Health Policy

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

Samuel Mathis, MD, tries to cover a lot of ground during a wellness exam for his patients. Nutrition, immunizations, dental hygiene, and staying safe at school are a few of the topics on his list. And the Texas pediatrician asks one more question of children and their parents: “Are there any firearms in the house?”

If the answer is “yes,” Dr. Mathis discusses safety courses and other ideas with the families. “Rather than ask a bunch of questions, often I will say it’s recommended to keep them locked up and don’t forget toddlers can climb heights that you never would have envisioned,” said Dr. Mathis, an assistant professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.

Dr. Mathis said some of his physician colleagues are wary of bringing up the topic of guns in a state that leads the nation with more than 1 million registered firearms. “My discussion is more on firearm responsibility and just making sure they are taking extra steps to keep themselves and everyone around them safe. That works much better in these discussions.”
 

Gun safety: Public health concern, not politics

Conversations about gun safety are becoming more important than ever, not only with parents of pediatric patients but with youth and adults as well. The statistics tell why:

• Unintentional shooting deaths by children rose by nearly one third in a 3-month period in 2020, compared with the same period in 2019.
• Of every 10 gun deaths in the United States, 6 are by suicide.
• As of July 28, 372 mass shootings have occured.
• Firearms now represent the leading cause of death among the nation’s youth.

In 2018, the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine urged physicians in the United States to sign a pledge to talk with their patients about guns in the home. To date, at least 3,664 have done so.

In 2019, the American Academy of Family Medicine, with other leading physician and public health organizations, issued a “call to action,” recommending ways to reduce firearm-related injury and death in the United States. Physicians can and should address the issue, it said, by counseling patients about firearm safety.

“This is just another part of healthcare,” said Sarah C. Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the AAFP, who practices at the Urban Horizons Family Health Center, New York.

Dr. Nosal said she asks about firearms during every well-child visit. She also focuses on patients with a history of depression or suicide attempts and those who have experienced domestic violence.
 

Are physicians counseling patients about gun safety?

A 2018 survey of physicians found that 73% of the 71 who responded agreed to discuss gun safety with at-risk patients. But just 5% said they always talk to those at-risk patients, according to Melanie G. Hagen, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who led the study. While the overwhelming majority agreed that gun safety is a public health issue, only 55% said they felt comfortable initiating conversations about firearms with their patients.

Have things changed since then? “Probably not,” Dr. Hagen said in an interview. She cited some reasons, at least in her state.

One obstacle is that many people, including physicians, believe that Florida’s physician gag law, which prohibited physicians from asking about a patient’s firearm ownership, was still in effect. The law, passed in 2011, was overturned in 2017. In her survey, 76% said they were aware it had been overturned. But that awareness appears not to be universal, she said.

In a 2020 report about physician involvement in promoting gun safety, researchers noted four main challenges: lingering fears about the overturned law and potential liability from violating it, feeling unprepared, worry that patients don’t want to discuss the topic, and lack of time to talk about it during a rushed office visit.

But recent research suggests that patients are often open to talking about gun safety, and another study found that if physicians are given educational materials on firearm safety, more will counsel patients about gun safety.
 

Are patients and parents receptive?

Parents welcome discussion from health care providers about gun safety, according to a study from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Researchers asked roughly 100 parents to watch a short video about a firearm safety program designed to prevent accidents and suicides from guns. The program, still under study, involves a discussion between a parent and a pediatrician, with information given on secure storage of guns and the offering of a free cable lock.

The parents, about equally divided between gun owners and non–gun owners, said they were open to discussion about firearm safety, especially when the conversation involves their child’s pediatrician. Among the gun owners, only one in three said all their firearms were locked, unloaded, and stored properly. But after getting the safety information, 64% said they would change the way they stored their firearms.

A different program that offered pediatricians educational materials on firearm safety, as well as free firearm locks for distribution, increased the likelihood that the physicians would counsel patients on gun safety, other researchers reported.
 

Getting the conversation started

Some patients “bristle” when they’re asked about guns, Dr. Hagen said. Focusing on the “why” of the question can soften their response. One of her patients, a man in his 80s, had worked as a prison guard. After he was diagnosed with clinical depression, she asked him if he ever thought about ending his life. He said yes.

“And in Florida, I know a lot of people have guns,” she said. The state ranks second in the nation, with more than a half million registered weapons.

When Dr. Hagen asked him if he had firearms at home, he balked. Why did she need to know? “People do get defensive,” she said. “Luckily, I had a good relationship with this man, and he was willing to listen to me. If it’s someone I have a good relationship with, and I have this initial bristling, if I say: ‘I’m worried about you, I’m worried about your safety,’ that changes the entire conversation.”

She talked through the best plan for this patient, and he agreed to give his weapons to his son to keep.

Likewise, she talks with family members of dementia patients, urging them to be sure the weapons are stored and locked to prevent tragic accidents.

Dr. Nosal said reading the room is key. “Often, we are having the conversation with a parent with a child present,” she said. “Perhaps that is not the conversation the parent or guardian wanted to have with the child present.” In such a situation, she suggests asking the parent if they would talk about it solo.

“It can be a challenge to know the appropriate way to start the conversation,” Dr. Mathis said. The topic is not taught in medical school, although many experts think it should be. Dr. Hagen recently delivered a lecture to medical students about how to broach the topic with patients. She said she hopes it will become a regular event.

“It really comes down to being willing to be open and just ask that first question in a nonjudgmental way,” Dr. Mathis said. It helps, too, he said, for physicians to remember what he always tries to keep in mind: “My job isn’t politics, my job is health.”

Among the points Dr. Hagen makes in her lecture about talking to patients about guns are the following:

• Every day, more than 110 Americans are killed with guns.
• Gun violence accounts for just 1%-2% of those deaths, but mass shootings serve to shine a light on the issue of gun safety.
• 110,000 firearm injuries a year require medical or legal attention. Each year, more than 1,200 children in this country die from gun-related injuries.
• More than 33,000 people, on average, die in the United States each year from gun violence, including more than 21,000 from suicide.
• About 31% of all U.S. households have firearms; 22% of U.S. adults own one or more.
• Guns are 70% less likely to be stored locked and unloaded in homes where suicides or unintentional gun injuries occur.
• Action points: Identify risk, counsel patients at risk, act when someone is in imminent danger (such as unsafe practices or suicide threats).
• Focus on identifying adults who have a risk of inflicting violence on self or others.
• Focus on health and well-being with all; be conversational and educational.
• Clinicians should ask five crucial questions, all with an “L,” if firearms are in the home: Is it Loaded? Locked? Are Little children present? Is the owner feeling Low? Are they Learned [educated] in gun safety?

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

Samuel Mathis, MD, tries to cover a lot of ground during a wellness exam for his patients. Nutrition, immunizations, dental hygiene, and staying safe at school are a few of the topics on his list. And the Texas pediatrician asks one more question of children and their parents: “Are there any firearms in the house?”

If the answer is “yes,” Dr. Mathis discusses safety courses and other ideas with the families. “Rather than ask a bunch of questions, often I will say it’s recommended to keep them locked up and don’t forget toddlers can climb heights that you never would have envisioned,” said Dr. Mathis, an assistant professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.

Dr. Mathis said some of his physician colleagues are wary of bringing up the topic of guns in a state that leads the nation with more than 1 million registered firearms. “My discussion is more on firearm responsibility and just making sure they are taking extra steps to keep themselves and everyone around them safe. That works much better in these discussions.”
 

Gun safety: Public health concern, not politics

Conversations about gun safety are becoming more important than ever, not only with parents of pediatric patients but with youth and adults as well. The statistics tell why:

• Unintentional shooting deaths by children rose by nearly one third in a 3-month period in 2020, compared with the same period in 2019.
• Of every 10 gun deaths in the United States, 6 are by suicide.
• As of July 28, 372 mass shootings have occured.
• Firearms now represent the leading cause of death among the nation’s youth.

In 2018, the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine urged physicians in the United States to sign a pledge to talk with their patients about guns in the home. To date, at least 3,664 have done so.

In 2019, the American Academy of Family Medicine, with other leading physician and public health organizations, issued a “call to action,” recommending ways to reduce firearm-related injury and death in the United States. Physicians can and should address the issue, it said, by counseling patients about firearm safety.

“This is just another part of healthcare,” said Sarah C. Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the AAFP, who practices at the Urban Horizons Family Health Center, New York.

Dr. Nosal said she asks about firearms during every well-child visit. She also focuses on patients with a history of depression or suicide attempts and those who have experienced domestic violence.
 

Are physicians counseling patients about gun safety?

A 2018 survey of physicians found that 73% of the 71 who responded agreed to discuss gun safety with at-risk patients. But just 5% said they always talk to those at-risk patients, according to Melanie G. Hagen, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who led the study. While the overwhelming majority agreed that gun safety is a public health issue, only 55% said they felt comfortable initiating conversations about firearms with their patients.

Have things changed since then? “Probably not,” Dr. Hagen said in an interview. She cited some reasons, at least in her state.

One obstacle is that many people, including physicians, believe that Florida’s physician gag law, which prohibited physicians from asking about a patient’s firearm ownership, was still in effect. The law, passed in 2011, was overturned in 2017. In her survey, 76% said they were aware it had been overturned. But that awareness appears not to be universal, she said.

In a 2020 report about physician involvement in promoting gun safety, researchers noted four main challenges: lingering fears about the overturned law and potential liability from violating it, feeling unprepared, worry that patients don’t want to discuss the topic, and lack of time to talk about it during a rushed office visit.

But recent research suggests that patients are often open to talking about gun safety, and another study found that if physicians are given educational materials on firearm safety, more will counsel patients about gun safety.
 

Are patients and parents receptive?

Parents welcome discussion from health care providers about gun safety, according to a study from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Researchers asked roughly 100 parents to watch a short video about a firearm safety program designed to prevent accidents and suicides from guns. The program, still under study, involves a discussion between a parent and a pediatrician, with information given on secure storage of guns and the offering of a free cable lock.

The parents, about equally divided between gun owners and non–gun owners, said they were open to discussion about firearm safety, especially when the conversation involves their child’s pediatrician. Among the gun owners, only one in three said all their firearms were locked, unloaded, and stored properly. But after getting the safety information, 64% said they would change the way they stored their firearms.

A different program that offered pediatricians educational materials on firearm safety, as well as free firearm locks for distribution, increased the likelihood that the physicians would counsel patients on gun safety, other researchers reported.
 

Getting the conversation started

Some patients “bristle” when they’re asked about guns, Dr. Hagen said. Focusing on the “why” of the question can soften their response. One of her patients, a man in his 80s, had worked as a prison guard. After he was diagnosed with clinical depression, she asked him if he ever thought about ending his life. He said yes.

