work as a research coordinator. The pressure to find housing, enroll their kids in school, and establish new routines took much of their focus.
Dr. Nikolaevskiy told this news organization that IMGs often struggle to find a residency program willing to consider their unique career trajectory, which looks markedly different from that of someone trained in the US.
“Multiple residency programs refuse IMGs’ applications, saying they graduated too long ago, without understanding they worked as a physician before,” he said. Immigrant doctors accepting nonphysician jobs once in the US, often out of financial necessity, only adds to this confusion.
New federal and state legislation aim to reduce practice barriers for IMGs and shore up physician shortages and access for some of the nation›s most vulnerable counties.
The Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Reauthorization Act, supported by the American Medical Association, would revamp the J-1 visa waiver program to permit more immigrant physicians to work in medically underserved areas instead of returning to their home countries.
Last year, Alabama streamlined rules to allow IMGs to practice earlier. Effective July 1, those residing in Tennessee may skip residency requirements and receive a temporary medical license once they pass the state medical board and prove they have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in their licensing country or recently fulfilled physician duties outside the US.
Washington state now issues 2-year medical licenses to foreign-trained doctors, no residency required, with the possibility of renewal. Doctors must meet other requirements, including passing all steps of the USMLE and establishing a practice agreement with a supervising physician. Illinois recently passed a similar law that will take effect in January 2025.
Beyond laws, communities can embrace IMGs and offer career guidance and clinical opportunities. Daniel Weber, MD, founded the International Healthcare Professionals Program in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to provide this critical support.
“It is daunting to master a new language and pass medical licensing and English proficiency exams while working full time to support themselves and their families,” Dr. Weber said.
Some participants have entered US residency training programs, but Weber told this news organization that many others have earned nursing degrees and are on track to become nurse practitioners.
More than 5 years after leaving Russia, Dr. Nikolaevskiy is inching closer to practicing medicine again.
He recently completed the Bridge to Residency for Immigrant International Doctor Graduates (BRIIDGE) program at the University of Minnesota Medical School. The 9-month program offers clinical experiences in community settings, outpatient primary care, and inpatient general medicine and pediatrics, clearing the way for him to apply for family medicine residency and possibly match in this cycle.
“If not for the BRIIDGE program, I would still be [doing] medical monitoring in clinical trials or pharmacovigilance jobs. I’m grateful for the clinical experience and the people and institutions ready to give me a second chance,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Foreign-trained doctors can supplement the nation’s waning physician workforce and bring diverse perspectives to patient care, but a new study finds that most never enter comparable roles after immigration, raising questions about the feasibility of educational and licensing pathways for international medical graduates (IMGs).
Conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the nonprofit Upwardly Global, the study analyzed the data of 300 physicians who immigrated to the United States between 2004 and 2022.
Although 85% of IMGs found employment, only 1 in 3 became a medical resident or doctor.
Despite the study’s small sample size, it highlights the hurdles IMGs face, the authors noted.
If unable to complete these steps, IMGs may pursue other healthcare jobs for which they’re overqualified and underpaid, given their experience. The study found that 23% of IMGs who were not on track to become physicians worked as medical assistants. Others became clinical researchers, medical interpreters, and case managers.
Russian ob/gyn Maxim Nikolaevskiy moved to the US in 2018 and understands why some IMGs switch career paths. His wife, who also trained as a physician in Russia, opted to enroll in a respiratory therapy program after they immigrated to Minnesota, whereas he found work as a research coordinator. The pressure to find housing, enroll their kids in school, and establish new routines took much of their focus.
Dr. Nikolaevskiy told this news organization that IMGs often struggle to find a residency program willing to consider their unique career trajectory, which looks markedly different from that of someone trained in the US.
“Multiple residency programs refuse IMGs’ applications, saying they graduated too long ago, without understanding they worked as a physician before,” he said. Immigrant doctors accepting nonphysician jobs once in the US, often out of financial necessity, only adds to this confusion.
New federal and state legislation aim to reduce practice barriers for IMGs and shore up physician shortages and access for some of the nation›s most vulnerable counties.
The Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Reauthorization Act, supported by the American Medical Association, would revamp the J-1 visa waiver program to permit more immigrant physicians to work in medically underserved areas instead of returning to their home countries.
Last year, Alabama streamlined rules to allow IMGs to practice earlier. Effective July 1, those residing in Tennessee may skip residency requirements and receive a temporary medical license once they pass the state medical board and prove they have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in their licensing country or recently fulfilled physician duties outside the US.
Washington state now issues 2-year medical licenses to foreign-trained doctors, no residency required, with the possibility of renewal. Doctors must meet other requirements, including passing all steps of the USMLE and establishing a practice agreement with a supervising physician. Illinois recently passed a similar law that will take effect in January 2025.
Beyond laws, communities can embrace IMGs and offer career guidance and clinical opportunities. Daniel Weber, MD, founded the International Healthcare Professionals Program in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to provide this critical support.
“It is daunting to master a new language and pass medical licensing and English proficiency exams while working full time to support themselves and their families,” Dr. Weber said.
Some participants have entered US residency training programs, but Weber told this news organization that many others have earned nursing degrees and are on track to become nurse practitioners.
More than 5 years after leaving Russia, Dr. Nikolaevskiy is inching closer to practicing medicine again.
He recently completed the Bridge to Residency for Immigrant International Doctor Graduates (BRIIDGE) program at the University of Minnesota Medical School. The 9-month program offers clinical experiences in community settings, outpatient primary care, and inpatient general medicine and pediatrics, clearing the way for him to apply for family medicine residency and possibly match in this cycle.
“If not for the BRIIDGE program, I would still be [doing] medical monitoring in clinical trials or pharmacovigilance jobs. I’m grateful for the clinical experience and the people and institutions ready to give me a second chance,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Foreign-trained doctors can supplement the nation’s waning physician workforce and bring diverse perspectives to patient care, but a new study finds that most never enter comparable roles after immigration, raising questions about the feasibility of educational and licensing pathways for international medical graduates (IMGs).
Conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the nonprofit Upwardly Global, the study analyzed the data of 300 physicians who immigrated to the United States between 2004 and 2022.
Although 85% of IMGs found employment, only 1 in 3 became a medical resident or doctor.
Despite the study’s small sample size, it highlights the hurdles IMGs face, the authors noted.
If unable to complete these steps, IMGs may pursue other healthcare jobs for which they’re overqualified and underpaid, given their experience. The study found that 23% of IMGs who were not on track to become physicians worked as medical assistants. Others became clinical researchers, medical interpreters, and case managers.
Russian ob/gyn Maxim Nikolaevskiy moved to the US in 2018 and understands why some IMGs switch career paths. His wife, who also trained as a physician in Russia, opted to enroll in a respiratory therapy program after they immigrated to Minnesota, whereas he found work as a research coordinator. The pressure to find housing, enroll their kids in school, and establish new routines took much of their focus.
Dr. Nikolaevskiy told this news organization that IMGs often struggle to find a residency program willing to consider their unique career trajectory, which looks markedly different from that of someone trained in the US.
“Multiple residency programs refuse IMGs’ applications, saying they graduated too long ago, without understanding they worked as a physician before,” he said. Immigrant doctors accepting nonphysician jobs once in the US, often out of financial necessity, only adds to this confusion.
New federal and state legislation aim to reduce practice barriers for IMGs and shore up physician shortages and access for some of the nation›s most vulnerable counties.
The Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Reauthorization Act, supported by the American Medical Association, would revamp the J-1 visa waiver program to permit more immigrant physicians to work in medically underserved areas instead of returning to their home countries.
Last year, Alabama streamlined rules to allow IMGs to practice earlier. Effective July 1, those residing in Tennessee may skip residency requirements and receive a temporary medical license once they pass the state medical board and prove they have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in their licensing country or recently fulfilled physician duties outside the US.
Washington state now issues 2-year medical licenses to foreign-trained doctors, no residency required, with the possibility of renewal. Doctors must meet other requirements, including passing all steps of the USMLE and establishing a practice agreement with a supervising physician. Illinois recently passed a similar law that will take effect in January 2025.
Beyond laws, communities can embrace IMGs and offer career guidance and clinical opportunities. Daniel Weber, MD, founded the International Healthcare Professionals Program in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to provide this critical support.
“It is daunting to master a new language and pass medical licensing and English proficiency exams while working full time to support themselves and their families,” Dr. Weber said.
Some participants have entered US residency training programs, but Weber told this news organization that many others have earned nursing degrees and are on track to become nurse practitioners.
More than 5 years after leaving Russia, Dr. Nikolaevskiy is inching closer to practicing medicine again.
He recently completed the Bridge to Residency for Immigrant International Doctor Graduates (BRIIDGE) program at the University of Minnesota Medical School. The 9-month program offers clinical experiences in community settings, outpatient primary care, and inpatient general medicine and pediatrics, clearing the way for him to apply for family medicine residency and possibly match in this cycle.
“If not for the BRIIDGE program, I would still be [doing] medical monitoring in clinical trials or pharmacovigilance jobs. I’m grateful for the clinical experience and the people and institutions ready to give me a second chance,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
More Cardiologists Failing the Boards: Why and How to Fix?
Recent evidence suggests that more cardiologists are failing to pass their boards. , experts said.
Among the 1061 candidates who took their first American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) cardiovascular (CV) disease exam in 2022, about 80 fellows failed who might have passed had they trained in 2016-2019, according to Anis John Kadado, MD, University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate Campus, Springfield, Massachusetts, and colleagues, writing in a viewpoint article published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“The purpose of board examinations is to test the knowledge, core concepts, and fundamental principles of trainees as they deliver patient care,” said Dr. Kadado. “The decline in CV board pass rates reflects a potential gap in training, which may translate to suboptimal patient care.”
Why the Downturn?
Reasons for the increased failures are likely multifactorial, Dr. Kadado said. While some blame the ABIM, the exam has remained about the same over the past 6 years, so the test itself seems unlikely to explain the decline.
The main culprit, according to the viewpoint authors, is “the educational fallout from the disruptions caused by changes made in response to the COVID pandemic.” Changes that Dr. Kadado and colleagues said put the current class of graduating fellows at “high risk” of failing their boards in the fall.
The typical cardiology fellowship is 3 years or more for subspecialty training. Candidates who took the ABIM exam in 2021 had 18 months of training that overlapped with the pandemic response, and those who took the exam in 2022 had about 30 months of training disrupted by COVID. However, fellows who first took the exam in 2023 had essentially 36 months of training affected by COVID, potentially reducing their odds of passing.
“It is hard, if not impossible, to understand the driving forces for this recent decrease in performance on the initial ABIM certification examination, nor is it possible to forecast if there will be an end to this slide,” Jeffrey T. Kuvin, MD, chair of cardiology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, and colleagues wrote in response to the viewpoint article.
The authors acknowledged that COVID disrupted graduate medical training and that the long-term effects of the disruption are now emerging. However, they also pinpoint other potential issues affecting fellows, including information/technology overload, a focus on patient volume over education, lack of attention to core concepts, and, as Dr. Kadado and colleagues noted, high burnout rates among fellows and knowledge gaps due to easy access to electronic resources rather than reading and studying to retain information.
COVID disruptions included limits on in-person learning, clinic exposure, research opportunities, and conference travel, according to the authors. From a 2020 viewpoint, Dr. Kuvin also noted the loss of bedside teaching and on-site grand rounds.
Furthermore, with deferrals of elective cardiac, endovascular, and structural catheterization procedures during the pandemic, elective cases normally done by fellows were postponed or canceled.
Restoring Education, Board Passing Rates
“Having recently passed the ABIM cardiovascular board exam myself, my take-home message at this point is for current fellows-in-training to remain organized, track training milestones, and foresee any training shortcomings,” Dr. Kadado said. Adding that fellows, graduates and leadership should “identify deficiencies and work on overcoming them.”
The viewpoint authors suggested strategies that fellowship leadership can use. These include:
- Regularly assessing faculty emotional well-being and burnout to ensure that they are engaged in meaningful teaching activities
- Emphasizing in-person learning, meaningful participation in conferences, and faculty oversight
- Encouraging fellows to pursue “self-directed learning” during off-hours
- Developing and implementing checklists, competency-based models, curricula, and rotations to ensure that training milestones are being met
- Returning to in-person imaging interpretation for imaging modalities such as echocardiography, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI
- Ensuring that fellows take the American College of Cardiology in-training examination
- Providing practice question banks so that fellows can assess their knowledge gaps
“This might also be an opportune time to assess the assessment,” Dr. Kuvin and colleagues noted. “There are likely alternative or additional approaches that could provide a more comprehensive, modern tool to gauge clinical competence in a supportive manner.”
They suggested that these tools could include assessment by simulation for interventional cardiology and electrophysiology, oral case reviews, objective structured clinical exams, and evaluations of nonclinical competencies such as professionalism and health equity.
Implications for the New Cardiology Board
While the ABIM cardiology board exam days may be numbered, board certification via some type of exam process is not going away.
The American College of Cardiology and four other US CV societies — the American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions — formally announced in September that they have joined forces to propose a new professional certification board called the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and will take time.
An initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured.
Preparing for the new board will likely be “largely the same” as for the ABIM board, Dr. Kadado said. “This includes access to practice question banks, faculty oversight, strong clinical exposure and practice, regular didactic sessions, and self-directed learning.”
“Passing the board exam is just one step in our ongoing journey as a cardiologist,” he added. “Our field is rapidly evolving, and continuous learning and adaptation are part of the very essence of being a healthcare professional.”
Dr. Kadado had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Kuvin is an ACC trustee and has been heading up the working group to develop the ABCVM.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent evidence suggests that more cardiologists are failing to pass their boards. , experts said.