“And in Florida, I know a lot of people have guns,” she said. The state ranks second in the nation, with more than a half million registered weapons.

When Dr. Hagen asked him if he had firearms at home, he balked. Why did she need to know? “People do get defensive,” she said. “Luckily, I had a good relationship with this man, and he was willing to listen to me. If it’s someone I have a good relationship with, and I have this initial bristling, if I say: ‘I’m worried about you, I’m worried about your safety,’ that changes the entire conversation.”

She talked through the best plan for this patient, and he agreed to give his weapons to his son to keep.

Likewise, she talks with family members of dementia patients, urging them to be sure the weapons are stored and locked to prevent tragic accidents.

Dr. Nosal said reading the room is key. “Often, we are having the conversation with a parent with a child present,” she said. “Perhaps that is not the conversation the parent or guardian wanted to have with the child present.” In such a situation, she suggests asking the parent if they would talk about it solo.

“It can be a challenge to know the appropriate way to start the conversation,” Dr. Mathis said. The topic is not taught in medical school, although many experts think it should be. Dr. Hagen recently delivered a lecture to medical students about how to broach the topic with patients. She said she hopes it will become a regular event.

“It really comes down to being willing to be open and just ask that first question in a nonjudgmental way,” Dr. Mathis said. It helps, too, he said, for physicians to remember what he always tries to keep in mind: “My job isn’t politics, my job is health.”

Among the points Dr. Hagen makes in her lecture about talking to patients about guns are the following:

• Every day, more than 110 Americans are killed with guns.
• Gun violence accounts for just 1%-2% of those deaths, but mass shootings serve to shine a light on the issue of gun safety.
• 110,000 firearm injuries a year require medical or legal attention. Each year, more than 1,200 children in this country die from gun-related injuries.
• More than 33,000 people, on average, die in the United States each year from gun violence, including more than 21,000 from suicide.
• About 31% of all U.S. households have firearms; 22% of U.S. adults own one or more.
• Guns are 70% less likely to be stored locked and unloaded in homes where suicides or unintentional gun injuries occur.
• Action points: Identify risk, counsel patients at risk, act when someone is in imminent danger (such as unsafe practices or suicide threats).
• Focus on identifying adults who have a risk of inflicting violence on self or others.
• Focus on health and well-being with all; be conversational and educational.
• Clinicians should ask five crucial questions, all with an “L,” if firearms are in the home: Is it Loaded? Locked? Are Little children present? Is the owner feeling Low? Are they Learned [educated] in gun safety?

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

Samuel Mathis, MD, tries to cover a lot of ground during a wellness exam for his patients. Nutrition, immunizations, dental hygiene, and staying safe at school are a few of the topics on his list. And the Texas pediatrician asks one more question of children and their parents: “Are there any firearms in the house?”

If the answer is “yes,” Dr. Mathis discusses safety courses and other ideas with the families. “Rather than ask a bunch of questions, often I will say it’s recommended to keep them locked up and don’t forget toddlers can climb heights that you never would have envisioned,” said Dr. Mathis, an assistant professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.

Dr. Mathis said some of his physician colleagues are wary of bringing up the topic of guns in a state that leads the nation with more than 1 million registered firearms. “My discussion is more on firearm responsibility and just making sure they are taking extra steps to keep themselves and everyone around them safe. That works much better in these discussions.”
 

Gun safety: Public health concern, not politics

Conversations about gun safety are becoming more important than ever, not only with parents of pediatric patients but with youth and adults as well. The statistics tell why:

• Unintentional shooting deaths by children rose by nearly one third in a 3-month period in 2020, compared with the same period in 2019.
• Of every 10 gun deaths in the United States, 6 are by suicide.
• As of July 28, 372 mass shootings have occured.
• Firearms now represent the leading cause of death among the nation’s youth.

In 2018, the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine urged physicians in the United States to sign a pledge to talk with their patients about guns in the home. To date, at least 3,664 have done so.

In 2019, the American Academy of Family Medicine, with other leading physician and public health organizations, issued a “call to action,” recommending ways to reduce firearm-related injury and death in the United States. Physicians can and should address the issue, it said, by counseling patients about firearm safety.

“This is just another part of healthcare,” said Sarah C. Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the AAFP, who practices at the Urban Horizons Family Health Center, New York.

Dr. Nosal said she asks about firearms during every well-child visit. She also focuses on patients with a history of depression or suicide attempts and those who have experienced domestic violence.
 

Are physicians counseling patients about gun safety?

A 2018 survey of physicians found that 73% of the 71 who responded agreed to discuss gun safety with at-risk patients. But just 5% said they always talk to those at-risk patients, according to Melanie G. Hagen, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who led the study. While the overwhelming majority agreed that gun safety is a public health issue, only 55% said they felt comfortable initiating conversations about firearms with their patients.

Have things changed since then? “Probably not,” Dr. Hagen said in an interview. She cited some reasons, at least in her state.

One obstacle is that many people, including physicians, believe that Florida’s physician gag law, which prohibited physicians from asking about a patient’s firearm ownership, was still in effect. The law, passed in 2011, was overturned in 2017. In her survey, 76% said they were aware it had been overturned. But that awareness appears not to be universal, she said.

In a 2020 report about physician involvement in promoting gun safety, researchers noted four main challenges: lingering fears about the overturned law and potential liability from violating it, feeling unprepared, worry that patients don’t want to discuss the topic, and lack of time to talk about it during a rushed office visit.

But recent research suggests that patients are often open to talking about gun safety, and another study found that if physicians are given educational materials on firearm safety, more will counsel patients about gun safety.
 

Are patients and parents receptive?

Parents welcome discussion from health care providers about gun safety, according to a study from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Researchers asked roughly 100 parents to watch a short video about a firearm safety program designed to prevent accidents and suicides from guns. The program, still under study, involves a discussion between a parent and a pediatrician, with information given on secure storage of guns and the offering of a free cable lock.

The parents, about equally divided between gun owners and non–gun owners, said they were open to discussion about firearm safety, especially when the conversation involves their child’s pediatrician. Among the gun owners, only one in three said all their firearms were locked, unloaded, and stored properly. But after getting the safety information, 64% said they would change the way they stored their firearms.

A different program that offered pediatricians educational materials on firearm safety, as well as free firearm locks for distribution, increased the likelihood that the physicians would counsel patients on gun safety, other researchers reported.
 

Getting the conversation started

Some patients “bristle” when they’re asked about guns, Dr. Hagen said. Focusing on the “why” of the question can soften their response. One of her patients, a man in his 80s, had worked as a prison guard. After he was diagnosed with clinical depression, she asked him if he ever thought about ending his life. He said yes.

“And in Florida, I know a lot of people have guns,” she said. The state ranks second in the nation, with more than a half million registered weapons.

When Dr. Hagen asked him if he had firearms at home, he balked. Why did she need to know? “People do get defensive,” she said. “Luckily, I had a good relationship with this man, and he was willing to listen to me. If it’s someone I have a good relationship with, and I have this initial bristling, if I say: ‘I’m worried about you, I’m worried about your safety,’ that changes the entire conversation.”

She talked through the best plan for this patient, and he agreed to give his weapons to his son to keep.

Likewise, she talks with family members of dementia patients, urging them to be sure the weapons are stored and locked to prevent tragic accidents.

Dr. Nosal said reading the room is key. “Often, we are having the conversation with a parent with a child present,” she said. “Perhaps that is not the conversation the parent or guardian wanted to have with the child present.” In such a situation, she suggests asking the parent if they would talk about it solo.

“It can be a challenge to know the appropriate way to start the conversation,” Dr. Mathis said. The topic is not taught in medical school, although many experts think it should be. Dr. Hagen recently delivered a lecture to medical students about how to broach the topic with patients. She said she hopes it will become a regular event.

“It really comes down to being willing to be open and just ask that first question in a nonjudgmental way,” Dr. Mathis said. It helps, too, he said, for physicians to remember what he always tries to keep in mind: “My job isn’t politics, my job is health.”

Among the points Dr. Hagen makes in her lecture about talking to patients about guns are the following:

• Every day, more than 110 Americans are killed with guns.
• Gun violence accounts for just 1%-2% of those deaths, but mass shootings serve to shine a light on the issue of gun safety.
• 110,000 firearm injuries a year require medical or legal attention. Each year, more than 1,200 children in this country die from gun-related injuries.
• More than 33,000 people, on average, die in the United States each year from gun violence, including more than 21,000 from suicide.
• About 31% of all U.S. households have firearms; 22% of U.S. adults own one or more.
• Guns are 70% less likely to be stored locked and unloaded in homes where suicides or unintentional gun injuries occur.
• Action points: Identify risk, counsel patients at risk, act when someone is in imminent danger (such as unsafe practices or suicide threats).
• Focus on identifying adults who have a risk of inflicting violence on self or others.
• Focus on health and well-being with all; be conversational and educational.
• Clinicians should ask five crucial questions, all with an “L,” if firearms are in the home: Is it Loaded? Locked? Are Little children present? Is the owner feeling Low? Are they Learned [educated] in gun safety?

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

In October 2020, Medicare released an updated guidance to reduce Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) reimbursement issues,¹ which initially was released in 2013. This guidance defines the latest performance and documentation requirements that Medicare requires for MMS. Understanding these requirements and making sure that your Mohs surgical reports have all the needed documentation details are critical because auditors from not only Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) but also private insurers and Medicare Advantage plans have adopted these standards and will deny payment for Mohs surgical codes if they are not met. This article provides a review of the updated Medicare requirements to make sure your MMS procedure notes are audit proof.

Notes Must Indicate Mohs Is the Most Appropriate Treatment

I review many of my colleagues’ Mohs notes and can tell you that some of the requirements laid out in the updated guidance typically are already reported by Mohs surgeons in their notes, including the location, number, and size of the lesion or lesions treated and the number of stages performed. However, there are some new requirements that often are not reported by Mohs surgeons that now need to be included. The guidance indicates the following:

The majority of skin cancers can be managed by simple excision or destruction techniques. The medical record of a patient undergoing MMS should clearly show that this procedure was chosen because of the complexity (eg, poorly defined clinical borders, possible deep invasion, prior irradiation), size or location (eg, maximum conservation of tumor-free tissue is important). Medicare will consider reimbursement for MMS for accepted diagnoses and indications, which you must document in the patient’s medical record as being appropriate for MMS and that MMS is the most appropriate choice for the treatment of a particular lesion.¹

In my experience, most Mohs notes include some statement that the skin cancer treated is appropriate based on the Mohs appropriate use criteria (AUC) or the AUC score. However, notes should make clear not just that the lesion treated is “appropriate” for MMS but also that it is the most appropriate treatment (eg, why the lesion was not managed by standard excision or destruction technique).

Mohs Surgeon Must Perform the Surgery and Interpret Slides

The updated guidance clearly indicates that MMS may only be performed by a physician who is specifically trained and highly skilled in Mohs techniques and pathologic identification: “Medicare will only reimburse for MMS services when the Mohs surgeon acts as both surgeon and pathologist.”¹ Mohs micrographic surgery codes may not be billed if preparation or interpretation of the pathology slides is performed by a physician other than the Mohs surgeon. Operative notes and pathology documentation in the patient’s medical record should clearly show that MMS was performed using an accepted MMS technique in which the physician acts in 2 integrated and distinct capacities—surgeon and pathologist—thereby confirming that the procedure meets the definition of the Current Procedural Terminology code(s).

Furthermore, the Mohs operative report should detail “the number of specimens per stage.”¹ I interpret this statement to indicate that the Mohs surgeon should document the number of tissue blocks examined in each stage of Mohs surgery. For example, a statement in the notes such as “the specimen from the first Mohs stage was oriented, mapped, and divided into 4 blocks” should suffice to meet this requirement.

Histologic Description Must Be Included in Mohs Notes

Medicare will require the Mohs surgeon to document “the histology of the specimens taken. That description should include depth of invasion, pathological pattern, cell morphology, and, if present, perineural invasion or presence of scar tissue.”¹ Although this histologic description requirement appears daunting, it is common for Mohs surgeons to indicate their pathologic findings on their Mohs map such as “NBCC” next to a red area to indicate “nodular basal cell carcinoma visualized.” A template-based system to translate typical pathologic findings can be employed to rapidly and accurately populate a Mohs note with histologic description such as “NBBC=nodular aggregates of palisaded basaloid epithelial tumor arising from the epidermis forming a palisade with a cleft forming from the adjacent mucinous stroma extending to the mid dermis. Centrally the nuclei become crowded with scattered mitotic figures and necrotic bodies evident.”

Recent Improvement for 1-Stage Mohs Surgeries

The most notable improvement in the 2020 MMS reimbursement requirements vs the prior version is that, “If tumor is visualized on stage one, you must describe the histology of the specimens taken.”¹ This indicates that if no tumor is visualized in the first stage, then no description of the tumor is possible or necessary. This is a much-needed improvement, as I have observed that some auditors have denied 1-stage Mohs surgeries due to lack of tumor histology description.

Final Thoughts

Overall, the updated Medicare guidance provides important details in the requirements for performance and documentation of Mohs surgery cases. However, additional critical information will be found in Mohs coverage policies and local coverage determinations (LCDs) from MACs and private insurers.^2-4 Each LCD and insurer Mohs payment policy has unique wording and requirements. Coverage of MMS for specific malignant diagnoses, histologic subtypes, locations, and clinical scenarios varies between LCDs; most are based directly on the Mohs AUC, while others have a less specific coverage criteria. To understand the specific documentation and coverage requirements of the MAC for a particular region or private insurer, Mohs surgeons are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Mohs surgery LCD of their local MAC and coverage policies of their insurers and to ensure their documentation substantiates these requirements. Making sure that your MMS documentation is accurate and complies with Medicare and insurer requirements will keep you out of hot water with auditors and allow reimbursement for this critical skin cancer procedure.

In October 2020, Medicare released an updated guidance to reduce Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) reimbursement issues,¹ which initially was released in 2013. This guidance defines the latest performance and documentation requirements that Medicare requires for MMS. Understanding these requirements and making sure that your Mohs surgical reports have all the needed documentation details are critical because auditors from not only Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) but also private insurers and Medicare Advantage plans have adopted these standards and will deny payment for Mohs surgical codes if they are not met. This article provides a review of the updated Medicare requirements to make sure your MMS procedure notes are audit proof.

Notes Must Indicate Mohs Is the Most Appropriate Treatment

I review many of my colleagues’ Mohs notes and can tell you that some of the requirements laid out in the updated guidance typically are already reported by Mohs surgeons in their notes, including the location, number, and size of the lesion or lesions treated and the number of stages performed. However, there are some new requirements that often are not reported by Mohs surgeons that now need to be included. The guidance indicates the following:

The majority of skin cancers can be managed by simple excision or destruction techniques. The medical record of a patient undergoing MMS should clearly show that this procedure was chosen because of the complexity (eg, poorly defined clinical borders, possible deep invasion, prior irradiation), size or location (eg, maximum conservation of tumor-free tissue is important). Medicare will consider reimbursement for MMS for accepted diagnoses and indications, which you must document in the patient’s medical record as being appropriate for MMS and that MMS is the most appropriate choice for the treatment of a particular lesion.¹

In my experience, most Mohs notes include some statement that the skin cancer treated is appropriate based on the Mohs appropriate use criteria (AUC) or the AUC score. However, notes should make clear not just that the lesion treated is “appropriate” for MMS but also that it is the most appropriate treatment (eg, why the lesion was not managed by standard excision or destruction technique).

Mohs Surgeon Must Perform the Surgery and Interpret Slides

The updated guidance clearly indicates that MMS may only be performed by a physician who is specifically trained and highly skilled in Mohs techniques and pathologic identification: “Medicare will only reimburse for MMS services when the Mohs surgeon acts as both surgeon and pathologist.”¹ Mohs micrographic surgery codes may not be billed if preparation or interpretation of the pathology slides is performed by a physician other than the Mohs surgeon. Operative notes and pathology documentation in the patient’s medical record should clearly show that MMS was performed using an accepted MMS technique in which the physician acts in 2 integrated and distinct capacities—surgeon and pathologist—thereby confirming that the procedure meets the definition of the Current Procedural Terminology code(s).

Furthermore, the Mohs operative report should detail “the number of specimens per stage.”¹ I interpret this statement to indicate that the Mohs surgeon should document the number of tissue blocks examined in each stage of Mohs surgery. For example, a statement in the notes such as “the specimen from the first Mohs stage was oriented, mapped, and divided into 4 blocks” should suffice to meet this requirement.

Histologic Description Must Be Included in Mohs Notes

Medicare will require the Mohs surgeon to document “the histology of the specimens taken. That description should include depth of invasion, pathological pattern, cell morphology, and, if present, perineural invasion or presence of scar tissue.”¹ Although this histologic description requirement appears daunting, it is common for Mohs surgeons to indicate their pathologic findings on their Mohs map such as “NBCC” next to a red area to indicate “nodular basal cell carcinoma visualized.” A template-based system to translate typical pathologic findings can be employed to rapidly and accurately populate a Mohs note with histologic description such as “NBBC=nodular aggregates of palisaded basaloid epithelial tumor arising from the epidermis forming a palisade with a cleft forming from the adjacent mucinous stroma extending to the mid dermis. Centrally the nuclei become crowded with scattered mitotic figures and necrotic bodies evident.”

Recent Improvement for 1-Stage Mohs Surgeries

The most notable improvement in the 2020 MMS reimbursement requirements vs the prior version is that, “If tumor is visualized on stage one, you must describe the histology of the specimens taken.”¹ This indicates that if no tumor is visualized in the first stage, then no description of the tumor is possible or necessary. This is a much-needed improvement, as I have observed that some auditors have denied 1-stage Mohs surgeries due to lack of tumor histology description.

Final Thoughts

Overall, the updated Medicare guidance provides important details in the requirements for performance and documentation of Mohs surgery cases. However, additional critical information will be found in Mohs coverage policies and local coverage determinations (LCDs) from MACs and private insurers.^2-4 Each LCD and insurer Mohs payment policy has unique wording and requirements. Coverage of MMS for specific malignant diagnoses, histologic subtypes, locations, and clinical scenarios varies between LCDs; most are based directly on the Mohs AUC, while others have a less specific coverage criteria. To understand the specific documentation and coverage requirements of the MAC for a particular region or private insurer, Mohs surgeons are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Mohs surgery LCD of their local MAC and coverage policies of their insurers and to ensure their documentation substantiates these requirements. Making sure that your MMS documentation is accurate and complies with Medicare and insurer requirements will keep you out of hot water with auditors and allow reimbursement for this critical skin cancer procedure.

In October 2020, Medicare released an updated guidance to reduce Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) reimbursement issues,¹ which initially was released in 2013. This guidance defines the latest performance and documentation requirements that Medicare requires for MMS. Understanding these requirements and making sure that your Mohs surgical reports have all the needed documentation details are critical because auditors from not only Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) but also private insurers and Medicare Advantage plans have adopted these standards and will deny payment for Mohs surgical codes if they are not met. This article provides a review of the updated Medicare requirements to make sure your MMS procedure notes are audit proof.

Notes Must Indicate Mohs Is the Most Appropriate Treatment

I review many of my colleagues’ Mohs notes and can tell you that some of the requirements laid out in the updated guidance typically are already reported by Mohs surgeons in their notes, including the location, number, and size of the lesion or lesions treated and the number of stages performed. However, there are some new requirements that often are not reported by Mohs surgeons that now need to be included. The guidance indicates the following:

The majority of skin cancers can be managed by simple excision or destruction techniques. The medical record of a patient undergoing MMS should clearly show that this procedure was chosen because of the complexity (eg, poorly defined clinical borders, possible deep invasion, prior irradiation), size or location (eg, maximum conservation of tumor-free tissue is important). Medicare will consider reimbursement for MMS for accepted diagnoses and indications, which you must document in the patient’s medical record as being appropriate for MMS and that MMS is the most appropriate choice for the treatment of a particular lesion.¹

In my experience, most Mohs notes include some statement that the skin cancer treated is appropriate based on the Mohs appropriate use criteria (AUC) or the AUC score. However, notes should make clear not just that the lesion treated is “appropriate” for MMS but also that it is the most appropriate treatment (eg, why the lesion was not managed by standard excision or destruction technique).

Mohs Surgeon Must Perform the Surgery and Interpret Slides

The updated guidance clearly indicates that MMS may only be performed by a physician who is specifically trained and highly skilled in Mohs techniques and pathologic identification: “Medicare will only reimburse for MMS services when the Mohs surgeon acts as both surgeon and pathologist.”¹ Mohs micrographic surgery codes may not be billed if preparation or interpretation of the pathology slides is performed by a physician other than the Mohs surgeon. Operative notes and pathology documentation in the patient’s medical record should clearly show that MMS was performed using an accepted MMS technique in which the physician acts in 2 integrated and distinct capacities—surgeon and pathologist—thereby confirming that the procedure meets the definition of the Current Procedural Terminology code(s).