Among the 1061 candidates who took their first American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) cardiovascular (CV) disease exam in 2022, about 80 fellows failed who might have passed had they trained in 2016-2019, according to Anis John Kadado, MD, University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate Campus, Springfield, Massachusetts, and colleagues, writing in a viewpoint article published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“The purpose of board examinations is to test the knowledge, core concepts, and fundamental principles of trainees as they deliver patient care,” said Dr. Kadado. “The decline in CV board pass rates reflects a potential gap in training, which may translate to suboptimal patient care.”
Why the Downturn?
Reasons for the increased failures are likely multifactorial, Dr. Kadado said. While some blame the ABIM, the exam has remained about the same over the past 6 years, so the test itself seems unlikely to explain the decline.
The main culprit, according to the viewpoint authors, is “the educational fallout from the disruptions caused by changes made in response to the COVID pandemic.” Changes that Dr. Kadado and colleagues said put the current class of graduating fellows at “high risk” of failing their boards in the fall.
The typical cardiology fellowship is 3 years or more for subspecialty training. Candidates who took the ABIM exam in 2021 had 18 months of training that overlapped with the pandemic response, and those who took the exam in 2022 had about 30 months of training disrupted by COVID. However, fellows who first took the exam in 2023 had essentially 36 months of training affected by COVID, potentially reducing their odds of passing.
“It is hard, if not impossible, to understand the driving forces for this recent decrease in performance on the initial ABIM certification examination, nor is it possible to forecast if there will be an end to this slide,” Jeffrey T. Kuvin, MD, chair of cardiology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, and colleagues wrote in response to the viewpoint article.
The authors acknowledged that COVID disrupted graduate medical training and that the long-term effects of the disruption are now emerging. However, they also pinpoint other potential issues affecting fellows, including information/technology overload, a focus on patient volume over education, lack of attention to core concepts, and, as Dr. Kadado and colleagues noted, high burnout rates among fellows and knowledge gaps due to easy access to electronic resources rather than reading and studying to retain information.
COVID disruptions included limits on in-person learning, clinic exposure, research opportunities, and conference travel, according to the authors. From a 2020 viewpoint, Dr. Kuvin also noted the loss of bedside teaching and on-site grand rounds.
Furthermore, with deferrals of elective cardiac, endovascular, and structural catheterization procedures during the pandemic, elective cases normally done by fellows were postponed or canceled.
Restoring Education, Board Passing Rates
“Having recently passed the ABIM cardiovascular board exam myself, my take-home message at this point is for current fellows-in-training to remain organized, track training milestones, and foresee any training shortcomings,” Dr. Kadado said. Adding that fellows, graduates and leadership should “identify deficiencies and work on overcoming them.”
The viewpoint authors suggested strategies that fellowship leadership can use. These include:
- Regularly assessing faculty emotional well-being and burnout to ensure that they are engaged in meaningful teaching activities
- Emphasizing in-person learning, meaningful participation in conferences, and faculty oversight
- Encouraging fellows to pursue “self-directed learning” during off-hours
- Developing and implementing checklists, competency-based models, curricula, and rotations to ensure that training milestones are being met
- Returning to in-person imaging interpretation for imaging modalities such as echocardiography, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI
- Ensuring that fellows take the American College of Cardiology in-training examination
- Providing practice question banks so that fellows can assess their knowledge gaps
“This might also be an opportune time to assess the assessment,” Dr. Kuvin and colleagues noted. “There are likely alternative or additional approaches that could provide a more comprehensive, modern tool to gauge clinical competence in a supportive manner.”
They suggested that these tools could include assessment by simulation for interventional cardiology and electrophysiology, oral case reviews, objective structured clinical exams, and evaluations of nonclinical competencies such as professionalism and health equity.
Implications for the New Cardiology Board
While the ABIM cardiology board exam days may be numbered, board certification via some type of exam process is not going away.
The American College of Cardiology and four other US CV societies — the American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions — formally announced in September that they have joined forces to propose a new professional certification board called the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and will take time.
An initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured.
Preparing for the new board will likely be “largely the same” as for the ABIM board, Dr. Kadado said. “This includes access to practice question banks, faculty oversight, strong clinical exposure and practice, regular didactic sessions, and self-directed learning.”
“Passing the board exam is just one step in our ongoing journey as a cardiologist,” he added. “Our field is rapidly evolving, and continuous learning and adaptation are part of the very essence of being a healthcare professional.”
Dr. Kadado had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Kuvin is an ACC trustee and has been heading up the working group to develop the ABCVM.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent evidence suggests that more cardiologists are failing to pass their boards. , experts said.
Among the 1061 candidates who took their first American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) cardiovascular (CV) disease exam in 2022, about 80 fellows failed who might have passed had they trained in 2016-2019, according to Anis John Kadado, MD, University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate Campus, Springfield, Massachusetts, and colleagues, writing in a viewpoint article published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“The purpose of board examinations is to test the knowledge, core concepts, and fundamental principles of trainees as they deliver patient care,” said Dr. Kadado. “The decline in CV board pass rates reflects a potential gap in training, which may translate to suboptimal patient care.”
Why the Downturn?
Reasons for the increased failures are likely multifactorial, Dr. Kadado said. While some blame the ABIM, the exam has remained about the same over the past 6 years, so the test itself seems unlikely to explain the decline.
The main culprit, according to the viewpoint authors, is “the educational fallout from the disruptions caused by changes made in response to the COVID pandemic.” Changes that Dr. Kadado and colleagues said put the current class of graduating fellows at “high risk” of failing their boards in the fall.
The typical cardiology fellowship is 3 years or more for subspecialty training. Candidates who took the ABIM exam in 2021 had 18 months of training that overlapped with the pandemic response, and those who took the exam in 2022 had about 30 months of training disrupted by COVID. However, fellows who first took the exam in 2023 had essentially 36 months of training affected by COVID, potentially reducing their odds of passing.
“It is hard, if not impossible, to understand the driving forces for this recent decrease in performance on the initial ABIM certification examination, nor is it possible to forecast if there will be an end to this slide,” Jeffrey T. Kuvin, MD, chair of cardiology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, and colleagues wrote in response to the viewpoint article.
The authors acknowledged that COVID disrupted graduate medical training and that the long-term effects of the disruption are now emerging. However, they also pinpoint other potential issues affecting fellows, including information/technology overload, a focus on patient volume over education, lack of attention to core concepts, and, as Dr. Kadado and colleagues noted, high burnout rates among fellows and knowledge gaps due to easy access to electronic resources rather than reading and studying to retain information.
COVID disruptions included limits on in-person learning, clinic exposure, research opportunities, and conference travel, according to the authors. From a 2020 viewpoint, Dr. Kuvin also noted the loss of bedside teaching and on-site grand rounds.
Furthermore, with deferrals of elective cardiac, endovascular, and structural catheterization procedures during the pandemic, elective cases normally done by fellows were postponed or canceled.
Restoring Education, Board Passing Rates
“Having recently passed the ABIM cardiovascular board exam myself, my take-home message at this point is for current fellows-in-training to remain organized, track training milestones, and foresee any training shortcomings,” Dr. Kadado said. Adding that fellows, graduates and leadership should “identify deficiencies and work on overcoming them.”
The viewpoint authors suggested strategies that fellowship leadership can use. These include:
- Regularly assessing faculty emotional well-being and burnout to ensure that they are engaged in meaningful teaching activities
- Emphasizing in-person learning, meaningful participation in conferences, and faculty oversight
- Encouraging fellows to pursue “self-directed learning” during off-hours
- Developing and implementing checklists, competency-based models, curricula, and rotations to ensure that training milestones are being met
- Returning to in-person imaging interpretation for imaging modalities such as echocardiography, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI
- Ensuring that fellows take the American College of Cardiology in-training examination
- Providing practice question banks so that fellows can assess their knowledge gaps
“This might also be an opportune time to assess the assessment,” Dr. Kuvin and colleagues noted. “There are likely alternative or additional approaches that could provide a more comprehensive, modern tool to gauge clinical competence in a supportive manner.”
They suggested that these tools could include assessment by simulation for interventional cardiology and electrophysiology, oral case reviews, objective structured clinical exams, and evaluations of nonclinical competencies such as professionalism and health equity.
Implications for the New Cardiology Board
While the ABIM cardiology board exam days may be numbered, board certification via some type of exam process is not going away.
The American College of Cardiology and four other US CV societies — the American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions — formally announced in September that they have joined forces to propose a new professional certification board called the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and will take time.
An initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured.
Preparing for the new board will likely be “largely the same” as for the ABIM board, Dr. Kadado said. “This includes access to practice question banks, faculty oversight, strong clinical exposure and practice, regular didactic sessions, and self-directed learning.”
“Passing the board exam is just one step in our ongoing journey as a cardiologist,” he added. “Our field is rapidly evolving, and continuous learning and adaptation are part of the very essence of being a healthcare professional.”
Dr. Kadado had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Kuvin is an ACC trustee and has been heading up the working group to develop the ABCVM.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A Healthy Dose of Superstition
Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.
These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.
His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.
Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.
A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.
And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.
This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.
One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.
Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?
Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.
It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.
Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.
Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.
Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.
Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).
Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”
We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.
Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.
I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.
Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.
But
I’m going to knock on wood now.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.
These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.
His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.
Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.
A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.
And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.
This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.
One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.
Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?
Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.
It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.
Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.
Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.
Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.
Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).
Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”
We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.
Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.
I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.
Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.
But
I’m going to knock on wood now.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.
These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.
His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.
Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.
A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.
And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.
This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.
One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.
Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?
Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.
It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.
Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.
Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.
Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.
Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).
Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”
We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.
Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.
I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.
Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.
But
I’m going to knock on wood now.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Burnout and Work-Based Well-Being Programs
Since very few of us practice medicine without being either an employer or an employee, we should probably be paying more attention to research in industrial and employee relations, not an area most of us have studied. One of the hot topics for employers in these days of low unemployment is the question of whether to offer free wellness-enhancing programs companywide.
Almost by definition anything “free” has a good public relations aura surrounding it. Recent surveys have shown that a large chunk of the population is feeling stressed. If your boss is offering you a free opportunity to help you feel better about yourself, he/she must understand at least a bit of what you are going through.
From the employer’s standpoint these programs offer the potential for a double win. On one hand, offering a free well-being program is a perk the company can tout as it competes in the tight market for new employees. On the other hand, if the program is effective then the employees will be happier. And we all know that happy workers are more productive and less likely to leave and feed the expensive cycle of hiring and training new workers to replace the unhappy and disgruntled workers who have quit. Even if the employer’s total focus is on the company’s bottom line, offering a wellness program should pay a dividend.
Well ... this may be one of those situations where wishful thinking isn’t going to work. A recent study published in Industrial Relations Journal suggests that these well-being programs, which include employee mental services, may not be living up to their promise. In this large study of nearly 50,00 workers in the United Kingdom, the researcher discovered that workers who had been offered coaching and relaxation classes, internet-based apps, and courses in time management and financial health were “no better off” than their coworkers who had not participated in these programs. In fact, training programs in stress management and resilience appeared to possibly have had a negative effect.
In a New York Times article about this study, the British researcher recommends that employers who are interested in improving their worker’s mental health should turn their attention to “core organizational practices” meaning pay scales, work schedules, and performance reviews.
Not surprisingly, this study has raised some controversy. There are a lot of people invested emotionally and in some cases financially in programs similar to the ones that appeared to be ineffective in this study. Critics argue the study was too short, or too small, or failed to select programs with a proven track record.
Even given these potential flaws, physicians, particularly those who of us who feel they approaching burnout, should take this investigator’s message seriously. Certainly some of us could be doing a better job of building resilience into our lifestyles and may be helped by the kind of well-being programs tested in this study. However, the biggest contribution to the burnout phenomenon is coming from the work environments that are asking too much of even the most resilient among us. This study makes it clear that including work schedules, time-gobbling electronic systems, and short staffing. Trotting out a few feel-good mindfulness programs is not going to do the job.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Since very few of us practice medicine without being either an employer or an employee, we should probably be paying more attention to research in industrial and employee relations, not an area most of us have studied. One of the hot topics for employers in these days of low unemployment is the question of whether to offer free wellness-enhancing programs companywide.
Almost by definition anything “free” has a good public relations aura surrounding it. Recent surveys have shown that a large chunk of the population is feeling stressed. If your boss is offering you a free opportunity to help you feel better about yourself, he/she must understand at least a bit of what you are going through.
From the employer’s standpoint these programs offer the potential for a double win. On one hand, offering a free well-being program is a perk the company can tout as it competes in the tight market for new employees. On the other hand, if the program is effective then the employees will be happier. And we all know that happy workers are more productive and less likely to leave and feed the expensive cycle of hiring and training new workers to replace the unhappy and disgruntled workers who have quit. Even if the employer’s total focus is on the company’s bottom line, offering a wellness program should pay a dividend.
Well ... this may be one of those situations where wishful thinking isn’t going to work. A recent study published in Industrial Relations Journal suggests that these well-being programs, which include employee mental services, may not be living up to their promise. In this large study of nearly 50,00 workers in the United Kingdom, the researcher discovered that workers who had been offered coaching and relaxation classes, internet-based apps, and courses in time management and financial health were “no better off” than their coworkers who had not participated in these programs. In fact, training programs in stress management and resilience appeared to possibly have had a negative effect.
In a New York Times article about this study, the British researcher recommends that employers who are interested in improving their worker’s mental health should turn their attention to “core organizational practices” meaning pay scales, work schedules, and performance reviews.
Not surprisingly, this study has raised some controversy. There are a lot of people invested emotionally and in some cases financially in programs similar to the ones that appeared to be ineffective in this study. Critics argue the study was too short, or too small, or failed to select programs with a proven track record.