Furthermore, the Mohs operative report should detail “the number of specimens per stage.”¹ I interpret this statement to indicate that the Mohs surgeon should document the number of tissue blocks examined in each stage of Mohs surgery. For example, a statement in the notes such as “the specimen from the first Mohs stage was oriented, mapped, and divided into 4 blocks” should suffice to meet this requirement.

Histologic Description Must Be Included in Mohs Notes

Medicare will require the Mohs surgeon to document “the histology of the specimens taken. That description should include depth of invasion, pathological pattern, cell morphology, and, if present, perineural invasion or presence of scar tissue.”¹ Although this histologic description requirement appears daunting, it is common for Mohs surgeons to indicate their pathologic findings on their Mohs map such as “NBCC” next to a red area to indicate “nodular basal cell carcinoma visualized.” A template-based system to translate typical pathologic findings can be employed to rapidly and accurately populate a Mohs note with histologic description such as “NBBC=nodular aggregates of palisaded basaloid epithelial tumor arising from the epidermis forming a palisade with a cleft forming from the adjacent mucinous stroma extending to the mid dermis. Centrally the nuclei become crowded with scattered mitotic figures and necrotic bodies evident.”

Recent Improvement for 1-Stage Mohs Surgeries

The most notable improvement in the 2020 MMS reimbursement requirements vs the prior version is that, “If tumor is visualized on stage one, you must describe the histology of the specimens taken.”¹ This indicates that if no tumor is visualized in the first stage, then no description of the tumor is possible or necessary. This is a much-needed improvement, as I have observed that some auditors have denied 1-stage Mohs surgeries due to lack of tumor histology description.

Final Thoughts

Overall, the updated Medicare guidance provides important details in the requirements for performance and documentation of Mohs surgery cases. However, additional critical information will be found in Mohs coverage policies and local coverage determinations (LCDs) from MACs and private insurers.^2-4 Each LCD and insurer Mohs payment policy has unique wording and requirements. Coverage of MMS for specific malignant diagnoses, histologic subtypes, locations, and clinical scenarios varies between LCDs; most are based directly on the Mohs AUC, while others have a less specific coverage criteria. To understand the specific documentation and coverage requirements of the MAC for a particular region or private insurer, Mohs surgeons are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Mohs surgery LCD of their local MAC and coverage policies of their insurers and to ensure their documentation substantiates these requirements. Making sure that your MMS documentation is accurate and complies with Medicare and insurer requirements will keep you out of hot water with auditors and allow reimbursement for this critical skin cancer procedure.

Keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), or nonmelanoma skin cancer, is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States.¹ Basal cell carcinoma comprises the majority of all KCs.^2,3 Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common skin cancer, representing approximately 20% of KCs and accounting for the majority of KC-related deaths.^4-7 Malignant melanoma represents the majority of all skin cancer–related deaths.⁸ The incidence of basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and malignant melanoma in the United States is on the rise and carries substantial morbidity and mortality with notable social and economic burdens.^1,8-10

Prevention is necessary to reduce skin cancer morbidity and mortality as well as rising treatment costs. The most commonly used skin cancer screening method among dermatologists is the visual full-body skin examination (FBSE), which is a noninvasive, safe, quick, and cost-effective method of early detection and prevention.¹¹ To effectively confront the growing incidence and health care burden of skin cancer, primary care providers (PCPs) must join dermatologists in conducting FBSEs.^12,13

Despite being the predominant means of secondary skin cancer prevention, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued an I rating for insufficient evidence to assess the benefits vs harms of screening the adult general population by PCPs.^14,15 A major barrier to studying screening is the lack of a standardized method for conducting and reporting FBSEs.¹³ Systematic thorough skin examination generally is not performed in the primary care setting.^16-18

We aimed to investigate what occurs during an FBSE in the primary care setting and how often they are performed. We examined whether there was potential variation in the execution of the examination, what was perceived by the patient vs reported by the physician, and what was ultimately included in the medical record. Miscommunication between patient and provider regarding performance of FBSEs has previously been noted,^17-19 and we sought to characterize and quantify that miscommunication. We hypothesized that there would be lower patient-reported FBSEs compared to physicians and patient medical records. We also hypothesized that there would be variability in how physicians screened for skin cancer.

METHODS

This study was cross-sectional and was conducted based on interviews and a review of medical records at secondary- and tertiary-level units (clinics and hospitals) across the United States. We examined baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of a Web-based skin cancer early detection continuing education course—the Basic Skin Cancer Triage curriculum. Complete details have been described elsewhere.¹² This study was approved by the institutional review boards of the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Rhode Island Hospital, and Brown University (all in Providence, Rhode Island), as well as those of all recruitment sites.

Data were collected from 2005 to 2008 and included physician online surveys, patient telephone interviews, and patient medical record data abstracted by research assistants. Primary care providers included in the study were general internists, family physicians, or medicine-pediatrics practitioners who were recruited from 4 collaborating centers across the United States in the mid-Atlantic region, Ohio, Kansas, and southern California, and who had been in practice for at least a year. Patients were recruited from participating physician practices and selected by research assistants who traveled to each clinic for coordination, recruitment, and performance of medical record reviews. Patients were selected as having minimal risk of melanoma (eg, no signs of severe photodamage to the skin). Patients completed structured telephone surveys within 1 to 2 weeks of the office visit regarding the practices observed and clinical questions asked during their recent clinical encounter with their PCP.

Measures

Demographics—Demographic variables asked of physicians included age, sex, ethnicity, academic degree (MD vs DO), years in practice, training, and prior dermatology training. Demographic information asked of patients included age, sex, ethnicity, education, and household income.

Physician-Reported Examination and Counseling Variables—Physicians were asked to characterize their clinical practices, prompted by questions regarding performance of FBSEs: “Please think of a typical month and using the scale below, indicate how frequently you perform a total body skin exam during an annual exam (eg, periodic follow-up exam).” Physicians responded to 3 questions on a 5-point scale (1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=about half, 4=often, 5=almost always).

Patient-Reported Examination Variables—Patients also were asked to characterize the skin examination experienced in their clinical encounter with their PCP, including: “During your last visit, as far as you could tell, did your physician: (1) look at the skin on your back? (2) look at the skin on your belly area? (3) look at the skin on the back of your legs?” Patient responses were coded as yes, no, don’t know, or refused. Participants who refused were excluded from analysis; participants who responded are detailed in Table 1. In addition, patients also reported the level of undress with their physician by answering the following question: “During your last medical exam, did you: 1=keep your clothes on; 2=partially undress; 3=totally undress except for undergarments; 4=totally undress, including all undergarments?”

Patient Medical Record–Extracted Data—Research assistants used a structured abstract form to extract the information from the patient’s medical record and graded it as 0 (absence) or 1 (presence) from the medical record.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables as well as frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Logit/logistic regression analysis was used to predict the odds of patient-reported outcomes that were binary with physician-reported variables as the predictor. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the association between 2 continuous variables. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24 (IBM).²⁰ Significance criterion was set at α of .05.

RESULTS Demographics

The final sample included data from 53 physicians and 3343 patients. The study sample mean age (SD) was 50.3 (9.9) years for PCPs (n=53) and 59.8 (16.9) years for patients (n=3343). The physician sample was 36% female and predominantly White (83%). Ninety-one percent of the PCPs had an MD (the remaining had a DO degree), and the mean (SD) years practicing was 21.8 (10.6) years. Seventeen percent of PCPs were trained in internal medicine, 4% in internal medicine and pediatrics, and 79% family medicine; 79% of PCPs had received prior training in dermatology. The patient sample was 58% female, predominantly White (84%), non-Hispanic/Latinx (95%), had completed high school (94%), and earned more than $40,000 annually (66%).

Physician- and Patient-Reported FBSEs

Physicians reported performing FBSEs with variable frequency. Among PCPs who conducted FBSEs with greater frequency, there was a modest increase in the odds that patients reported a particular body part was examined (back: odds ratio [OR], 24.5% [95% CI, 1.18-1.31; P<.001]; abdomen: OR, 23.3% [95% CI, 1.17-1.30; P<.001]; backs of legs: OR, 20.4% [95% CI, 1.13-1.28; P<.001])(Table 1). The patient-reported level of undress during examination was significantly associated with physician-reported FBSE (β=0.16 [95% CI, 0.13-0.18; P<.001])(Table 2).

Because of the bimodal distribution of scores in the physician-reported frequency of FBSEs, particularly pertaining to the extreme points of the scale, we further repeated analysis with only the never and almost always groups (Table 1). Primary care providers who reported almost always for FBSE had 29.6% increased odds of patient-reported back examination (95% CI, 1.00-1.68; P=.048) and 59.3% increased odds of patient-reported abdomen examination (95% CI, 1.23-2.06; P<.001). The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined when the PCP reported having never conducted an FBSE were 56%, 40%, and 26%, respectively. The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined when the PCP reported having almost always conducted an FBSE were 52%, 51%, and 30%, respectively. Raw percentages were calculated by dividing the number of "yes" responses by participants for each body part examined by thetotal number of participant responses (“yes” and “no”) for each respective body part. There was no significant change in odds of patient-reported backs of legs examined with PCP-reported never vs almost always conducting an FBSE. In addition, a greater patient-reported level of undress was associated with 20.2% increased odds of PCPs reporting almost always conducting an FBSE (95% CI, 1.08-1.34; P=.001).

When comparing PCP-reported FBSE and report of FBSE in patient medical records, there was a 39.0% increased odds of the patient medical record indicating FBSE when physicians reported conducting an FBSE with greater frequency (95% CI, 1.30-1.48; P<.001)(eTable 1). When examining PCP-reported never vs almost always conducting an FBSE, a report of almost always was associated with 79.0% increased odds of the patient medical record indicating that an FBSE was conducted (95% CI, 1.28-2.49; P=.001). The raw percentage of the patient medical record indicating an FBSE was conducted when the PCP reported having never conducted an FBSE was 17% and 26% when the PCP reported having almost always conducted an FBSE.

When comparing the patient-reported body part examined with patient FBSE medical record documentation, an indication of yes for FBSE on the patient medical record was associated with a considerable increase in odds that patients reported a particular body part was examined (back: 91.4% [95% CI, 1.59-2.31; P<.001]; abdomen: 75.0% [95% CI, 1.45-2.11; P<.001]; backs of legs: 91.6% [95% CI, 1.56-2.36; P<.001])(eTable 2). The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined vs not examined when the patient medical record indicated an FBSE was completed were 24% vs 14%, 23% vs 15%, and 26% vs 16%, respectively. An increase in patient-reported level of undress was associated with a 57.0% increased odds of their medical record indicating an FBSE was conducted (95% CI, 1.45-1.70; P<.001).