Even given these potential flaws, physicians, particularly those who of us who feel they approaching burnout, should take this investigator’s message seriously. Certainly some of us could be doing a better job of building resilience into our lifestyles and may be helped by the kind of well-being programs tested in this study. However, the biggest contribution to the burnout phenomenon is coming from the work environments that are asking too much of even the most resilient among us. This study makes it clear that including work schedules, time-gobbling electronic systems, and short staffing. Trotting out a few feel-good mindfulness programs is not going to do the job.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Since very few of us practice medicine without being either an employer or an employee, we should probably be paying more attention to research in industrial and employee relations, not an area most of us have studied. One of the hot topics for employers in these days of low unemployment is the question of whether to offer free wellness-enhancing programs companywide.
Almost by definition anything “free” has a good public relations aura surrounding it. Recent surveys have shown that a large chunk of the population is feeling stressed. If your boss is offering you a free opportunity to help you feel better about yourself, he/she must understand at least a bit of what you are going through.
From the employer’s standpoint these programs offer the potential for a double win. On one hand, offering a free well-being program is a perk the company can tout as it competes in the tight market for new employees. On the other hand, if the program is effective then the employees will be happier. And we all know that happy workers are more productive and less likely to leave and feed the expensive cycle of hiring and training new workers to replace the unhappy and disgruntled workers who have quit. Even if the employer’s total focus is on the company’s bottom line, offering a wellness program should pay a dividend.
Well ... this may be one of those situations where wishful thinking isn’t going to work. A recent study published in Industrial Relations Journal suggests that these well-being programs, which include employee mental services, may not be living up to their promise. In this large study of nearly 50,00 workers in the United Kingdom, the researcher discovered that workers who had been offered coaching and relaxation classes, internet-based apps, and courses in time management and financial health were “no better off” than their coworkers who had not participated in these programs. In fact, training programs in stress management and resilience appeared to possibly have had a negative effect.
In a New York Times article about this study, the British researcher recommends that employers who are interested in improving their worker’s mental health should turn their attention to “core organizational practices” meaning pay scales, work schedules, and performance reviews.
Not surprisingly, this study has raised some controversy. There are a lot of people invested emotionally and in some cases financially in programs similar to the ones that appeared to be ineffective in this study. Critics argue the study was too short, or too small, or failed to select programs with a proven track record.
Even given these potential flaws, physicians, particularly those who of us who feel they approaching burnout, should take this investigator’s message seriously. Certainly some of us could be doing a better job of building resilience into our lifestyles and may be helped by the kind of well-being programs tested in this study. However, the biggest contribution to the burnout phenomenon is coming from the work environments that are asking too much of even the most resilient among us. This study makes it clear that including work schedules, time-gobbling electronic systems, and short staffing. Trotting out a few feel-good mindfulness programs is not going to do the job.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Tackling Sexism in Medicine
This interview was recorded Dec. 8, 2023. The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I have the pleasure of talking with Dr. Elizabeth Loder today. Dr. Loder is the vice chair of academic affairs in the department of neurology and a staff physician at Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She’s also a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and has been a mentor to many headache specialists in the field.
We’ll be talking about the topic of sexism in medicine.
Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH: Thank you so much, Dr. LaFaver. I’m very pleased to be here to talk about something that I think is very important.
Dr. LaFaver: Dr. Loder, you were a speaker at our Women in Neurology third annual conference in Florida, giving a talk on this very topic, sexism in medicine. It was very helpful, especially for many younger women entering the field of neurology, to hear that some of the experiences they’re having are not unique to them, but unfortunately remain a more systemic issue.
To get us started, could you define sexism in medicine for us, and how you got interested in this topic?
Sexism Can Be Subtle
Dr. Loder: You’re absolutely right. It’s nice for women, particularly those entering the field, to know that they’re not alone.
What is sexism? Well, it’s generally considered to be prejudice or discrimination against someone based on their sex or gender. One thing that’s important to remember is it’s not always extremely obvious. It’s not always intentional. I think most of us, I’d include myself in that, have sexist views. We may not always be aware of them. This is part of the unconscious bias that many of us have been trained to think.
As one example, we’re socialized — or I certainly was — to think of doctors as male. When a patient says, “I saw a cardiologist,” in my mind, I think that that person might have been male. Sometimes, I will ask, “What did he say?” That’s an example of sexism.
Sexism can be internalized. It can come from any source. We’re all implicated in it. I think that’s very important to remember. This is not a case of them doing something to us. This is something that is much more widespread and engendered in the society that we live in.
Dr. LaFaver: I think that’s really important to realize. Could you mention some other examples, specifically in the field of neurology, that you have encountered?
Dr. Loder: Certainly, looking over my own career — and I’m at a point now where I can look at early, mid, and late career — things were, of course, very different when I began. I would say that sexism was much more overt.
Very early in my career, I experienced a large amount of hostility from a boss. I ended up having to leave. This was, I believe, based on my sex. It turned out that leaving was a good thing for me, but it was a very unpleasant experience.
I also became a leader in my professional society. During my path to leadership and seeing other women attempt to make progress within the organization, I certainly saw behavior that I would characterize as rooted in sexism. To its credit, though, the professional society to which I belong, I think, has become one of the most progressive societies out there. The women within have been able to affect quite a bit of change in that professional organization.
I dealt with a case of sexual harassment in my own division when I was a division chief, which gave me insight into institutional policies and procedures meant to deal with situations like that, which, I think, leave something to be desired. That’s changing.
Now, I work in academic affairs, and I see how likely or unlikely people, based on their sex, are to put themselves forward for promotion, how likely they are to believe in their own capabilities. I also work as a medical journal editor, and I see generally that women are more hesitant to proclaim themselves experts and to accept invitations to provide or write editorial commentary. Sometimes, they do not perceive themselves as being expert enough to do so. I have seen many of these things over my career.
Dr. LaFaver: Thank you for sharing. I think it’s important to realize that it›s not just unidirectional but sometimes affects women and kind of goes both ways.
As you mentioned, these issues are not always overt. In recent years, microaggressions has become more of a term that has been used. Could you talk a bit about that? What are the microaggressions and how do they affect women?
Microaggressions and Migraine Mavens
Dr. Loder: The term microaggression has become very popular, and I think many people find it somewhat irritating. That, to me, is inherent in what a microaggression is. Microaggressions, by definition, are small things. It’s hard to prove that they were rooted in sexism. Sometimes, there’s a large amount of ambiguity about it. It can be as simple as inviting a pregnant woman to sit down because you perceive that she needs to sit, commenting on somebody’s shoes, or things like that.
Often, they’re unintentional. Sometimes, they come from a place of what we might term benevolent sexism, people trying to be helpful to a woman because they perceive that she’s weaker or she might not be able to do something, or maybe she has family responsibilities. They think that they’re being helpful. These things happen when we perceive people to be different in some way, as women are perceived to be different in terms of their responsibilities in the home or different in terms of what we expect from them in the workplace.
The problem with microaggressions is because they’re small, each one of them, I think the temptation is often to say, “Oh you know, they didn’t mean it. It’s not that big a deal. It was just a comment on your shoes.” If a woman brings that up, she’s often made to feel, sometimes by other women, that she should just chill out. This isn’t a big deal.
The problem is that they may not be a big deal in and of themselves, but when they are repeated over a long period of time, they can really sap somebody’s confidence in herself, make her question her own competence, and can have a cumulative effect that is very negative.
Although I think many people are skeptical about microaggressions as an important contribution to how women do in the workplace and in other settings, they are, in my opinion, important. I’ll just emphasize again that they come from everywhere, including other women and colleagues who mean to be helpful.
Dr. LaFaver: I know you have led a team of headache specialists and wrote a fantastic article about navigating sexism at work and what not to say to your female colleagues. Could you share some tips for them to navigate sexism at work and, specifically, as it applies to our careers in medicine.
Dr. Loder: Thank you for calling out that article. It actually grew organically out of a Facebook group that I started called Migraine Mavens. I’ve worked in the headache field throughout my career, and I experienced something that, to me, was kind of discouraging that I felt was sexist within our field. I just thought, What can I do? I thought, Well, maybe there’s some strength to be had in sharing this with other women, and maybe we should have our own social media community, so I formed this group.
After I gave a talk at the American Headache Society about sexism in the headache field, one of the members sent me a message saying, “Your talk was very timely. Immediately after you gave this talk, somebody stopped me in the hall and said, ‘Congratulations on your leadership position in the society, but are you really sure you can do this because you’ve got young children at home?’ Your talk was very needed.”
People started just discussing within the group, “Oh, this happened to me,” “That happened to me.” We began to brainstorm what we could have done differently. When these things happen, people are not necessarily prepared for them, and later on, you lie awake thinking of what you could have said.
We decided to write a paper. It ended up being published in The Journal of Head and Face Pain, and it was based on real vignettes from people in the group. We anonymized them so that people would not recognize themselves necessarily, but they’re all real. They’re things that really happened to women in the group.
We first describe the vignette — what happened. Then we explain, for those who need the explanation, what’s wrong with it. Why is it wrong to tell somebody to smile, for example. What could you do differently? What could somebody who sees this happen do, the so-called bystander or upstander? If you witness something like that, can you help the person toward whom this problematic behavior is directed? We came up with some examples. The all-purpose thing is to say, “What did you just say?” Make them repeat it, which often helps people to realize how inappropriate it is.
This got published as an article. It became quite the subject of attention on X [formerly Twitter] and elsewhere. I guess the term going viral would apply to this. It included a large amount of real-world advice. The thing I really loved about it was that it was written by the women in the group who had experienced these things. I would characterize it as having been somewhat therapeutic. We got many messages from women in other disciplines, outside medicine, saying that this happens in oceanography, for example. I think what we described really resonated beyond the field of headache medicine and neurology.
Institutional Sexism
Dr. LaFaver: Looking beyond the individual person, do you have any recommendations for medical institutions to share in order to do better and maybe create an environment that is less sexist?
Dr. Loder: Yes. I think many institutions try to deal with the problem of lack of diversity, whether it›s women or other underrepresented groups, by hiring. That’s one way to go about it, but I think retention strategies are also very important, and they need to pay attention to the work environment.
Every institution now has guidelines about harassment, bullying, sexism, racism, and so on. In general though — and I’m not speaking about any particular institution — these policies and procedures are often crafted with an eye toward protecting the institution. I would advise institutions to be a bit more genuine about this, and not to think so quickly about what can we do to prevent the institution from facing a charge of sexism, or what can we do to deny or dismiss these allegations, toward thinking, what can we do to really and truly be helpful to these women? In other words, approach it from the point of view of trying to help the people involved instead of trying to help the institution. That will make a very big difference.
I also think that citizenship activities, serving on committees, doing thankless tasks behind the scenes, and clinical work, seeing patients ... Women are overrepresented among clinicians. Of course, we know that research and bringing in big grants is often prioritized over clinical care, despite what institutions may say about that in public. I think those activities should be valued more highly, both in terms of pay and in terms of academic recognition.
In regard to the issue of salary, I would encourage institutions to publish salaries or at least make them easily findable by people within the institution. I think there should be objective criteria for salary determinations. The most important thing is that I do not think that women should be expected to negotiate their salaries. Women are judged differently than men when they attempt to negotiate salaries. It often backfires for them. It also is something that many women do not feel comfortable doing.
Waiting until somebody tries to negotiate a higher salary really guarantees, embeds, and operationalizes sex differences in salaries. We need to move away from the idea that you have to be a go-getter and that you have to ask for this raise. There should be objective criteria, salaries should be revisited on a regular basis, and the kinds of activities that women do that are undervalued should be more recognized in terms of money and advancement within academia.
Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. One of the other topics discussed at the Women in Neurology conference was mid-career development, retention, and career paths. I think it’s known that many women leave academic medicine mid-career. I think these are excellent suggestions and hopefully will help to make careers successful for men and women, without needing to worry about being treated differently or unfairly.
Thank you so much. This was a wonderful overview of this topic.
Dr. Loder: You’re welcome, Dr. LaFaver. Thank you so much for asking me to speak on this topic. I really appreciate it.
Dr. LaFaver: Thanks, everyone.
Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, New York. Dr. LaFaver and Dr. Loder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This interview was recorded Dec. 8, 2023. The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I have the pleasure of talking with Dr. Elizabeth Loder today. Dr. Loder is the vice chair of academic affairs in the department of neurology and a staff physician at Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She’s also a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and has been a mentor to many headache specialists in the field.
We’ll be talking about the topic of sexism in medicine.
Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH: Thank you so much, Dr. LaFaver. I’m very pleased to be here to talk about something that I think is very important.
Dr. LaFaver: Dr. Loder, you were a speaker at our Women in Neurology third annual conference in Florida, giving a talk on this very topic, sexism in medicine. It was very helpful, especially for many younger women entering the field of neurology, to hear that some of the experiences they’re having are not unique to them, but unfortunately remain a more systemic issue.
To get us started, could you define sexism in medicine for us, and how you got interested in this topic?
Sexism Can Be Subtle
Dr. Loder: You’re absolutely right. It’s nice for women, particularly those entering the field, to know that they’re not alone.
What is sexism? Well, it’s generally considered to be prejudice or discrimination against someone based on their sex or gender. One thing that’s important to remember is it’s not always extremely obvious. It’s not always intentional. I think most of us, I’d include myself in that, have sexist views. We may not always be aware of them. This is part of the unconscious bias that many of us have been trained to think.
As one example, we’re socialized — or I certainly was — to think of doctors as male. When a patient says, “I saw a cardiologist,” in my mind, I think that that person might have been male. Sometimes, I will ask, “What did he say?” That’s an example of sexism.
Sexism can be internalized. It can come from any source. We’re all implicated in it. I think that’s very important to remember. This is not a case of them doing something to us. This is something that is much more widespread and engendered in the society that we live in.