COMMENT How PCPs Perform FBSEs Varies

We found that PCPs performed FBSEs with variable frequency, and among those who did, the patient report of their examination varied considerably (Table 1). There appears to be considerable ambiguity in each of these means of determining the extent to which the skin was inspected for skin cancer, which may render the task of improving such inspection more difficult. We asked patients whether their back, abdomen, and backs of legs were examined as an assessment of some of the variety of areas inspected during an FBSE. During a general well-visit appointment, a patient’s back and abdomen may be examined for multiple reasons. Patients may have misinterpreted elements of the pulmonary, cardiac, abdominal, or musculoskeletal examinations as being part of the FBSE. The back and abdomen—the least specific features of the FBSE—were reported by patients to be the most often examined. Conversely, the backs of the legs—the most specific feature of the FBSE—had the lowest odds of being examined (Table 1).

In addition to the potential limitations of patient awareness of physician activity, our results also could be explained by differences among PCPs in how they performed FBSEs. There is no standardized method of conducting an FBSE. Furthermore, not all medical students and residents are exposed to dermatology training. In our sample of 53 physicians, 79% had reported receiving dermatology training; however, we did not assess the extent to which they had been trained in conducting an FBSE and/or identifying malignant lesions. In an American survey of 659 medical students, more than two-thirds of students had never been trained or never examined a patient for skin cancer.²¹ In another American survey of 342 internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics/gynecology residents across 7 medical schools and 4 residency programs, more than three-quarters of residents had never been trained in skin cancer screening.²² Our findings reflect insufficient and inconsistent training in skin cancer screening and underscore the need for mandatory education to ensure quality FBSEs are performed in the primary care setting.

Frequency of PCPs Performing FBSEs

Similar to prior studies analyzing the frequency of FBSE performance in the primary care setting,^16,19,23,24 more than half of our PCP sample reported sometimes to never conducting FBSEs. The percentage of physicians who reported conducting FBSEs in our sample was greater than the proportion reported by the National Health Interview Survey, in which only 8% of patients received an FBSE in the prior year by a PCP or obstetrician/gynecologist,¹⁶ but similar to a smaller patient study.¹⁹ In that study, 87% of patients, regardless of their skin cancer history, also reported that they would like their PCP to perform an FBSE regularly.¹⁹ Although some of our patient participants may have declined an FBSE, it is unlikely that that would have entirely accounted for the relatively low number of PCPs who reported frequently performing FBSEs.

Documentation in Medical Records of FBSEs

Compared to PCP self-reported performance of FBSEs, considerably fewer PCPs marked the patient medical record as having completed an FBSE. Among patients with medical records that indicated an FBSE had been conducted, they reported higher odds of all 3 body parts being examined, the highest being the backs of the legs. Also, when the patient medical record indicated an FBSE had been completed, the odds that the PCP reported an FBSE also were higher. The relatively low medical record documentation of FBSEs highlights the need for more rigorous enforcement of accurate documentation. However, among the cases that were recorded, it appeared that the content of the examinations was more consistent.

Benefits of PCP-Led FBSEs

Although the USPSTF issued an I rating for PCP-led FBSEs,¹⁴ multiple national medical societies, including the American Cancer Society,²⁵ American Academy of Dermatology,²⁶ and Skin Cancer Foundation,²⁷ as well as international guidelines in Germany,²⁸ Australia,^29,30 and New Zealand,³¹ recommend regular FBSEs among the general or at-risk population; New Zealand and Australia have the highest incidence and prevalence of melanoma in the world.⁸ The benefits of physician-led FBSEs on detection of early-stage skin cancer, and in particular, melanoma detection, have been documented in numerous studies.^30,32-38 However, the variability and often poor quality of skin screening may contribute in part to the just as numerous null results from prior skin screening studies,¹⁵ perpetuating the insufficient status of skin examinations by USPSTF standards.¹⁴ Our study underscores both the variability in frequency and content of PCP-administered FBSEs. It also highlights the need for standardization of screening examinations at the medical student, trainee, and physician level.

The present study has several limitations. First, there was an unknown time lag between the FBSEs and physician self-reported surveys. Similarly, there was a variable time lag between the patient examination encounter and subsequent telephone survey. Both the physician and patient survey data may have been affected by recall bias. Second, patients were not asked directly whether an FBSE had been conducted. Furthermore, patients may not have appreciated whether the body part examined was part of the FBSE or another examination. Also, screenings often were not recorded in the medical record, assuming that the patient report and/or physician report was more accurate than the medical record.

Our study also was limited by demographics; our patient sample was largely comprised of White, educated, US adults, potentially limiting the generalizability of our findings. Conversely, a notable strength of our study was that our participants were recruited from 4 geographically diverse centers. Furthermore, we had a comparatively large sample size of patients and physicians. Also, the independent assessment of provider-reported examinations, objective assessment of medical records, and patient reports of their encounters provides a strong foundation for assessing the independent contributions of each data source.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the challenges future studies face in promoting skin cancer screening in the primary care setting. Our findings underscore the need for a standardized FBSE as well as clear clinical expectations regarding skin cancer screening that is expected of PCPs.

As long as skin cancer screening rates remain low in the United States, patients will be subject to potential delays and missed diagnoses, impacting morbidity and mortality.⁸ There are burgeoning resources and efforts in place to increase skin cancer screening. For example, free validated online training is available for early detection of melanoma and other skin cancers (https://www.visualdx.com/skin-cancer-education/).^39-42 Future directions for bolstering screening numbers must focus on educating PCPs about skin cancer prevention and perhaps narrowing the screening population by age-appropriate risk assessments.

Keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), or nonmelanoma skin cancer, is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States.¹ Basal cell carcinoma comprises the majority of all KCs.^2,3 Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common skin cancer, representing approximately 20% of KCs and accounting for the majority of KC-related deaths.^4-7 Malignant melanoma represents the majority of all skin cancer–related deaths.⁸ The incidence of basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and malignant melanoma in the United States is on the rise and carries substantial morbidity and mortality with notable social and economic burdens.^1,8-10

Prevention is necessary to reduce skin cancer morbidity and mortality as well as rising treatment costs. The most commonly used skin cancer screening method among dermatologists is the visual full-body skin examination (FBSE), which is a noninvasive, safe, quick, and cost-effective method of early detection and prevention.¹¹ To effectively confront the growing incidence and health care burden of skin cancer, primary care providers (PCPs) must join dermatologists in conducting FBSEs.^12,13

Despite being the predominant means of secondary skin cancer prevention, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued an I rating for insufficient evidence to assess the benefits vs harms of screening the adult general population by PCPs.^14,15 A major barrier to studying screening is the lack of a standardized method for conducting and reporting FBSEs.¹³ Systematic thorough skin examination generally is not performed in the primary care setting.^16-18

We aimed to investigate what occurs during an FBSE in the primary care setting and how often they are performed. We examined whether there was potential variation in the execution of the examination, what was perceived by the patient vs reported by the physician, and what was ultimately included in the medical record. Miscommunication between patient and provider regarding performance of FBSEs has previously been noted,^17-19 and we sought to characterize and quantify that miscommunication. We hypothesized that there would be lower patient-reported FBSEs compared to physicians and patient medical records. We also hypothesized that there would be variability in how physicians screened for skin cancer.

METHODS

This study was cross-sectional and was conducted based on interviews and a review of medical records at secondary- and tertiary-level units (clinics and hospitals) across the United States. We examined baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of a Web-based skin cancer early detection continuing education course—the Basic Skin Cancer Triage curriculum. Complete details have been described elsewhere.¹² This study was approved by the institutional review boards of the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Rhode Island Hospital, and Brown University (all in Providence, Rhode Island), as well as those of all recruitment sites.

Data were collected from 2005 to 2008 and included physician online surveys, patient telephone interviews, and patient medical record data abstracted by research assistants. Primary care providers included in the study were general internists, family physicians, or medicine-pediatrics practitioners who were recruited from 4 collaborating centers across the United States in the mid-Atlantic region, Ohio, Kansas, and southern California, and who had been in practice for at least a year. Patients were recruited from participating physician practices and selected by research assistants who traveled to each clinic for coordination, recruitment, and performance of medical record reviews. Patients were selected as having minimal risk of melanoma (eg, no signs of severe photodamage to the skin). Patients completed structured telephone surveys within 1 to 2 weeks of the office visit regarding the practices observed and clinical questions asked during their recent clinical encounter with their PCP.

Measures

Demographics—Demographic variables asked of physicians included age, sex, ethnicity, academic degree (MD vs DO), years in practice, training, and prior dermatology training. Demographic information asked of patients included age, sex, ethnicity, education, and household income.

Physician-Reported Examination and Counseling Variables—Physicians were asked to characterize their clinical practices, prompted by questions regarding performance of FBSEs: “Please think of a typical month and using the scale below, indicate how frequently you perform a total body skin exam during an annual exam (eg, periodic follow-up exam).” Physicians responded to 3 questions on a 5-point scale (1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=about half, 4=often, 5=almost always).

Patient-Reported Examination Variables—Patients also were asked to characterize the skin examination experienced in their clinical encounter with their PCP, including: “During your last visit, as far as you could tell, did your physician: (1) look at the skin on your back? (2) look at the skin on your belly area? (3) look at the skin on the back of your legs?” Patient responses were coded as yes, no, don’t know, or refused. Participants who refused were excluded from analysis; participants who responded are detailed in Table 1. In addition, patients also reported the level of undress with their physician by answering the following question: “During your last medical exam, did you: 1=keep your clothes on; 2=partially undress; 3=totally undress except for undergarments; 4=totally undress, including all undergarments?”

Patient Medical Record–Extracted Data—Research assistants used a structured abstract form to extract the information from the patient’s medical record and graded it as 0 (absence) or 1 (presence) from the medical record.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables as well as frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Logit/logistic regression analysis was used to predict the odds of patient-reported outcomes that were binary with physician-reported variables as the predictor. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the association between 2 continuous variables. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24 (IBM).²⁰ Significance criterion was set at α of .05.

RESULTS Demographics

The final sample included data from 53 physicians and 3343 patients. The study sample mean age (SD) was 50.3 (9.9) years for PCPs (n=53) and 59.8 (16.9) years for patients (n=3343). The physician sample was 36% female and predominantly White (83%). Ninety-one percent of the PCPs had an MD (the remaining had a DO degree), and the mean (SD) years practicing was 21.8 (10.6) years. Seventeen percent of PCPs were trained in internal medicine, 4% in internal medicine and pediatrics, and 79% family medicine; 79% of PCPs had received prior training in dermatology. The patient sample was 58% female, predominantly White (84%), non-Hispanic/Latinx (95%), had completed high school (94%), and earned more than $40,000 annually (66%).