Dr. LaFaver: I think that’s really important to realize. Could you mention some other examples, specifically in the field of neurology, that you have encountered?
Dr. Loder: Certainly, looking over my own career — and I’m at a point now where I can look at early, mid, and late career — things were, of course, very different when I began. I would say that sexism was much more overt.
Very early in my career, I experienced a large amount of hostility from a boss. I ended up having to leave. This was, I believe, based on my sex. It turned out that leaving was a good thing for me, but it was a very unpleasant experience.
I also became a leader in my professional society. During my path to leadership and seeing other women attempt to make progress within the organization, I certainly saw behavior that I would characterize as rooted in sexism. To its credit, though, the professional society to which I belong, I think, has become one of the most progressive societies out there. The women within have been able to affect quite a bit of change in that professional organization.
I dealt with a case of sexual harassment in my own division when I was a division chief, which gave me insight into institutional policies and procedures meant to deal with situations like that, which, I think, leave something to be desired. That’s changing.
Now, I work in academic affairs, and I see how likely or unlikely people, based on their sex, are to put themselves forward for promotion, how likely they are to believe in their own capabilities. I also work as a medical journal editor, and I see generally that women are more hesitant to proclaim themselves experts and to accept invitations to provide or write editorial commentary. Sometimes, they do not perceive themselves as being expert enough to do so. I have seen many of these things over my career.
Dr. LaFaver: Thank you for sharing. I think it’s important to realize that it›s not just unidirectional but sometimes affects women and kind of goes both ways.
As you mentioned, these issues are not always overt. In recent years, microaggressions has become more of a term that has been used. Could you talk a bit about that? What are the microaggressions and how do they affect women?
Microaggressions and Migraine Mavens
Dr. Loder: The term microaggression has become very popular, and I think many people find it somewhat irritating. That, to me, is inherent in what a microaggression is. Microaggressions, by definition, are small things. It’s hard to prove that they were rooted in sexism. Sometimes, there’s a large amount of ambiguity about it. It can be as simple as inviting a pregnant woman to sit down because you perceive that she needs to sit, commenting on somebody’s shoes, or things like that.
Often, they’re unintentional. Sometimes, they come from a place of what we might term benevolent sexism, people trying to be helpful to a woman because they perceive that she’s weaker or she might not be able to do something, or maybe she has family responsibilities. They think that they’re being helpful. These things happen when we perceive people to be different in some way, as women are perceived to be different in terms of their responsibilities in the home or different in terms of what we expect from them in the workplace.
The problem with microaggressions is because they’re small, each one of them, I think the temptation is often to say, “Oh you know, they didn’t mean it. It’s not that big a deal. It was just a comment on your shoes.” If a woman brings that up, she’s often made to feel, sometimes by other women, that she should just chill out. This isn’t a big deal.
The problem is that they may not be a big deal in and of themselves, but when they are repeated over a long period of time, they can really sap somebody’s confidence in herself, make her question her own competence, and can have a cumulative effect that is very negative.
Although I think many people are skeptical about microaggressions as an important contribution to how women do in the workplace and in other settings, they are, in my opinion, important. I’ll just emphasize again that they come from everywhere, including other women and colleagues who mean to be helpful.
Dr. LaFaver: I know you have led a team of headache specialists and wrote a fantastic article about navigating sexism at work and what not to say to your female colleagues. Could you share some tips for them to navigate sexism at work and, specifically, as it applies to our careers in medicine.
Dr. Loder: Thank you for calling out that article. It actually grew organically out of a Facebook group that I started called Migraine Mavens. I’ve worked in the headache field throughout my career, and I experienced something that, to me, was kind of discouraging that I felt was sexist within our field. I just thought, What can I do? I thought, Well, maybe there’s some strength to be had in sharing this with other women, and maybe we should have our own social media community, so I formed this group.
After I gave a talk at the American Headache Society about sexism in the headache field, one of the members sent me a message saying, “Your talk was very timely. Immediately after you gave this talk, somebody stopped me in the hall and said, ‘Congratulations on your leadership position in the society, but are you really sure you can do this because you’ve got young children at home?’ Your talk was very needed.”
People started just discussing within the group, “Oh, this happened to me,” “That happened to me.” We began to brainstorm what we could have done differently. When these things happen, people are not necessarily prepared for them, and later on, you lie awake thinking of what you could have said.
We decided to write a paper. It ended up being published in The Journal of Head and Face Pain, and it was based on real vignettes from people in the group. We anonymized them so that people would not recognize themselves necessarily, but they’re all real. They’re things that really happened to women in the group.
We first describe the vignette — what happened. Then we explain, for those who need the explanation, what’s wrong with it. Why is it wrong to tell somebody to smile, for example. What could you do differently? What could somebody who sees this happen do, the so-called bystander or upstander? If you witness something like that, can you help the person toward whom this problematic behavior is directed? We came up with some examples. The all-purpose thing is to say, “What did you just say?” Make them repeat it, which often helps people to realize how inappropriate it is.
This got published as an article. It became quite the subject of attention on X [formerly Twitter] and elsewhere. I guess the term going viral would apply to this. It included a large amount of real-world advice. The thing I really loved about it was that it was written by the women in the group who had experienced these things. I would characterize it as having been somewhat therapeutic. We got many messages from women in other disciplines, outside medicine, saying that this happens in oceanography, for example. I think what we described really resonated beyond the field of headache medicine and neurology.
Institutional Sexism
Dr. LaFaver: Looking beyond the individual person, do you have any recommendations for medical institutions to share in order to do better and maybe create an environment that is less sexist?
Dr. Loder: Yes. I think many institutions try to deal with the problem of lack of diversity, whether it›s women or other underrepresented groups, by hiring. That’s one way to go about it, but I think retention strategies are also very important, and they need to pay attention to the work environment.
Every institution now has guidelines about harassment, bullying, sexism, racism, and so on. In general though — and I’m not speaking about any particular institution — these policies and procedures are often crafted with an eye toward protecting the institution. I would advise institutions to be a bit more genuine about this, and not to think so quickly about what can we do to prevent the institution from facing a charge of sexism, or what can we do to deny or dismiss these allegations, toward thinking, what can we do to really and truly be helpful to these women? In other words, approach it from the point of view of trying to help the people involved instead of trying to help the institution. That will make a very big difference.
I also think that citizenship activities, serving on committees, doing thankless tasks behind the scenes, and clinical work, seeing patients ... Women are overrepresented among clinicians. Of course, we know that research and bringing in big grants is often prioritized over clinical care, despite what institutions may say about that in public. I think those activities should be valued more highly, both in terms of pay and in terms of academic recognition.
In regard to the issue of salary, I would encourage institutions to publish salaries or at least make them easily findable by people within the institution. I think there should be objective criteria for salary determinations. The most important thing is that I do not think that women should be expected to negotiate their salaries. Women are judged differently than men when they attempt to negotiate salaries. It often backfires for them. It also is something that many women do not feel comfortable doing.
Waiting until somebody tries to negotiate a higher salary really guarantees, embeds, and operationalizes sex differences in salaries. We need to move away from the idea that you have to be a go-getter and that you have to ask for this raise. There should be objective criteria, salaries should be revisited on a regular basis, and the kinds of activities that women do that are undervalued should be more recognized in terms of money and advancement within academia.
Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. One of the other topics discussed at the Women in Neurology conference was mid-career development, retention, and career paths. I think it’s known that many women leave academic medicine mid-career. I think these are excellent suggestions and hopefully will help to make careers successful for men and women, without needing to worry about being treated differently or unfairly.
Thank you so much. This was a wonderful overview of this topic.
Dr. Loder: You’re welcome, Dr. LaFaver. Thank you so much for asking me to speak on this topic. I really appreciate it.
Dr. LaFaver: Thanks, everyone.
Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, New York. Dr. LaFaver and Dr. Loder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This interview was recorded Dec. 8, 2023. The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I have the pleasure of talking with Dr. Elizabeth Loder today. Dr. Loder is the vice chair of academic affairs in the department of neurology and a staff physician at Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She’s also a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and has been a mentor to many headache specialists in the field.
We’ll be talking about the topic of sexism in medicine.
Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH: Thank you so much, Dr. LaFaver. I’m very pleased to be here to talk about something that I think is very important.
Dr. LaFaver: Dr. Loder, you were a speaker at our Women in Neurology third annual conference in Florida, giving a talk on this very topic, sexism in medicine. It was very helpful, especially for many younger women entering the field of neurology, to hear that some of the experiences they’re having are not unique to them, but unfortunately remain a more systemic issue.
To get us started, could you define sexism in medicine for us, and how you got interested in this topic?
Sexism Can Be Subtle
Dr. Loder: You’re absolutely right. It’s nice for women, particularly those entering the field, to know that they’re not alone.
What is sexism? Well, it’s generally considered to be prejudice or discrimination against someone based on their sex or gender. One thing that’s important to remember is it’s not always extremely obvious. It’s not always intentional. I think most of us, I’d include myself in that, have sexist views. We may not always be aware of them. This is part of the unconscious bias that many of us have been trained to think.
As one example, we’re socialized — or I certainly was — to think of doctors as male. When a patient says, “I saw a cardiologist,” in my mind, I think that that person might have been male. Sometimes, I will ask, “What did he say?” That’s an example of sexism.
Sexism can be internalized. It can come from any source. We’re all implicated in it. I think that’s very important to remember. This is not a case of them doing something to us. This is something that is much more widespread and engendered in the society that we live in.
Dr. LaFaver: I think that’s really important to realize. Could you mention some other examples, specifically in the field of neurology, that you have encountered?
Dr. Loder: Certainly, looking over my own career — and I’m at a point now where I can look at early, mid, and late career — things were, of course, very different when I began. I would say that sexism was much more overt.
Very early in my career, I experienced a large amount of hostility from a boss. I ended up having to leave. This was, I believe, based on my sex. It turned out that leaving was a good thing for me, but it was a very unpleasant experience.
I also became a leader in my professional society. During my path to leadership and seeing other women attempt to make progress within the organization, I certainly saw behavior that I would characterize as rooted in sexism. To its credit, though, the professional society to which I belong, I think, has become one of the most progressive societies out there. The women within have been able to affect quite a bit of change in that professional organization.
I dealt with a case of sexual harassment in my own division when I was a division chief, which gave me insight into institutional policies and procedures meant to deal with situations like that, which, I think, leave something to be desired. That’s changing.
Now, I work in academic affairs, and I see how likely or unlikely people, based on their sex, are to put themselves forward for promotion, how likely they are to believe in their own capabilities. I also work as a medical journal editor, and I see generally that women are more hesitant to proclaim themselves experts and to accept invitations to provide or write editorial commentary. Sometimes, they do not perceive themselves as being expert enough to do so. I have seen many of these things over my career.
Dr. LaFaver: Thank you for sharing. I think it’s important to realize that it›s not just unidirectional but sometimes affects women and kind of goes both ways.
As you mentioned, these issues are not always overt. In recent years, microaggressions has become more of a term that has been used. Could you talk a bit about that? What are the microaggressions and how do they affect women?
Microaggressions and Migraine Mavens
Dr. Loder: The term microaggression has become very popular, and I think many people find it somewhat irritating. That, to me, is inherent in what a microaggression is. Microaggressions, by definition, are small things. It’s hard to prove that they were rooted in sexism. Sometimes, there’s a large amount of ambiguity about it. It can be as simple as inviting a pregnant woman to sit down because you perceive that she needs to sit, commenting on somebody’s shoes, or things like that.
Often, they’re unintentional. Sometimes, they come from a place of what we might term benevolent sexism, people trying to be helpful to a woman because they perceive that she’s weaker or she might not be able to do something, or maybe she has family responsibilities. They think that they’re being helpful. These things happen when we perceive people to be different in some way, as women are perceived to be different in terms of their responsibilities in the home or different in terms of what we expect from them in the workplace.
The problem with microaggressions is because they’re small, each one of them, I think the temptation is often to say, “Oh you know, they didn’t mean it. It’s not that big a deal. It was just a comment on your shoes.” If a woman brings that up, she’s often made to feel, sometimes by other women, that she should just chill out. This isn’t a big deal.
The problem is that they may not be a big deal in and of themselves, but when they are repeated over a long period of time, they can really sap somebody’s confidence in herself, make her question her own competence, and can have a cumulative effect that is very negative.
Although I think many people are skeptical about microaggressions as an important contribution to how women do in the workplace and in other settings, they are, in my opinion, important. I’ll just emphasize again that they come from everywhere, including other women and colleagues who mean to be helpful.
Dr. LaFaver: I know you have led a team of headache specialists and wrote a fantastic article about navigating sexism at work and what not to say to your female colleagues. Could you share some tips for them to navigate sexism at work and, specifically, as it applies to our careers in medicine.
Dr. Loder: Thank you for calling out that article. It actually grew organically out of a Facebook group that I started called Migraine Mavens. I’ve worked in the headache field throughout my career, and I experienced something that, to me, was kind of discouraging that I felt was sexist within our field. I just thought, What can I do? I thought, Well, maybe there’s some strength to be had in sharing this with other women, and maybe we should have our own social media community, so I formed this group.
After I gave a talk at the American Headache Society about sexism in the headache field, one of the members sent me a message saying, “Your talk was very timely. Immediately after you gave this talk, somebody stopped me in the hall and said, ‘Congratulations on your leadership position in the society, but are you really sure you can do this because you’ve got young children at home?’ Your talk was very needed.”
People started just discussing within the group, “Oh, this happened to me,” “That happened to me.” We began to brainstorm what we could have done differently. When these things happen, people are not necessarily prepared for them, and later on, you lie awake thinking of what you could have said.
We decided to write a paper. It ended up being published in The Journal of Head and Face Pain, and it was based on real vignettes from people in the group. We anonymized them so that people would not recognize themselves necessarily, but they’re all real. They’re things that really happened to women in the group.
We first describe the vignette — what happened. Then we explain, for those who need the explanation, what’s wrong with it. Why is it wrong to tell somebody to smile, for example. What could you do differently? What could somebody who sees this happen do, the so-called bystander or upstander? If you witness something like that, can you help the person toward whom this problematic behavior is directed? We came up with some examples. The all-purpose thing is to say, “What did you just say?” Make them repeat it, which often helps people to realize how inappropriate it is.
This got published as an article. It became quite the subject of attention on X [formerly Twitter] and elsewhere. I guess the term going viral would apply to this. It included a large amount of real-world advice. The thing I really loved about it was that it was written by the women in the group who had experienced these things. I would characterize it as having been somewhat therapeutic. We got many messages from women in other disciplines, outside medicine, saying that this happens in oceanography, for example. I think what we described really resonated beyond the field of headache medicine and neurology.
Institutional Sexism
Dr. LaFaver: Looking beyond the individual person, do you have any recommendations for medical institutions to share in order to do better and maybe create an environment that is less sexist?
Dr. Loder: Yes. I think many institutions try to deal with the problem of lack of diversity, whether it›s women or other underrepresented groups, by hiring. That’s one way to go about it, but I think retention strategies are also very important, and they need to pay attention to the work environment.
Every institution now has guidelines about harassment, bullying, sexism, racism, and so on. In general though — and I’m not speaking about any particular institution — these policies and procedures are often crafted with an eye toward protecting the institution. I would advise institutions to be a bit more genuine about this, and not to think so quickly about what can we do to prevent the institution from facing a charge of sexism, or what can we do to deny or dismiss these allegations, toward thinking, what can we do to really and truly be helpful to these women? In other words, approach it from the point of view of trying to help the people involved instead of trying to help the institution. That will make a very big difference.
I also think that citizenship activities, serving on committees, doing thankless tasks behind the scenes, and clinical work, seeing patients ... Women are overrepresented among clinicians. Of course, we know that research and bringing in big grants is often prioritized over clinical care, despite what institutions may say about that in public. I think those activities should be valued more highly, both in terms of pay and in terms of academic recognition.
In regard to the issue of salary, I would encourage institutions to publish salaries or at least make them easily findable by people within the institution. I think there should be objective criteria for salary determinations. The most important thing is that I do not think that women should be expected to negotiate their salaries. Women are judged differently than men when they attempt to negotiate salaries. It often backfires for them. It also is something that many women do not feel comfortable doing.
Waiting until somebody tries to negotiate a higher salary really guarantees, embeds, and operationalizes sex differences in salaries. We need to move away from the idea that you have to be a go-getter and that you have to ask for this raise. There should be objective criteria, salaries should be revisited on a regular basis, and the kinds of activities that women do that are undervalued should be more recognized in terms of money and advancement within academia.
Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. One of the other topics discussed at the Women in Neurology conference was mid-career development, retention, and career paths. I think it’s known that many women leave academic medicine mid-career. I think these are excellent suggestions and hopefully will help to make careers successful for men and women, without needing to worry about being treated differently or unfairly.
Thank you so much. This was a wonderful overview of this topic.
Dr. Loder: You’re welcome, Dr. LaFaver. Thank you so much for asking me to speak on this topic. I really appreciate it.
Dr. LaFaver: Thanks, everyone.
Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, New York. Dr. LaFaver and Dr. Loder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel Clinic Resulted in ‘Impressive’ Outcomes for Patients With Moderate to Severe Eczema
, results from a single-center study showed.
“A significant challenge in caring for patients with atopic dermatitis is lack of collaboration between healthcare providers, leading to disjointed care, inconsistent treatment plans, and conflicting dialogue with patients,” first author Alexis Tracy, MD, a combined allergy and dermatology research fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online January 14, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology.
Launched in 2019, the clinic, which is called the Multidisciplinary Atopic Dermatitis Program (MADP), is a collaborative effort between with Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California San Diego Health division of dermatology, division of allergy & immunology, and the hospital’s clinical pharmacy. Patients referred to the MADP undergo a concurrent, comprehensive evaluation by a dermatologist, allergist, clinical pharmacist, and others who help to assess AD severity, provide family education about the disease, and form a care plan using the model of shared decision-making (SDM). Visits take about two hours, and the frequency of follow-up visits varies.
In the dermatology realm, tools used to compare the extent and severity of AD between visits include the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI), Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA), Body Surface Area (BSA), and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS).To investigate the MADP’s success to date, Dr. Tracy and colleagues evaluated 44 patients with a history of moderate to severe, persistent AD who were referred to the clinic between April 3, 2019, and October 22, 2022, and had between one and three follow-up visits. The patients ranged from age 4 months to 18 years (mean, 7.74 years).
Compared with baseline, EASI scores of patients decreased significantly, with an average mean improvement of 9.61 by the second visit, 15.12 by the third visit, and 17.42 by the fourth visit (P <.001 for all three). These represent an average decreases of 44.20%, 63.26%, 74.35%, respectively.
At the seventh visit, the EASI score decreased by a mean of 33.48 (P = .008), which represents an average decrease of 91.52% from baseline. Of the 44 patients, 32 achieved an EASI 50 and 21 achieved an EASI 75.
In other findings, the mean vIGA improved with each visit, with the largest observed improvement at the seventh visit (a mean of 2.25 points; P = .009) and the greatest mean improvement in the POEM score was seen at the sixth visit (a mean of 11.13 points; P < .001). The mean difference in CDLQI scores also increased with each visit, with the largest improvement seen at the sixth visit (an increase of 12 points; P < .001).
Similarly, BSA progressively improved at each clinic visit, from a mean decrease of 16.02% at the second visit to a mean decrease of 56.04% at the seventh visit (P < .001 for both). Meanwhile, the largest mean improvement in pruritus was seen at the sixth visit (a mean of 4.10 points; P = .001).
In an interview, MADP’s codirector, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, said that the consistency of data showing rapid, consistent improvement with a varied set of physician assessed scores and patient-reported outcomes “was very impressive, especially given the variation in severity, extent and difficult course of many of the patients we saw, and spectrum of interventions – from topical regimens to advanced systemic therapies,” he said. “As clinicians we tend to remember the ‘tough cases,’ and it was tremendous to see the impact and utility of the clinic.”
He noted that he and Bob Geng, MD, an allergist/immunologist at Rady Children’s who co-directs the MADP, regularly discuss how much they have learned from the program. “Some take-aways are simple, like ‘do body surface area assessment in pediatric patients with moderate to serve atopic dermatitis,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield said. “These help us show the severity to the patient and family, and everyone loves to see the objective improvement measures over time.”
The MADP providers and personnel have become better at explaining AD “and understanding how families come in with broad differences in understanding of the disease, therapies and prior treatments,” he added. “And I have learned that discussing environmental allergies and food allergies, even if they might not be triggers of the AD, is appreciated by patients and families, as they are part of the family experience and they appreciate our ‘broadly caring’ beyond our narrow niches of intervention.”
Important model of care
Asked to comment on the results, pediatric dermatologist Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, who was not involved with the study, characterized the MADP as an important model of care. “Multi-interdisciplinary care of such conditions is well-known to be of great help for patients and their families,” he told this news organization.
“A key part of the ‘team’ is the family/patient engagement and shared decision-making. The use of visual aides to highlight components of care was likely of great use, as well,” he said. “All such interventions impact the disease, as well as associated problems, such as itch, sleep, and mental health. Importantly, such interventions, while known to be useful as demonstrated by the authors, take time, and relate to improved outcomes as noted by the date outlined by the authors.”
The study authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group with single-specialty visits. “The real take-away is that taking the time to do more holistic assessments of health — with skin and allergy issues being discussed, and consistent education and messaging — helps make our medical interventions more successful, with both objective disease improvement and patient/family satisfaction,” Dr. Eichenfield said in the interview.
Pfizer and Sanofi provided financial support to MADP, and for the study. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he serves as a scientific adviser, consultant, and/or clinical trial investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Aslan, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, Forté, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Trialspark, and UCB. Dr. Geng disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and AbbVie, and is an adviser to Incyte, Galderma, Eli-Lilly, and LEO. The other authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Levy disclosed ties with Abeona, Amgen, Arcutis, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. He is also an investigator for Janssen.
, results from a single-center study showed.
“A significant challenge in caring for patients with atopic dermatitis is lack of collaboration between healthcare providers, leading to disjointed care, inconsistent treatment plans, and conflicting dialogue with patients,” first author Alexis Tracy, MD, a combined allergy and dermatology research fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online January 14, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology.
Launched in 2019, the clinic, which is called the Multidisciplinary Atopic Dermatitis Program (MADP), is a collaborative effort between with Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California San Diego Health division of dermatology, division of allergy & immunology, and the hospital’s clinical pharmacy. Patients referred to the MADP undergo a concurrent, comprehensive evaluation by a dermatologist, allergist, clinical pharmacist, and others who help to assess AD severity, provide family education about the disease, and form a care plan using the model of shared decision-making (SDM). Visits take about two hours, and the frequency of follow-up visits varies.
In the dermatology realm, tools used to compare the extent and severity of AD between visits include the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI), Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA), Body Surface Area (BSA), and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS).To investigate the MADP’s success to date, Dr. Tracy and colleagues evaluated 44 patients with a history of moderate to severe, persistent AD who were referred to the clinic between April 3, 2019, and October 22, 2022, and had between one and three follow-up visits. The patients ranged from age 4 months to 18 years (mean, 7.74 years).
Compared with baseline, EASI scores of patients decreased significantly, with an average mean improvement of 9.61 by the second visit, 15.12 by the third visit, and 17.42 by the fourth visit (P <.001 for all three). These represent an average decreases of 44.20%, 63.26%, 74.35%, respectively.
At the seventh visit, the EASI score decreased by a mean of 33.48 (P = .008), which represents an average decrease of 91.52% from baseline. Of the 44 patients, 32 achieved an EASI 50 and 21 achieved an EASI 75.
In other findings, the mean vIGA improved with each visit, with the largest observed improvement at the seventh visit (a mean of 2.25 points; P = .009) and the greatest mean improvement in the POEM score was seen at the sixth visit (a mean of 11.13 points; P < .001). The mean difference in CDLQI scores also increased with each visit, with the largest improvement seen at the sixth visit (an increase of 12 points; P < .001).
Similarly, BSA progressively improved at each clinic visit, from a mean decrease of 16.02% at the second visit to a mean decrease of 56.04% at the seventh visit (P < .001 for both). Meanwhile, the largest mean improvement in pruritus was seen at the sixth visit (a mean of 4.10 points; P = .001).
In an interview, MADP’s codirector, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, said that the consistency of data showing rapid, consistent improvement with a varied set of physician assessed scores and patient-reported outcomes “was very impressive, especially given the variation in severity, extent and difficult course of many of the patients we saw, and spectrum of interventions – from topical regimens to advanced systemic therapies,” he said. “As clinicians we tend to remember the ‘tough cases,’ and it was tremendous to see the impact and utility of the clinic.”
He noted that he and Bob Geng, MD, an allergist/immunologist at Rady Children’s who co-directs the MADP, regularly discuss how much they have learned from the program. “Some take-aways are simple, like ‘do body surface area assessment in pediatric patients with moderate to serve atopic dermatitis,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield said. “These help us show the severity to the patient and family, and everyone loves to see the objective improvement measures over time.”
The MADP providers and personnel have become better at explaining AD “and understanding how families come in with broad differences in understanding of the disease, therapies and prior treatments,” he added. “And I have learned that discussing environmental allergies and food allergies, even if they might not be triggers of the AD, is appreciated by patients and families, as they are part of the family experience and they appreciate our ‘broadly caring’ beyond our narrow niches of intervention.”
Important model of care
Asked to comment on the results, pediatric dermatologist Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, who was not involved with the study, characterized the MADP as an important model of care. “Multi-interdisciplinary care of such conditions is well-known to be of great help for patients and their families,” he told this news organization.
“A key part of the ‘team’ is the family/patient engagement and shared decision-making. The use of visual aides to highlight components of care was likely of great use, as well,” he said. “All such interventions impact the disease, as well as associated problems, such as itch, sleep, and mental health. Importantly, such interventions, while known to be useful as demonstrated by the authors, take time, and relate to improved outcomes as noted by the date outlined by the authors.”
The study authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group with single-specialty visits. “The real take-away is that taking the time to do more holistic assessments of health — with skin and allergy issues being discussed, and consistent education and messaging — helps make our medical interventions more successful, with both objective disease improvement and patient/family satisfaction,” Dr. Eichenfield said in the interview.
Pfizer and Sanofi provided financial support to MADP, and for the study. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he serves as a scientific adviser, consultant, and/or clinical trial investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Aslan, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, Forté, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Trialspark, and UCB. Dr. Geng disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and AbbVie, and is an adviser to Incyte, Galderma, Eli-Lilly, and LEO. The other authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Levy disclosed ties with Abeona, Amgen, Arcutis, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. He is also an investigator for Janssen.
, results from a single-center study showed.
“A significant challenge in caring for patients with atopic dermatitis is lack of collaboration between healthcare providers, leading to disjointed care, inconsistent treatment plans, and conflicting dialogue with patients,” first author Alexis Tracy, MD, a combined allergy and dermatology research fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online January 14, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology.
Launched in 2019, the clinic, which is called the Multidisciplinary Atopic Dermatitis Program (MADP), is a collaborative effort between with Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California San Diego Health division of dermatology, division of allergy & immunology, and the hospital’s clinical pharmacy. Patients referred to the MADP undergo a concurrent, comprehensive evaluation by a dermatologist, allergist, clinical pharmacist, and others who help to assess AD severity, provide family education about the disease, and form a care plan using the model of shared decision-making (SDM). Visits take about two hours, and the frequency of follow-up visits varies.