Physician- and Patient-Reported FBSEs

Physicians reported performing FBSEs with variable frequency. Among PCPs who conducted FBSEs with greater frequency, there was a modest increase in the odds that patients reported a particular body part was examined (back: odds ratio [OR], 24.5% [95% CI, 1.18-1.31; P<.001]; abdomen: OR, 23.3% [95% CI, 1.17-1.30; P<.001]; backs of legs: OR, 20.4% [95% CI, 1.13-1.28; P<.001])(Table 1). The patient-reported level of undress during examination was significantly associated with physician-reported FBSE (β=0.16 [95% CI, 0.13-0.18; P<.001])(Table 2).

Because of the bimodal distribution of scores in the physician-reported frequency of FBSEs, particularly pertaining to the extreme points of the scale, we further repeated analysis with only the never and almost always groups (Table 1). Primary care providers who reported almost always for FBSE had 29.6% increased odds of patient-reported back examination (95% CI, 1.00-1.68; P=.048) and 59.3% increased odds of patient-reported abdomen examination (95% CI, 1.23-2.06; P<.001). The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined when the PCP reported having never conducted an FBSE were 56%, 40%, and 26%, respectively. The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined when the PCP reported having almost always conducted an FBSE were 52%, 51%, and 30%, respectively. Raw percentages were calculated by dividing the number of "yes" responses by participants for each body part examined by thetotal number of participant responses (“yes” and “no”) for each respective body part. There was no significant change in odds of patient-reported backs of legs examined with PCP-reported never vs almost always conducting an FBSE. In addition, a greater patient-reported level of undress was associated with 20.2% increased odds of PCPs reporting almost always conducting an FBSE (95% CI, 1.08-1.34; P=.001).

When comparing PCP-reported FBSE and report of FBSE in patient medical records, there was a 39.0% increased odds of the patient medical record indicating FBSE when physicians reported conducting an FBSE with greater frequency (95% CI, 1.30-1.48; P<.001)(eTable 1). When examining PCP-reported never vs almost always conducting an FBSE, a report of almost always was associated with 79.0% increased odds of the patient medical record indicating that an FBSE was conducted (95% CI, 1.28-2.49; P=.001). The raw percentage of the patient medical record indicating an FBSE was conducted when the PCP reported having never conducted an FBSE was 17% and 26% when the PCP reported having almost always conducted an FBSE.

When comparing the patient-reported body part examined with patient FBSE medical record documentation, an indication of yes for FBSE on the patient medical record was associated with a considerable increase in odds that patients reported a particular body part was examined (back: 91.4% [95% CI, 1.59-2.31; P<.001]; abdomen: 75.0% [95% CI, 1.45-2.11; P<.001]; backs of legs: 91.6% [95% CI, 1.56-2.36; P<.001])(eTable 2). The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined vs not examined when the patient medical record indicated an FBSE was completed were 24% vs 14%, 23% vs 15%, and 26% vs 16%, respectively. An increase in patient-reported level of undress was associated with a 57.0% increased odds of their medical record indicating an FBSE was conducted (95% CI, 1.45-1.70; P<.001).

COMMENT How PCPs Perform FBSEs Varies

We found that PCPs performed FBSEs with variable frequency, and among those who did, the patient report of their examination varied considerably (Table 1). There appears to be considerable ambiguity in each of these means of determining the extent to which the skin was inspected for skin cancer, which may render the task of improving such inspection more difficult. We asked patients whether their back, abdomen, and backs of legs were examined as an assessment of some of the variety of areas inspected during an FBSE. During a general well-visit appointment, a patient’s back and abdomen may be examined for multiple reasons. Patients may have misinterpreted elements of the pulmonary, cardiac, abdominal, or musculoskeletal examinations as being part of the FBSE. The back and abdomen—the least specific features of the FBSE—were reported by patients to be the most often examined. Conversely, the backs of the legs—the most specific feature of the FBSE—had the lowest odds of being examined (Table 1).

In addition to the potential limitations of patient awareness of physician activity, our results also could be explained by differences among PCPs in how they performed FBSEs. There is no standardized method of conducting an FBSE. Furthermore, not all medical students and residents are exposed to dermatology training. In our sample of 53 physicians, 79% had reported receiving dermatology training; however, we did not assess the extent to which they had been trained in conducting an FBSE and/or identifying malignant lesions. In an American survey of 659 medical students, more than two-thirds of students had never been trained or never examined a patient for skin cancer.²¹ In another American survey of 342 internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics/gynecology residents across 7 medical schools and 4 residency programs, more than three-quarters of residents had never been trained in skin cancer screening.²² Our findings reflect insufficient and inconsistent training in skin cancer screening and underscore the need for mandatory education to ensure quality FBSEs are performed in the primary care setting.

Frequency of PCPs Performing FBSEs

Similar to prior studies analyzing the frequency of FBSE performance in the primary care setting,^16,19,23,24 more than half of our PCP sample reported sometimes to never conducting FBSEs. The percentage of physicians who reported conducting FBSEs in our sample was greater than the proportion reported by the National Health Interview Survey, in which only 8% of patients received an FBSE in the prior year by a PCP or obstetrician/gynecologist,¹⁶ but similar to a smaller patient study.¹⁹ In that study, 87% of patients, regardless of their skin cancer history, also reported that they would like their PCP to perform an FBSE regularly.¹⁹ Although some of our patient participants may have declined an FBSE, it is unlikely that that would have entirely accounted for the relatively low number of PCPs who reported frequently performing FBSEs.

Documentation in Medical Records of FBSEs

Compared to PCP self-reported performance of FBSEs, considerably fewer PCPs marked the patient medical record as having completed an FBSE. Among patients with medical records that indicated an FBSE had been conducted, they reported higher odds of all 3 body parts being examined, the highest being the backs of the legs. Also, when the patient medical record indicated an FBSE had been completed, the odds that the PCP reported an FBSE also were higher. The relatively low medical record documentation of FBSEs highlights the need for more rigorous enforcement of accurate documentation. However, among the cases that were recorded, it appeared that the content of the examinations was more consistent.

Benefits of PCP-Led FBSEs

Although the USPSTF issued an I rating for PCP-led FBSEs,¹⁴ multiple national medical societies, including the American Cancer Society,²⁵ American Academy of Dermatology,²⁶ and Skin Cancer Foundation,²⁷ as well as international guidelines in Germany,²⁸ Australia,^29,30 and New Zealand,³¹ recommend regular FBSEs among the general or at-risk population; New Zealand and Australia have the highest incidence and prevalence of melanoma in the world.⁸ The benefits of physician-led FBSEs on detection of early-stage skin cancer, and in particular, melanoma detection, have been documented in numerous studies.^30,32-38 However, the variability and often poor quality of skin screening may contribute in part to the just as numerous null results from prior skin screening studies,¹⁵ perpetuating the insufficient status of skin examinations by USPSTF standards.¹⁴ Our study underscores both the variability in frequency and content of PCP-administered FBSEs. It also highlights the need for standardization of screening examinations at the medical student, trainee, and physician level.

The present study has several limitations. First, there was an unknown time lag between the FBSEs and physician self-reported surveys. Similarly, there was a variable time lag between the patient examination encounter and subsequent telephone survey. Both the physician and patient survey data may have been affected by recall bias. Second, patients were not asked directly whether an FBSE had been conducted. Furthermore, patients may not have appreciated whether the body part examined was part of the FBSE or another examination. Also, screenings often were not recorded in the medical record, assuming that the patient report and/or physician report was more accurate than the medical record.

Our study also was limited by demographics; our patient sample was largely comprised of White, educated, US adults, potentially limiting the generalizability of our findings. Conversely, a notable strength of our study was that our participants were recruited from 4 geographically diverse centers. Furthermore, we had a comparatively large sample size of patients and physicians. Also, the independent assessment of provider-reported examinations, objective assessment of medical records, and patient reports of their encounters provides a strong foundation for assessing the independent contributions of each data source.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the challenges future studies face in promoting skin cancer screening in the primary care setting. Our findings underscore the need for a standardized FBSE as well as clear clinical expectations regarding skin cancer screening that is expected of PCPs.

As long as skin cancer screening rates remain low in the United States, patients will be subject to potential delays and missed diagnoses, impacting morbidity and mortality.⁸ There are burgeoning resources and efforts in place to increase skin cancer screening. For example, free validated online training is available for early detection of melanoma and other skin cancers (https://www.visualdx.com/skin-cancer-education/).^39-42 Future directions for bolstering screening numbers must focus on educating PCPs about skin cancer prevention and perhaps narrowing the screening population by age-appropriate risk assessments.

Keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), or nonmelanoma skin cancer, is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States.¹ Basal cell carcinoma comprises the majority of all KCs.^2,3 Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common skin cancer, representing approximately 20% of KCs and accounting for the majority of KC-related deaths.^4-7 Malignant melanoma represents the majority of all skin cancer–related deaths.⁸ The incidence of basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and malignant melanoma in the United States is on the rise and carries substantial morbidity and mortality with notable social and economic burdens.^1,8-10

Prevention is necessary to reduce skin cancer morbidity and mortality as well as rising treatment costs. The most commonly used skin cancer screening method among dermatologists is the visual full-body skin examination (FBSE), which is a noninvasive, safe, quick, and cost-effective method of early detection and prevention.¹¹ To effectively confront the growing incidence and health care burden of skin cancer, primary care providers (PCPs) must join dermatologists in conducting FBSEs.^12,13

Despite being the predominant means of secondary skin cancer prevention, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued an I rating for insufficient evidence to assess the benefits vs harms of screening the adult general population by PCPs.^14,15 A major barrier to studying screening is the lack of a standardized method for conducting and reporting FBSEs.¹³ Systematic thorough skin examination generally is not performed in the primary care setting.^16-18

We aimed to investigate what occurs during an FBSE in the primary care setting and how often they are performed. We examined whether there was potential variation in the execution of the examination, what was perceived by the patient vs reported by the physician, and what was ultimately included in the medical record. Miscommunication between patient and provider regarding performance of FBSEs has previously been noted,^17-19 and we sought to characterize and quantify that miscommunication. We hypothesized that there would be lower patient-reported FBSEs compared to physicians and patient medical records. We also hypothesized that there would be variability in how physicians screened for skin cancer.

METHODS

This study was cross-sectional and was conducted based on interviews and a review of medical records at secondary- and tertiary-level units (clinics and hospitals) across the United States. We examined baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of a Web-based skin cancer early detection continuing education course—the Basic Skin Cancer Triage curriculum. Complete details have been described elsewhere.¹² This study was approved by the institutional review boards of the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Rhode Island Hospital, and Brown University (all in Providence, Rhode Island), as well as those of all recruitment sites.