In the dermatology realm, tools used to compare the extent and severity of AD between visits include the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI), Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA), Body Surface Area (BSA), and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS).To investigate the MADP’s success to date, Dr. Tracy and colleagues evaluated 44 patients with a history of moderate to severe, persistent AD who were referred to the clinic between April 3, 2019, and October 22, 2022, and had between one and three follow-up visits. The patients ranged from age 4 months to 18 years (mean, 7.74 years).
Compared with baseline, EASI scores of patients decreased significantly, with an average mean improvement of 9.61 by the second visit, 15.12 by the third visit, and 17.42 by the fourth visit (P <.001 for all three). These represent an average decreases of 44.20%, 63.26%, 74.35%, respectively.
At the seventh visit, the EASI score decreased by a mean of 33.48 (P = .008), which represents an average decrease of 91.52% from baseline. Of the 44 patients, 32 achieved an EASI 50 and 21 achieved an EASI 75.
In other findings, the mean vIGA improved with each visit, with the largest observed improvement at the seventh visit (a mean of 2.25 points; P = .009) and the greatest mean improvement in the POEM score was seen at the sixth visit (a mean of 11.13 points; P < .001). The mean difference in CDLQI scores also increased with each visit, with the largest improvement seen at the sixth visit (an increase of 12 points; P < .001).
Similarly, BSA progressively improved at each clinic visit, from a mean decrease of 16.02% at the second visit to a mean decrease of 56.04% at the seventh visit (P < .001 for both). Meanwhile, the largest mean improvement in pruritus was seen at the sixth visit (a mean of 4.10 points; P = .001).
In an interview, MADP’s codirector, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, said that the consistency of data showing rapid, consistent improvement with a varied set of physician assessed scores and patient-reported outcomes “was very impressive, especially given the variation in severity, extent and difficult course of many of the patients we saw, and spectrum of interventions – from topical regimens to advanced systemic therapies,” he said. “As clinicians we tend to remember the ‘tough cases,’ and it was tremendous to see the impact and utility of the clinic.”
He noted that he and Bob Geng, MD, an allergist/immunologist at Rady Children’s who co-directs the MADP, regularly discuss how much they have learned from the program. “Some take-aways are simple, like ‘do body surface area assessment in pediatric patients with moderate to serve atopic dermatitis,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield said. “These help us show the severity to the patient and family, and everyone loves to see the objective improvement measures over time.”
The MADP providers and personnel have become better at explaining AD “and understanding how families come in with broad differences in understanding of the disease, therapies and prior treatments,” he added. “And I have learned that discussing environmental allergies and food allergies, even if they might not be triggers of the AD, is appreciated by patients and families, as they are part of the family experience and they appreciate our ‘broadly caring’ beyond our narrow niches of intervention.”
Important model of care
Asked to comment on the results, pediatric dermatologist Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, who was not involved with the study, characterized the MADP as an important model of care. “Multi-interdisciplinary care of such conditions is well-known to be of great help for patients and their families,” he told this news organization.
“A key part of the ‘team’ is the family/patient engagement and shared decision-making. The use of visual aides to highlight components of care was likely of great use, as well,” he said. “All such interventions impact the disease, as well as associated problems, such as itch, sleep, and mental health. Importantly, such interventions, while known to be useful as demonstrated by the authors, take time, and relate to improved outcomes as noted by the date outlined by the authors.”
The study authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group with single-specialty visits. “The real take-away is that taking the time to do more holistic assessments of health — with skin and allergy issues being discussed, and consistent education and messaging — helps make our medical interventions more successful, with both objective disease improvement and patient/family satisfaction,” Dr. Eichenfield said in the interview.
Pfizer and Sanofi provided financial support to MADP, and for the study. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he serves as a scientific adviser, consultant, and/or clinical trial investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Aslan, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, Forté, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Trialspark, and UCB. Dr. Geng disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and AbbVie, and is an adviser to Incyte, Galderma, Eli-Lilly, and LEO. The other authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Levy disclosed ties with Abeona, Amgen, Arcutis, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. He is also an investigator for Janssen.
FROM PEDIATRIC DERMATOLOGY
Why Don’t Physicians Call In Sick?
I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then,
There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.
Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.
There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.
The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.”
What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.
Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.
Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.
Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”
Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”
We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then,
There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.
Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.
There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.
The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.”
What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.
Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.
Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.
Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”
Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”
We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then,
There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.
Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.
There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.
The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.”
What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.
Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.
Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.
Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”
Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”
We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Best Practices for Hiring, Training, Retaining Rheumatology Advanced Practice Providers
Once considered a luxury, hiring a nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant is becoming a necessity in many rheumatology practices.
Seeing the wait lists pile up in her Florida practice, Stacy Yonker, MBA, chief executive officer of Sarasota Arthritis Center, knew she had to make some changes. “Everyone’s aging in the boomer generations. Particularly in Florida, we have a lot of people who retire here. In the more southern demographics, it is a very difficult challenge for practices to get new patients in,” she said.
Ms. Yonker is in the process of hiring several nurse practitioners (NPs) to assist in the clinics and infusion suites, lightening the load for the practice’s 11 rheumatologists.
Hiring an advanced practice provider (APP) to support the practice is just a first step. Getting these additional personnel up to speed means an investment in education and fostering good working relationships with NPs, PAs, and the staff’s physicians. Even more importantly, practices need to set realistic expectations on workload for these new hires.
“I tried to hire them, but I couldn’t keep them,” is a statement Christine A. Stamatos, DNP, ANP-C, hears all the time from rheumatologists. Oftentimes it’s because the practice saddles the new hire with 20 patients a day, said Dr. Stamatos, director of the Fibromyalgia Wellness Center within the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in Huntington, New York. She is also an assistant professor at Hofstra Northwell School of Graduate Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies in Hempstead, New York.
“Twenty patients a day is too much,” Dr. Stamatos said. Overload someone, and they won’t stay. Offer them the support, mentoring, and tools they need to practice in their setting — and they will.
Why the Profession Needs APPs
Rheumatology is a much smaller specialty than most, with only a set number of rheumatologists in the field that can provide care to patients. A growing shortage is also looming. Reports from the American College of Rheumatology have projected troubling shortfalls in rheumatologists over the next decade in all regions of the United States.
Many of them aging into retirement “poses a significant issue on being able to continue providing care for the population that experiences the rheumatic disease,” said Ms. Yonker, a director of the National Organization of Rheumatology Management (NORM), a forum that promotes education and advocacy for rheumatology practice managers. People are also living longer, which means more patients are developing arthritis and autoimmune diseases.
Julia M. Swafford, PA-C, a rheumatology physician assistant in Battle Creek, Michigan, sees many advantages of hiring NPs and PAs, and not just from a financial perspective.
Salaries for PAs and NPs aren’t as high and they’re also more accessible than a rheumatologist. “You could train an NP or PA a lot quicker during that same time frame it would take to find a new rheumatology provider,” she offered. And while they may not be as experienced as rheumatologists, “you can kind of mold me on how you like to practice, what medications you may like to use, how you like to treat your patients,” Ms. Swafford said.
Hiring Someone With Experience
Recruiting and retaining APPs is not without its challenges.
Finding individuals compatible with this specialty isn’t easy, noted Mark Box, MD, medical director of Carondelet Rheumatology in Kansas City, Missouri. Ideally, APPs should be inquisitive, compassionate, and ready to learn. “Rheumatology is a cognitive specialty where you have to fit many pieces together. You need an APP who wants to embrace that,” he said.
The profession isn’t that “sexy” either, noted Katie Taylor, Carondelet’s practice manager. Patients are often in head-to-toe pain, and miserable. Many have been to other specialists without answers to their questions. For these reasons, rheumatology can be a hard sell for some PAs and NPs.
Nurse practitioners aren’t always comfortable with administering things such as controlled medications, for example. “It’s a hard patient population, and it’s a specialty of exclusion. You’ve got to be really smart to understand our diseases and our processes and our drugs,” Ms. Taylor said. In other words, it’s a difficult environment for an NP to walk into if their previous experience has been limited to upper respiratory issues and urinary tract infections in the primary care setting.
When hiring an APP, rheumatologists should look for someone who demonstrates an interest in lifelong learning, because the field is changing every day. They should exhibit good scores in educational training and have experience working in an emergency department or another field that translates well into rheumatology such as critical care, immunology, hematology, and orthopedics, she said.
Carondelet Rheumatology was specifically looking for an NP with rheumatology experience to support Dr. Box’s solo practice.
He was facing enormous pressure to be in the office every single day of the week. The practice had to cancel patients for its infusion suite on a regular basis when he was out of the office, Ms. Taylor said. “We couldn’t see new patients, and he wasn’t able to touch as many patients as he wanted to. The doctor takes the oath of touching as many in your community as possible, and you’re limited when you’re a one-man show.”
The practice eventually found an NP who already knew how to do joint injections. “We started her with easier diagnoses for things like osteoporosis and gout. She had an orthopedic background, so she was familiar with some of those diseases,” she said.
Even so, she often leaves with questions every day. “It’s a commitment for her to understand and learn so much,” Ms. Taylor said.
New hires will need support from the practice to get comfortable with rheumatology, Dr. Stamatos said. Responsibility should come in gradual steps.
Instead of loading an NP with 20 patients a day, 2 or 3 patients in the first quarter, eventually graduating to 6-8 patients is a more realistic expectation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
Shadowing the Physician
Partnerships with physicians is a critical component to this onboarding process.
A nurse practitioner recently hired at Dr. Stamatos’ practice works alongside a physician to manage a panel of 25 patients. “We make sure she gets her training, the resources she needs. I personally meet with her to make sure her education is moving forward, connecting her with radiology, pulmonary, hematology,” and other areas of the practice relevant to her training, she added.
The NP also attends weekly grand rounds and case conferences with the fellows. This is the type of well-rounded support any APP needs, she stressed. “Without proper training, you lose people.”
At Sarasota Arthritis Center, NPs help cover the suites but also get assigned to specific physicians so that they can familiarize themselves with that physician’s panel of patients.
“When we start an APP, they shadow for about twice as long as a new physician would. Usually, they’re shadowing for about 6 weeks, just kind of learning the space. There’s a lot of nurse practitioners or PAs who may not have prior rheumatology experience, so we’re essentially training them from the ground up on rheumatology,” Ms. Yonker said.
Pairing them with one provider often directs what type of disease state they focus on, she continued. This dynamic relationship helps guide decisions on whether to include these NPs in the care of patients with more complex diseases.
At least in her practice, the NPs do not see any new patients. They are simply part of the larger care team. “That’s kind of how we present it to our patients, and it makes them feel more comfortable just because they know that they’re not necessarily being handed off to somebody — that the doctor is still overseeing their care,” Ms. Yonker said.
At the same time, the NPs know that they’re supported, that they too have access to tools and mentorship if they need it, she added.
The new NP at Carondelet Rheumatology piggybacked on the doctor’s schedule for 3 months, slowly taking on infusion patients so she could get familiar with their diseases and respective drugs. Eventually, she got her own schedule and was able to take on new patients.
It’s a team effort, Ms. Taylor noted. The NP does the preliminary workup and then the physician comes in and greets the new patient. Together, they develop a follow-up plan for the patient.
Education Resources for Practices
In the case of Dr. Box’s one-physician practice, he was looking for an NP who was willing to be independent and cover things in his absence. “The training has to be there to accomplish that,” said Dr. Box, who likened the training of APPs to a medical residency.
Encouraging them to ask questions, do continuing medical education online and outside reading, are important steps, he added.
In a recent editorial, rheumatologists Eli M. Miloslavsky, MD, and Bethany Marston, MD, offered some strategies for better prepping the APP workforce to meet the demands of rheumatology practices. “Consideration should be given to formal curricula or training programs to help APPs achieve both competence and confidence in treating rheumatologic conditions,” they offered, suggesting an online curriculum developed by the ACR for such a purpose. Fellowship training should also focus on working effectively with APPs, they added.
“Finally, incorporating APPs more effectively into rheumatology professional societies and supporting practices in hiring and training APPs will all be important steps in addressing the rheumatology workforce shortage,” Dr. Miloslavsky and Dr. Marston wrote.
Ms. Yonker said all her APPs take various courses that the ACR and other organizations provide for rheumatology-specific, midlevel positions. “We provide as much training as possible for them to feel comfortable in this space. They are set directly with a physician for a long time and then eventually go into their own space.”
In addition to ACR, the Rheumatology Nurses Society and the Association of Women in Rheumatology offer excellent online training resources for APPs, Ms. Yonker said. “Also, the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation offers an osteoporosis fracture liaison certification which we put APPs through as well,” she added.
Rheumatology practices should also look into an important clinical training grant program from the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
To date, they have “funded almost everyone that applies,” she said. Each grantee receives $25,000 to support training and education involved in onboarding an APP to a rheumatology practice. The money covers attendance at a live rheumatology conference, online educational programs, textbooks, and any society memberships while defraying the cost of training this employee. To increase awareness of the program, the foundation has since expanded the number of available submission dates and the number of grant awardees per year. Currently, the application deadlines for the grants are December 1 and March 1.
For her own health system, Dr. Stamatos has been working on a rheumatology fellowship program for APPs. Through simulation labs, leadership exercises, and other activities, these APPs will learn how to transition from being a new provider to someone who can become part of a practice, she said.
APPs themselves can also get proactive in this learning cycle, Ms. Swafford said. In her view, both APPs and rheumatologists should be conducting didactic lectures and organizing elective rotations with medical students to get them excited about the field. This would establish a good education base that would encourage PAs and NPs to choose rheumatology.
“That’s a huge thing that’s probably missing,” Ms. Swafford said.
Buy-in From the Doctor
No recruitment effort is going to work if the rheumatologists in the practice aren’t committed to the model of having an APP, Ms. Yonker said. “Everybody wants to know their purpose in their company and that they’re valued and they’re needed. And so, I think a pitfall would be if your rheumatologist is not sold on the model of expanding the care team. Because this takes work on behalf of the doctor.”
Rheumatologists are very busy, so it’s a hard sell for them to take time out of their busy clinics to train somebody to do a good job taking care of their patients, Ms. Taylor agreed. “I think that we need the physicians that have had success with this and allow them to coach the physicians that are still resistant.”
In his small practice, Dr. Box has encouraged his NP to assist with practice improvements, working with the office manager. These workers are providers and need to be treated as such, he said. “They need to feel like they contribute to the practice more than just grinding through patients.”
Peer support is another successful ingredient for these workers. Ms. Taylor’s NP finds the time to commiserate with her fellow nurse practitioners — other rheumatology nurses who are also learning the ropes. Rheumatologists are smart, and they can be very intimidating, Ms. Taylor said. In their small office, the rheumatologist is her only peer.
“She likes to get out and sort of integrate with other nurse practitioners that are learning too.”
When APPs Make a Difference
Practices that take on APPs are reporting positive metrics — mainly, shorter wait times for patients. Ms. Yonker’s physicians have been able to add on one to two new patients a day. Wait times have since dwindled from a 5-month to a 3-month wait with the addition of the NPs. “Three months is still long, but we’re working on getting it to that ideal 6-week wait period, which we’re hoping we can accomplish. So we’re able to get more new patients in for sure,” she said.
Prior to hiring an NP, Ms. Taylor’s practice had to defer acceptances for new patients by at least a year. Now, they’re able to accept about half of all new patient referrals. With the NP on board, “We can get them in within 30 days,” she said.
Sometimes, an APP will go beyond their scope of work to make a difference and better support patients.
Patients with rheumatic and osteopathic conditions are often underdiagnosed in the primary care space. As a result, they are not treated as often as they should be. Seeing a need for specialty care, Ms. Swafford took action.
She currently runs the only bone health clinic in southwest Michigan, coordinating with rheumatologists, NPs, urgent care, hospitalists, and interventional radiologists to attend to these patients more quickly and reduce wait times for care. Specialists will flag things such as nontraumatic hip fractures and vertebral fractures and refer them to Ms. Swafford’s clinic, which is part of Bronson Rheumatology Specialists.
The clinic gets quite a few referrals, and the practice is growing. “Usually, they don’t take as long as a rheumatology referral for a workup, so we can see them a little bit quicker,” usually within 3 weeks, she added.
APPs have an opportunity to make their mark in rheumatology at a time when the profession is experiencing significant gaps in care, Ms. Swafford continued. “Unless we find a way to fill that niche, we’re going to be in a world of trouble in the next 10, 20 years.”
None of the sources reported any disclosures or conflicts of interest.
Once considered a luxury, hiring a nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant is becoming a necessity in many rheumatology practices.
Seeing the wait lists pile up in her Florida practice, Stacy Yonker, MBA, chief executive officer of Sarasota Arthritis Center, knew she had to make some changes. “Everyone’s aging in the boomer generations. Particularly in Florida, we have a lot of people who retire here. In the more southern demographics, it is a very difficult challenge for practices to get new patients in,” she said.
Ms. Yonker is in the process of hiring several nurse practitioners (NPs) to assist in the clinics and infusion suites, lightening the load for the practice’s 11 rheumatologists.
Hiring an advanced practice provider (APP) to support the practice is just a first step. Getting these additional personnel up to speed means an investment in education and fostering good working relationships with NPs, PAs, and the staff’s physicians. Even more importantly, practices need to set realistic expectations on workload for these new hires.
“I tried to hire them, but I couldn’t keep them,” is a statement Christine A. Stamatos, DNP, ANP-C, hears all the time from rheumatologists. Oftentimes it’s because the practice saddles the new hire with 20 patients a day, said Dr. Stamatos, director of the Fibromyalgia Wellness Center within the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in Huntington, New York. She is also an assistant professor at Hofstra Northwell School of Graduate Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies in Hempstead, New York.
“Twenty patients a day is too much,” Dr. Stamatos said. Overload someone, and they won’t stay. Offer them the support, mentoring, and tools they need to practice in their setting — and they will.
Why the Profession Needs APPs
Rheumatology is a much smaller specialty than most, with only a set number of rheumatologists in the field that can provide care to patients. A growing shortage is also looming. Reports from the American College of Rheumatology have projected troubling shortfalls in rheumatologists over the next decade in all regions of the United States.
Many of them aging into retirement “poses a significant issue on being able to continue providing care for the population that experiences the rheumatic disease,” said Ms. Yonker, a director of the National Organization of Rheumatology Management (NORM), a forum that promotes education and advocacy for rheumatology practice managers. People are also living longer, which means more patients are developing arthritis and autoimmune diseases.
Julia M. Swafford, PA-C, a rheumatology physician assistant in Battle Creek, Michigan, sees many advantages of hiring NPs and PAs, and not just from a financial perspective.
Salaries for PAs and NPs aren’t as high and they’re also more accessible than a rheumatologist. “You could train an NP or PA a lot quicker during that same time frame it would take to find a new rheumatology provider,” she offered. And while they may not be as experienced as rheumatologists, “you can kind of mold me on how you like to practice, what medications you may like to use, how you like to treat your patients,” Ms. Swafford said.
Hiring Someone With Experience
Recruiting and retaining APPs is not without its challenges.
Finding individuals compatible with this specialty isn’t easy, noted Mark Box, MD, medical director of Carondelet Rheumatology in Kansas City, Missouri. Ideally, APPs should be inquisitive, compassionate, and ready to learn. “Rheumatology is a cognitive specialty where you have to fit many pieces together. You need an APP who wants to embrace that,” he said.
The profession isn’t that “sexy” either, noted Katie Taylor, Carondelet’s practice manager. Patients are often in head-to-toe pain, and miserable. Many have been to other specialists without answers to their questions. For these reasons, rheumatology can be a hard sell for some PAs and NPs.
Nurse practitioners aren’t always comfortable with administering things such as controlled medications, for example. “It’s a hard patient population, and it’s a specialty of exclusion. You’ve got to be really smart to understand our diseases and our processes and our drugs,” Ms. Taylor said. In other words, it’s a difficult environment for an NP to walk into if their previous experience has been limited to upper respiratory issues and urinary tract infections in the primary care setting.
When hiring an APP, rheumatologists should look for someone who demonstrates an interest in lifelong learning, because the field is changing every day. They should exhibit good scores in educational training and have experience working in an emergency department or another field that translates well into rheumatology such as critical care, immunology, hematology, and orthopedics, she said.
Carondelet Rheumatology was specifically looking for an NP with rheumatology experience to support Dr. Box’s solo practice.
He was facing enormous pressure to be in the office every single day of the week. The practice had to cancel patients for its infusion suite on a regular basis when he was out of the office, Ms. Taylor said. “We couldn’t see new patients, and he wasn’t able to touch as many patients as he wanted to. The doctor takes the oath of touching as many in your community as possible, and you’re limited when you’re a one-man show.”
The practice eventually found an NP who already knew how to do joint injections. “We started her with easier diagnoses for things like osteoporosis and gout. She had an orthopedic background, so she was familiar with some of those diseases,” she said.
Even so, she often leaves with questions every day. “It’s a commitment for her to understand and learn so much,” Ms. Taylor said.
New hires will need support from the practice to get comfortable with rheumatology, Dr. Stamatos said. Responsibility should come in gradual steps.
Instead of loading an NP with 20 patients a day, 2 or 3 patients in the first quarter, eventually graduating to 6-8 patients is a more realistic expectation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
Shadowing the Physician
Partnerships with physicians is a critical component to this onboarding process.
A nurse practitioner recently hired at Dr. Stamatos’ practice works alongside a physician to manage a panel of 25 patients. “We make sure she gets her training, the resources she needs. I personally meet with her to make sure her education is moving forward, connecting her with radiology, pulmonary, hematology,” and other areas of the practice relevant to her training, she added.
The NP also attends weekly grand rounds and case conferences with the fellows. This is the type of well-rounded support any APP needs, she stressed. “Without proper training, you lose people.”
At Sarasota Arthritis Center, NPs help cover the suites but also get assigned to specific physicians so that they can familiarize themselves with that physician’s panel of patients.
“When we start an APP, they shadow for about twice as long as a new physician would. Usually, they’re shadowing for about 6 weeks, just kind of learning the space. There’s a lot of nurse practitioners or PAs who may not have prior rheumatology experience, so we’re essentially training them from the ground up on rheumatology,” Ms. Yonker said.
Pairing them with one provider often directs what type of disease state they focus on, she continued. This dynamic relationship helps guide decisions on whether to include these NPs in the care of patients with more complex diseases.
At least in her practice, the NPs do not see any new patients. They are simply part of the larger care team. “That’s kind of how we present it to our patients, and it makes them feel more comfortable just because they know that they’re not necessarily being handed off to somebody — that the doctor is still overseeing their care,” Ms. Yonker said.
At the same time, the NPs know that they’re supported, that they too have access to tools and mentorship if they need it, she added.
The new NP at Carondelet Rheumatology piggybacked on the doctor’s schedule for 3 months, slowly taking on infusion patients so she could get familiar with their diseases and respective drugs. Eventually, she got her own schedule and was able to take on new patients.
It’s a team effort, Ms. Taylor noted. The NP does the preliminary workup and then the physician comes in and greets the new patient. Together, they develop a follow-up plan for the patient.
Education Resources for Practices
In the case of Dr. Box’s one-physician practice, he was looking for an NP who was willing to be independent and cover things in his absence. “The training has to be there to accomplish that,” said Dr. Box, who likened the training of APPs to a medical residency.
Encouraging them to ask questions, do continuing medical education online and outside reading, are important steps, he added.
In a recent editorial, rheumatologists Eli M. Miloslavsky, MD, and Bethany Marston, MD, offered some strategies for better prepping the APP workforce to meet the demands of rheumatology practices. “Consideration should be given to formal curricula or training programs to help APPs achieve both competence and confidence in treating rheumatologic conditions,” they offered, suggesting an online curriculum developed by the ACR for such a purpose. Fellowship training should also focus on working effectively with APPs, they added.
“Finally, incorporating APPs more effectively into rheumatology professional societies and supporting practices in hiring and training APPs will all be important steps in addressing the rheumatology workforce shortage,” Dr. Miloslavsky and Dr. Marston wrote.
Ms. Yonker said all her APPs take various courses that the ACR and other organizations provide for rheumatology-specific, midlevel positions. “We provide as much training as possible for them to feel comfortable in this space. They are set directly with a physician for a long time and then eventually go into their own space.”
In addition to ACR, the Rheumatology Nurses Society and the Association of Women in Rheumatology offer excellent online training resources for APPs, Ms. Yonker said. “Also, the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation offers an osteoporosis fracture liaison certification which we put APPs through as well,” she added.
Rheumatology practices should also look into an important clinical training grant program from the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
To date, they have “funded almost everyone that applies,” she said. Each grantee receives $25,000 to support training and education involved in onboarding an APP to a rheumatology practice. The money covers attendance at a live rheumatology conference, online educational programs, textbooks, and any society memberships while defraying the cost of training this employee. To increase awareness of the program, the foundation has since expanded the number of available submission dates and the number of grant awardees per year. Currently, the application deadlines for the grants are December 1 and March 1.
For her own health system, Dr. Stamatos has been working on a rheumatology fellowship program for APPs. Through simulation labs, leadership exercises, and other activities, these APPs will learn how to transition from being a new provider to someone who can become part of a practice, she said.
APPs themselves can also get proactive in this learning cycle, Ms. Swafford said. In her view, both APPs and rheumatologists should be conducting didactic lectures and organizing elective rotations with medical students to get them excited about the field. This would establish a good education base that would encourage PAs and NPs to choose rheumatology.
“That’s a huge thing that’s probably missing,” Ms. Swafford said.
Buy-in From the Doctor
No recruitment effort is going to work if the rheumatologists in the practice aren’t committed to the model of having an APP, Ms. Yonker said. “Everybody wants to know their purpose in their company and that they’re valued and they’re needed. And so, I think a pitfall would be if your rheumatologist is not sold on the model of expanding the care team. Because this takes work on behalf of the doctor.”
Rheumatologists are very busy, so it’s a hard sell for them to take time out of their busy clinics to train somebody to do a good job taking care of their patients, Ms. Taylor agreed. “I think that we need the physicians that have had success with this and allow them to coach the physicians that are still resistant.”
In his small practice, Dr. Box has encouraged his NP to assist with practice improvements, working with the office manager. These workers are providers and need to be treated as such, he said. “They need to feel like they contribute to the practice more than just grinding through patients.”
Peer support is another successful ingredient for these workers. Ms. Taylor’s NP finds the time to commiserate with her fellow nurse practitioners — other rheumatology nurses who are also learning the ropes. Rheumatologists are smart, and they can be very intimidating, Ms. Taylor said. In their small office, the rheumatologist is her only peer.
“She likes to get out and sort of integrate with other nurse practitioners that are learning too.”
When APPs Make a Difference
Practices that take on APPs are reporting positive metrics — mainly, shorter wait times for patients. Ms. Yonker’s physicians have been able to add on one to two new patients a day. Wait times have since dwindled from a 5-month to a 3-month wait with the addition of the NPs. “Three months is still long, but we’re working on getting it to that ideal 6-week wait period, which we’re hoping we can accomplish. So we’re able to get more new patients in for sure,” she said.