Data were collected from 2005 to 2008 and included physician online surveys, patient telephone interviews, and patient medical record data abstracted by research assistants. Primary care providers included in the study were general internists, family physicians, or medicine-pediatrics practitioners who were recruited from 4 collaborating centers across the United States in the mid-Atlantic region, Ohio, Kansas, and southern California, and who had been in practice for at least a year. Patients were recruited from participating physician practices and selected by research assistants who traveled to each clinic for coordination, recruitment, and performance of medical record reviews. Patients were selected as having minimal risk of melanoma (eg, no signs of severe photodamage to the skin). Patients completed structured telephone surveys within 1 to 2 weeks of the office visit regarding the practices observed and clinical questions asked during their recent clinical encounter with their PCP.

Measures

Demographics—Demographic variables asked of physicians included age, sex, ethnicity, academic degree (MD vs DO), years in practice, training, and prior dermatology training. Demographic information asked of patients included age, sex, ethnicity, education, and household income.

Physician-Reported Examination and Counseling Variables—Physicians were asked to characterize their clinical practices, prompted by questions regarding performance of FBSEs: “Please think of a typical month and using the scale below, indicate how frequently you perform a total body skin exam during an annual exam (eg, periodic follow-up exam).” Physicians responded to 3 questions on a 5-point scale (1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=about half, 4=often, 5=almost always).

Patient-Reported Examination Variables—Patients also were asked to characterize the skin examination experienced in their clinical encounter with their PCP, including: “During your last visit, as far as you could tell, did your physician: (1) look at the skin on your back? (2) look at the skin on your belly area? (3) look at the skin on the back of your legs?” Patient responses were coded as yes, no, don’t know, or refused. Participants who refused were excluded from analysis; participants who responded are detailed in Table 1. In addition, patients also reported the level of undress with their physician by answering the following question: “During your last medical exam, did you: 1=keep your clothes on; 2=partially undress; 3=totally undress except for undergarments; 4=totally undress, including all undergarments?”

Patient Medical Record–Extracted Data—Research assistants used a structured abstract form to extract the information from the patient’s medical record and graded it as 0 (absence) or 1 (presence) from the medical record.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables as well as frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Logit/logistic regression analysis was used to predict the odds of patient-reported outcomes that were binary with physician-reported variables as the predictor. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the association between 2 continuous variables. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24 (IBM).²⁰ Significance criterion was set at α of .05.

RESULTS Demographics

The final sample included data from 53 physicians and 3343 patients. The study sample mean age (SD) was 50.3 (9.9) years for PCPs (n=53) and 59.8 (16.9) years for patients (n=3343). The physician sample was 36% female and predominantly White (83%). Ninety-one percent of the PCPs had an MD (the remaining had a DO degree), and the mean (SD) years practicing was 21.8 (10.6) years. Seventeen percent of PCPs were trained in internal medicine, 4% in internal medicine and pediatrics, and 79% family medicine; 79% of PCPs had received prior training in dermatology. The patient sample was 58% female, predominantly White (84%), non-Hispanic/Latinx (95%), had completed high school (94%), and earned more than $40,000 annually (66%).

Physician- and Patient-Reported FBSEs

Physicians reported performing FBSEs with variable frequency. Among PCPs who conducted FBSEs with greater frequency, there was a modest increase in the odds that patients reported a particular body part was examined (back: odds ratio [OR], 24.5% [95% CI, 1.18-1.31; P<.001]; abdomen: OR, 23.3% [95% CI, 1.17-1.30; P<.001]; backs of legs: OR, 20.4% [95% CI, 1.13-1.28; P<.001])(Table 1). The patient-reported level of undress during examination was significantly associated with physician-reported FBSE (β=0.16 [95% CI, 0.13-0.18; P<.001])(Table 2).

Because of the bimodal distribution of scores in the physician-reported frequency of FBSEs, particularly pertaining to the extreme points of the scale, we further repeated analysis with only the never and almost always groups (Table 1). Primary care providers who reported almost always for FBSE had 29.6% increased odds of patient-reported back examination (95% CI, 1.00-1.68; P=.048) and 59.3% increased odds of patient-reported abdomen examination (95% CI, 1.23-2.06; P<.001). The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined when the PCP reported having never conducted an FBSE were 56%, 40%, and 26%, respectively. The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined when the PCP reported having almost always conducted an FBSE were 52%, 51%, and 30%, respectively. Raw percentages were calculated by dividing the number of "yes" responses by participants for each body part examined by thetotal number of participant responses (“yes” and “no”) for each respective body part. There was no significant change in odds of patient-reported backs of legs examined with PCP-reported never vs almost always conducting an FBSE. In addition, a greater patient-reported level of undress was associated with 20.2% increased odds of PCPs reporting almost always conducting an FBSE (95% CI, 1.08-1.34; P=.001).

When comparing PCP-reported FBSE and report of FBSE in patient medical records, there was a 39.0% increased odds of the patient medical record indicating FBSE when physicians reported conducting an FBSE with greater frequency (95% CI, 1.30-1.48; P<.001)(eTable 1). When examining PCP-reported never vs almost always conducting an FBSE, a report of almost always was associated with 79.0% increased odds of the patient medical record indicating that an FBSE was conducted (95% CI, 1.28-2.49; P=.001). The raw percentage of the patient medical record indicating an FBSE was conducted when the PCP reported having never conducted an FBSE was 17% and 26% when the PCP reported having almost always conducted an FBSE.

When comparing the patient-reported body part examined with patient FBSE medical record documentation, an indication of yes for FBSE on the patient medical record was associated with a considerable increase in odds that patients reported a particular body part was examined (back: 91.4% [95% CI, 1.59-2.31; P<.001]; abdomen: 75.0% [95% CI, 1.45-2.11; P<.001]; backs of legs: 91.6% [95% CI, 1.56-2.36; P<.001])(eTable 2). The raw percentages of patients who reported having their back, abdomen, and backs of legs examined vs not examined when the patient medical record indicated an FBSE was completed were 24% vs 14%, 23% vs 15%, and 26% vs 16%, respectively. An increase in patient-reported level of undress was associated with a 57.0% increased odds of their medical record indicating an FBSE was conducted (95% CI, 1.45-1.70; P<.001).

COMMENT How PCPs Perform FBSEs Varies

We found that PCPs performed FBSEs with variable frequency, and among those who did, the patient report of their examination varied considerably (Table 1). There appears to be considerable ambiguity in each of these means of determining the extent to which the skin was inspected for skin cancer, which may render the task of improving such inspection more difficult. We asked patients whether their back, abdomen, and backs of legs were examined as an assessment of some of the variety of areas inspected during an FBSE. During a general well-visit appointment, a patient’s back and abdomen may be examined for multiple reasons. Patients may have misinterpreted elements of the pulmonary, cardiac, abdominal, or musculoskeletal examinations as being part of the FBSE. The back and abdomen—the least specific features of the FBSE—were reported by patients to be the most often examined. Conversely, the backs of the legs—the most specific feature of the FBSE—had the lowest odds of being examined (Table 1).

In addition to the potential limitations of patient awareness of physician activity, our results also could be explained by differences among PCPs in how they performed FBSEs. There is no standardized method of conducting an FBSE. Furthermore, not all medical students and residents are exposed to dermatology training. In our sample of 53 physicians, 79% had reported receiving dermatology training; however, we did not assess the extent to which they had been trained in conducting an FBSE and/or identifying malignant lesions. In an American survey of 659 medical students, more than two-thirds of students had never been trained or never examined a patient for skin cancer.²¹ In another American survey of 342 internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics/gynecology residents across 7 medical schools and 4 residency programs, more than three-quarters of residents had never been trained in skin cancer screening.²² Our findings reflect insufficient and inconsistent training in skin cancer screening and underscore the need for mandatory education to ensure quality FBSEs are performed in the primary care setting.

Frequency of PCPs Performing FBSEs

Similar to prior studies analyzing the frequency of FBSE performance in the primary care setting,^16,19,23,24 more than half of our PCP sample reported sometimes to never conducting FBSEs. The percentage of physicians who reported conducting FBSEs in our sample was greater than the proportion reported by the National Health Interview Survey, in which only 8% of patients received an FBSE in the prior year by a PCP or obstetrician/gynecologist,¹⁶ but similar to a smaller patient study.¹⁹ In that study, 87% of patients, regardless of their skin cancer history, also reported that they would like their PCP to perform an FBSE regularly.¹⁹ Although some of our patient participants may have declined an FBSE, it is unlikely that that would have entirely accounted for the relatively low number of PCPs who reported frequently performing FBSEs.

Documentation in Medical Records of FBSEs

Compared to PCP self-reported performance of FBSEs, considerably fewer PCPs marked the patient medical record as having completed an FBSE. Among patients with medical records that indicated an FBSE had been conducted, they reported higher odds of all 3 body parts being examined, the highest being the backs of the legs. Also, when the patient medical record indicated an FBSE had been completed, the odds that the PCP reported an FBSE also were higher. The relatively low medical record documentation of FBSEs highlights the need for more rigorous enforcement of accurate documentation. However, among the cases that were recorded, it appeared that the content of the examinations was more consistent.

Benefits of PCP-Led FBSEs

Although the USPSTF issued an I rating for PCP-led FBSEs,¹⁴ multiple national medical societies, including the American Cancer Society,²⁵ American Academy of Dermatology,²⁶ and Skin Cancer Foundation,²⁷ as well as international guidelines in Germany,²⁸ Australia,^29,30 and New Zealand,³¹ recommend regular FBSEs among the general or at-risk population; New Zealand and Australia have the highest incidence and prevalence of melanoma in the world.⁸ The benefits of physician-led FBSEs on detection of early-stage skin cancer, and in particular, melanoma detection, have been documented in numerous studies.^30,32-38 However, the variability and often poor quality of skin screening may contribute in part to the just as numerous null results from prior skin screening studies,¹⁵ perpetuating the insufficient status of skin examinations by USPSTF standards.¹⁴ Our study underscores both the variability in frequency and content of PCP-administered FBSEs. It also highlights the need for standardization of screening examinations at the medical student, trainee, and physician level.

The present study has several limitations. First, there was an unknown time lag between the FBSEs and physician self-reported surveys. Similarly, there was a variable time lag between the patient examination encounter and subsequent telephone survey. Both the physician and patient survey data may have been affected by recall bias. Second, patients were not asked directly whether an FBSE had been conducted. Furthermore, patients may not have appreciated whether the body part examined was part of the FBSE or another examination. Also, screenings often were not recorded in the medical record, assuming that the patient report and/or physician report was more accurate than the medical record.