Prior to hiring an NP, Ms. Taylor’s practice had to defer acceptances for new patients by at least a year. Now, they’re able to accept about half of all new patient referrals. With the NP on board, “We can get them in within 30 days,” she said.
Sometimes, an APP will go beyond their scope of work to make a difference and better support patients.
Patients with rheumatic and osteopathic conditions are often underdiagnosed in the primary care space. As a result, they are not treated as often as they should be. Seeing a need for specialty care, Ms. Swafford took action.
She currently runs the only bone health clinic in southwest Michigan, coordinating with rheumatologists, NPs, urgent care, hospitalists, and interventional radiologists to attend to these patients more quickly and reduce wait times for care. Specialists will flag things such as nontraumatic hip fractures and vertebral fractures and refer them to Ms. Swafford’s clinic, which is part of Bronson Rheumatology Specialists.
The clinic gets quite a few referrals, and the practice is growing. “Usually, they don’t take as long as a rheumatology referral for a workup, so we can see them a little bit quicker,” usually within 3 weeks, she added.
APPs have an opportunity to make their mark in rheumatology at a time when the profession is experiencing significant gaps in care, Ms. Swafford continued. “Unless we find a way to fill that niche, we’re going to be in a world of trouble in the next 10, 20 years.”
None of the sources reported any disclosures or conflicts of interest.
Once considered a luxury, hiring a nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant is becoming a necessity in many rheumatology practices.
Seeing the wait lists pile up in her Florida practice, Stacy Yonker, MBA, chief executive officer of Sarasota Arthritis Center, knew she had to make some changes. “Everyone’s aging in the boomer generations. Particularly in Florida, we have a lot of people who retire here. In the more southern demographics, it is a very difficult challenge for practices to get new patients in,” she said.
Ms. Yonker is in the process of hiring several nurse practitioners (NPs) to assist in the clinics and infusion suites, lightening the load for the practice’s 11 rheumatologists.
Hiring an advanced practice provider (APP) to support the practice is just a first step. Getting these additional personnel up to speed means an investment in education and fostering good working relationships with NPs, PAs, and the staff’s physicians. Even more importantly, practices need to set realistic expectations on workload for these new hires.
“I tried to hire them, but I couldn’t keep them,” is a statement Christine A. Stamatos, DNP, ANP-C, hears all the time from rheumatologists. Oftentimes it’s because the practice saddles the new hire with 20 patients a day, said Dr. Stamatos, director of the Fibromyalgia Wellness Center within the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in Huntington, New York. She is also an assistant professor at Hofstra Northwell School of Graduate Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies in Hempstead, New York.
“Twenty patients a day is too much,” Dr. Stamatos said. Overload someone, and they won’t stay. Offer them the support, mentoring, and tools they need to practice in their setting — and they will.
Why the Profession Needs APPs
Rheumatology is a much smaller specialty than most, with only a set number of rheumatologists in the field that can provide care to patients. A growing shortage is also looming. Reports from the American College of Rheumatology have projected troubling shortfalls in rheumatologists over the next decade in all regions of the United States.
Many of them aging into retirement “poses a significant issue on being able to continue providing care for the population that experiences the rheumatic disease,” said Ms. Yonker, a director of the National Organization of Rheumatology Management (NORM), a forum that promotes education and advocacy for rheumatology practice managers. People are also living longer, which means more patients are developing arthritis and autoimmune diseases.
Julia M. Swafford, PA-C, a rheumatology physician assistant in Battle Creek, Michigan, sees many advantages of hiring NPs and PAs, and not just from a financial perspective.
Salaries for PAs and NPs aren’t as high and they’re also more accessible than a rheumatologist. “You could train an NP or PA a lot quicker during that same time frame it would take to find a new rheumatology provider,” she offered. And while they may not be as experienced as rheumatologists, “you can kind of mold me on how you like to practice, what medications you may like to use, how you like to treat your patients,” Ms. Swafford said.
Hiring Someone With Experience
Recruiting and retaining APPs is not without its challenges.
Finding individuals compatible with this specialty isn’t easy, noted Mark Box, MD, medical director of Carondelet Rheumatology in Kansas City, Missouri. Ideally, APPs should be inquisitive, compassionate, and ready to learn. “Rheumatology is a cognitive specialty where you have to fit many pieces together. You need an APP who wants to embrace that,” he said.
The profession isn’t that “sexy” either, noted Katie Taylor, Carondelet’s practice manager. Patients are often in head-to-toe pain, and miserable. Many have been to other specialists without answers to their questions. For these reasons, rheumatology can be a hard sell for some PAs and NPs.
Nurse practitioners aren’t always comfortable with administering things such as controlled medications, for example. “It’s a hard patient population, and it’s a specialty of exclusion. You’ve got to be really smart to understand our diseases and our processes and our drugs,” Ms. Taylor said. In other words, it’s a difficult environment for an NP to walk into if their previous experience has been limited to upper respiratory issues and urinary tract infections in the primary care setting.
When hiring an APP, rheumatologists should look for someone who demonstrates an interest in lifelong learning, because the field is changing every day. They should exhibit good scores in educational training and have experience working in an emergency department or another field that translates well into rheumatology such as critical care, immunology, hematology, and orthopedics, she said.
Carondelet Rheumatology was specifically looking for an NP with rheumatology experience to support Dr. Box’s solo practice.
He was facing enormous pressure to be in the office every single day of the week. The practice had to cancel patients for its infusion suite on a regular basis when he was out of the office, Ms. Taylor said. “We couldn’t see new patients, and he wasn’t able to touch as many patients as he wanted to. The doctor takes the oath of touching as many in your community as possible, and you’re limited when you’re a one-man show.”
The practice eventually found an NP who already knew how to do joint injections. “We started her with easier diagnoses for things like osteoporosis and gout. She had an orthopedic background, so she was familiar with some of those diseases,” she said.
Even so, she often leaves with questions every day. “It’s a commitment for her to understand and learn so much,” Ms. Taylor said.
New hires will need support from the practice to get comfortable with rheumatology, Dr. Stamatos said. Responsibility should come in gradual steps.
Instead of loading an NP with 20 patients a day, 2 or 3 patients in the first quarter, eventually graduating to 6-8 patients is a more realistic expectation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
Shadowing the Physician
Partnerships with physicians is a critical component to this onboarding process.
A nurse practitioner recently hired at Dr. Stamatos’ practice works alongside a physician to manage a panel of 25 patients. “We make sure she gets her training, the resources she needs. I personally meet with her to make sure her education is moving forward, connecting her with radiology, pulmonary, hematology,” and other areas of the practice relevant to her training, she added.
The NP also attends weekly grand rounds and case conferences with the fellows. This is the type of well-rounded support any APP needs, she stressed. “Without proper training, you lose people.”
At Sarasota Arthritis Center, NPs help cover the suites but also get assigned to specific physicians so that they can familiarize themselves with that physician’s panel of patients.
“When we start an APP, they shadow for about twice as long as a new physician would. Usually, they’re shadowing for about 6 weeks, just kind of learning the space. There’s a lot of nurse practitioners or PAs who may not have prior rheumatology experience, so we’re essentially training them from the ground up on rheumatology,” Ms. Yonker said.
Pairing them with one provider often directs what type of disease state they focus on, she continued. This dynamic relationship helps guide decisions on whether to include these NPs in the care of patients with more complex diseases.
At least in her practice, the NPs do not see any new patients. They are simply part of the larger care team. “That’s kind of how we present it to our patients, and it makes them feel more comfortable just because they know that they’re not necessarily being handed off to somebody — that the doctor is still overseeing their care,” Ms. Yonker said.
At the same time, the NPs know that they’re supported, that they too have access to tools and mentorship if they need it, she added.
The new NP at Carondelet Rheumatology piggybacked on the doctor’s schedule for 3 months, slowly taking on infusion patients so she could get familiar with their diseases and respective drugs. Eventually, she got her own schedule and was able to take on new patients.
It’s a team effort, Ms. Taylor noted. The NP does the preliminary workup and then the physician comes in and greets the new patient. Together, they develop a follow-up plan for the patient.
Education Resources for Practices
In the case of Dr. Box’s one-physician practice, he was looking for an NP who was willing to be independent and cover things in his absence. “The training has to be there to accomplish that,” said Dr. Box, who likened the training of APPs to a medical residency.
Encouraging them to ask questions, do continuing medical education online and outside reading, are important steps, he added.
In a recent editorial, rheumatologists Eli M. Miloslavsky, MD, and Bethany Marston, MD, offered some strategies for better prepping the APP workforce to meet the demands of rheumatology practices. “Consideration should be given to formal curricula or training programs to help APPs achieve both competence and confidence in treating rheumatologic conditions,” they offered, suggesting an online curriculum developed by the ACR for such a purpose. Fellowship training should also focus on working effectively with APPs, they added.
“Finally, incorporating APPs more effectively into rheumatology professional societies and supporting practices in hiring and training APPs will all be important steps in addressing the rheumatology workforce shortage,” Dr. Miloslavsky and Dr. Marston wrote.
Ms. Yonker said all her APPs take various courses that the ACR and other organizations provide for rheumatology-specific, midlevel positions. “We provide as much training as possible for them to feel comfortable in this space. They are set directly with a physician for a long time and then eventually go into their own space.”
In addition to ACR, the Rheumatology Nurses Society and the Association of Women in Rheumatology offer excellent online training resources for APPs, Ms. Yonker said. “Also, the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation offers an osteoporosis fracture liaison certification which we put APPs through as well,” she added.
Rheumatology practices should also look into an important clinical training grant program from the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
To date, they have “funded almost everyone that applies,” she said. Each grantee receives $25,000 to support training and education involved in onboarding an APP to a rheumatology practice. The money covers attendance at a live rheumatology conference, online educational programs, textbooks, and any society memberships while defraying the cost of training this employee. To increase awareness of the program, the foundation has since expanded the number of available submission dates and the number of grant awardees per year. Currently, the application deadlines for the grants are December 1 and March 1.
For her own health system, Dr. Stamatos has been working on a rheumatology fellowship program for APPs. Through simulation labs, leadership exercises, and other activities, these APPs will learn how to transition from being a new provider to someone who can become part of a practice, she said.
APPs themselves can also get proactive in this learning cycle, Ms. Swafford said. In her view, both APPs and rheumatologists should be conducting didactic lectures and organizing elective rotations with medical students to get them excited about the field. This would establish a good education base that would encourage PAs and NPs to choose rheumatology.
“That’s a huge thing that’s probably missing,” Ms. Swafford said.
Buy-in From the Doctor
No recruitment effort is going to work if the rheumatologists in the practice aren’t committed to the model of having an APP, Ms. Yonker said. “Everybody wants to know their purpose in their company and that they’re valued and they’re needed. And so, I think a pitfall would be if your rheumatologist is not sold on the model of expanding the care team. Because this takes work on behalf of the doctor.”
Rheumatologists are very busy, so it’s a hard sell for them to take time out of their busy clinics to train somebody to do a good job taking care of their patients, Ms. Taylor agreed. “I think that we need the physicians that have had success with this and allow them to coach the physicians that are still resistant.”
In his small practice, Dr. Box has encouraged his NP to assist with practice improvements, working with the office manager. These workers are providers and need to be treated as such, he said. “They need to feel like they contribute to the practice more than just grinding through patients.”
Peer support is another successful ingredient for these workers. Ms. Taylor’s NP finds the time to commiserate with her fellow nurse practitioners — other rheumatology nurses who are also learning the ropes. Rheumatologists are smart, and they can be very intimidating, Ms. Taylor said. In their small office, the rheumatologist is her only peer.
“She likes to get out and sort of integrate with other nurse practitioners that are learning too.”
When APPs Make a Difference
Practices that take on APPs are reporting positive metrics — mainly, shorter wait times for patients. Ms. Yonker’s physicians have been able to add on one to two new patients a day. Wait times have since dwindled from a 5-month to a 3-month wait with the addition of the NPs. “Three months is still long, but we’re working on getting it to that ideal 6-week wait period, which we’re hoping we can accomplish. So we’re able to get more new patients in for sure,” she said.
Prior to hiring an NP, Ms. Taylor’s practice had to defer acceptances for new patients by at least a year. Now, they’re able to accept about half of all new patient referrals. With the NP on board, “We can get them in within 30 days,” she said.
Sometimes, an APP will go beyond their scope of work to make a difference and better support patients.
Patients with rheumatic and osteopathic conditions are often underdiagnosed in the primary care space. As a result, they are not treated as often as they should be. Seeing a need for specialty care, Ms. Swafford took action.
She currently runs the only bone health clinic in southwest Michigan, coordinating with rheumatologists, NPs, urgent care, hospitalists, and interventional radiologists to attend to these patients more quickly and reduce wait times for care. Specialists will flag things such as nontraumatic hip fractures and vertebral fractures and refer them to Ms. Swafford’s clinic, which is part of Bronson Rheumatology Specialists.
The clinic gets quite a few referrals, and the practice is growing. “Usually, they don’t take as long as a rheumatology referral for a workup, so we can see them a little bit quicker,” usually within 3 weeks, she added.
APPs have an opportunity to make their mark in rheumatology at a time when the profession is experiencing significant gaps in care, Ms. Swafford continued. “Unless we find a way to fill that niche, we’re going to be in a world of trouble in the next 10, 20 years.”
None of the sources reported any disclosures or conflicts of interest.
How much would you bet on a diagnosis?
“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.
One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.
With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.
Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?
If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.
If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.
I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.
Seemed like a good bet to me.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].
“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.
One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.
With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.
Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?
If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.
If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.
I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.
Seemed like a good bet to me.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].
“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.
One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.
With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.
Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?
If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.
If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.
I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.
Seemed like a good bet to me.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].