Our study also was limited by demographics; our patient sample was largely comprised of White, educated, US adults, potentially limiting the generalizability of our findings. Conversely, a notable strength of our study was that our participants were recruited from 4 geographically diverse centers. Furthermore, we had a comparatively large sample size of patients and physicians. Also, the independent assessment of provider-reported examinations, objective assessment of medical records, and patient reports of their encounters provides a strong foundation for assessing the independent contributions of each data source.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the challenges future studies face in promoting skin cancer screening in the primary care setting. Our findings underscore the need for a standardized FBSE as well as clear clinical expectations regarding skin cancer screening that is expected of PCPs.

As long as skin cancer screening rates remain low in the United States, patients will be subject to potential delays and missed diagnoses, impacting morbidity and mortality.⁸ There are burgeoning resources and efforts in place to increase skin cancer screening. For example, free validated online training is available for early detection of melanoma and other skin cancers (https://www.visualdx.com/skin-cancer-education/).^39-42 Future directions for bolstering screening numbers must focus on educating PCPs about skin cancer prevention and perhaps narrowing the screening population by age-appropriate risk assessments.

The impacts of anthropogenic climate change on human health are numerous and growing. The evidence that climate change is occurring due to the burning of fossil fuels is substantial, with a 2019 report elevating the data supporting anthropogenic climate change to a gold standard 5-sigma level of significance.¹ In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the consensus that humans are causing climate change is greater than 99%.² Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have acknowledged the health impacts of climate change and importance for action. They encourage physicians to engage in environmentally sustainable practices and to advocate for effective climate change mitigation strategies.^3,4 A survey of dermatologists also found that 99.3% (n=148) recognize climate change is occurring, and similarly high numbers are concerned about its health impacts.⁵

Notably, the health care industry must grapple not only with the health impacts of climate change but with the fact that the health care sector itself is responsible for a large amount of carbon emissions.⁶ The global health care industry as a whole produces enough carbon emissions to be ranked as the fifth largest emitting nation in the world.⁷ A quarter of these emissions are attributed to the US health care system.^8,9 Climate science has shown we must limit CO₂ emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, with the sixth assessment report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement targeting large emission reductions within the next decade.¹⁰ In August 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services created the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Rachel L. Levine, MD, has committed to reducing the carbon emissions from the health care sector by 25% in the next decade, in line with scientific consensus regarding necessary changes.¹¹

The dermatologic impacts of climate change are myriad. Rising temperatures, increasing air and water pollution, and stratospheric ozone depletion will lead to expanded geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases, worsening of chronic skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis/eczema and pemphigus, and increasing rates of skin cancer.¹² For instance, warmer temperatures have allowed mosquitoes of the Aedes genus to infest new areas, leading to outbreaks of viral illnesses with cutaneous manifestations such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus in previously nonindigenous regions.¹³ Rising temperatures also have been associated with an expanding geographic range of tick- and sandfly-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and cutaneous leishmaniasis.^13,14 Additionally, short-term exposure to air pollution from wildfire smoke has been associated with an increased use of health care services by patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁵ Increased levels of air pollutants also have been found to be associated with psoriasis flares as well as hyperpigmentation and wrinkle formation.^16,17 Skin cancer incidence is predicted to rise due to increased UV radiation exposure secondary to stratospheric ozone depletion.¹⁸

Although the effects of climate change are significant and the magnitude of the climate crisis may feel overwhelming, it is essential to avoid doomerism and focus on meaningful impactful actions. Current CO₂ emissions will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, and the choices we make now commit future generations to live in a world shaped by our decisions. Importantly, there are impactful and low-cost, cost-effective, or cost-saving changes that can be made to mitigate the climate crisis. Herein, we provide 10 practical actionable interventions for dermatologists to help combat climate change.

10 Interventions for Dermatologists to Combat Climate Change

1. Consider switching to renewable sources of energy. Making this switch often is the most impactful decision a dermatologist can make to address climate change. The electricity sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US health care system, and dermatology outpatient practices in particular have been observed to have a higher peak energy consumption than most other specialties studied.^19,20 Many dermatology practices—both privately owned and academic—can switch to renewable energy seamlessly through power purchase agreements (PPAs), which are contracts between power providers and private entities to install renewable energy equipment or source renewable energy from offsite sources at a fixed rate. Using PPAs instead of traditional fossil fuel energy can provide cost savings as well as protect buyers from electrical price volatility. Numerous health care systems utilize PPAs such as Kaiser Permanente, Cleveland Clinic, and Rochester Regional Health. Additionally, dermatologists can directly purchase renewable energy equipment and eventually receive a return on investment from substantially lowered electric bills. It is important to note that the cost of commercial solar energy systems has decreased 69% since 2010 with further cost reductions predicted.^21,22

2. Reduce standby power consumption. This refers to the use of electricity by a device when it appears to be off or is not in use, which can lead to considerable energy consumption and subsequently a larger carbon footprint for your practice. Ensuring electronics such as phone chargers, light fixtures, television screens, and computers are switched off prior to the end of the workday can make a large difference; for instance, a single radiology department at the University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland) found that if clinical workstations were shut down when not in use after an 8-hour workday, it would save 83,866 kWh of energy and $9225.33 per year.²³ Additionally, using power strips with an automatic shutoff feature to shut off power to devices not in use provides a more convenient way to reduce standby power.

3. Optimize thermostat settings. An analysis of energy consumption in 157,000 US health care facilities found that space heating and cooling accounted for 40% of their total energy consumption.²⁴ Thus, ensuring your thermostat and heating/cooling systems are working efficiently can conserve a substantial amount of energy. For maximum efficiency, it is recommended to set air conditioners to 74 °F (24 °C) and heaters to 68 °F (20 °C) or employ smart thermostats to optimally adjust temperatures when the office is not in use.²⁵ In addition, routinely replacing or cleaning air conditioner filters can lower energy consumption by 5% to 15%.²⁶ Similarly, improving insulation and ruggedization of both homes and offices may reduce heating and cooling waste and limit costs and emissions as a result.

4. Offer bicycle racks and charging ports for electric vehicles. In the United States, transportation generates more greenhouse gas emissions than any other source, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels to power automobiles, trains, and planes. Because bicycles do not consume any fossil fuels and the use of electric vehicles has been found to result in substantial air pollution health benefits, encouraging the use of both can make a considerable positive impact on our climate.²⁷ Providing these resources not only allows those who already travel sustainably to continue to do so but also serves as a reminder to your patients that sustainability is important to you as their health care provider. As electric vehicle sales continue to climb, infrastructure to support their use, including charging stations, will grow in importance. A physician’s office that offers a car-charging station may soon have a competitive advantage over others in the area.

5. Ensure properly regulated medical waste management. Regulated medical waste (also known as infectious medical waste or red bag waste) refers to health care–generated waste unsuitable for disposal in municipal solid waste systems due to concern for the spread of infectious or pathogenic materials. This waste largely is disposed via incineration, which harms the environment in a multitude of ways—both through harmful byproducts and from the CO₂ emissions required to ship the waste to special processing facilities.²⁸ Incineration of regulated medical waste emits potent toxins such as dioxins and furans as well as particulate matter, which contribute to air pollution. Ensuring only materials with infectious potential (as defined by each state’s Environmental Protection Agency) are disposed in regulated medical waste containers can dramatically reduce the harmful effects of incineration. Additionally, limiting regulated medical waste can be very cost-effective, as its disposal is 5- to 10-times more expensive than that of unregulated medical waste.²⁹ Simple nudge measures such as educating staff about what waste goes in which receptacle, placing signage over the red bag waste to prompt staff to pause to consider if use of that bin is required before utilizing, using weights or clasps to make opening red bag waste containers slightly harder, and positioning different trash receptacles in different parts of examination rooms may help reduce inappropriate use of red bag waste.

6. Consider virtual platforms when possible. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meeting platforms saw a considerable increase in usage by dermatologists. Teledermatology for patient care became much more widely adopted, and traditionally in-person meetings turned virtual.³⁰ The reduction in emissions from these changes was remarkable. A recent study looking at the environmental impact of 3 months of teledermatology visits early during the COVID-19 pandemic found that 1476 teledermatology appointments saved 55,737 miles of car travel, equivalent to 15.37 metric tons of CO₂.³¹ Whether for patient care when appropriate, academic conferences and continuing medical education credit, or for interviews (eg, medical students, residents, other staff), use of virtual platforms can reduce unnecessary travel and therefore substantially reduce travel-related emissions. When travel is unavoidable, consider exploring validated vetted companies that offer carbon offsets to reduce the harmful environmental impact of high-emission flights.

7. Limit use of single-use disposable items. Although single-use items such as examination gloves or needles are necessary in a dermatology practice, there are many opportunities to incorporate reusable items in your workplace. For instance, you can replace plastic cutlery and single-use plates in kitchen or dining areas with reusable alternatives. Additionally, using reusable isolation gowns instead of their single-use counterparts can help reduce waste; a reusable isolation gown system for providers including laundering services was found to consume 28% less energy and emit 30% fewer greenhouse gases than a single-use isolation gown system.³² Similarly, opting for reusable instruments instead of single-use instruments when possible also can help reduce your practice’s carbon footprint. Carefully evaluating each part of your “dermatology visit supply chain” may offer opportunities to utilize additional cost-saving, environmentally friendly options; for example, an individually plastic-wrapped Dermablade vs a bulk-packaged blade for shave biopsies has a higher cost and worse environmental impact. A single gauze often is sufficient for shave biopsies, but many practices open a plastic container of bulk gauze, much of which results in waste that too often is inappropriately disposed of as regulated medical waste despite not being saturated in blood/body fluids.

8. Educate on the effects of climate change. Dermatologists and other physicians have the unique opportunity to teach members of their community every day through patient care. Physicians are trusted messengers, and appropriately counseling patients regarding the risks of climate change and its effects on their dermatologic health is in line with both American Medical Association and American College of Physicians guidelines.^3,4 For instance, patients with Lyme disease in Canada or Maine were unheard of a few decades ago, but now they are common; flares of atopic dermatitis in regions adjacent to recent wildfires may be attributable to harmful particulate matter resulting from fossil-fueled climate change and record droughts. Educating medical trainees on the impacts of climate change is just as vital, as it is a topic that often is neglected in medical school and residency curricula.³³

9. Install water-efficient toilets and faucets. Anthropogenic climate change has been shown to increase the duration and intensity of droughts throughout the world.³⁴ Much of the western United States also is experiencing record droughts. One way in which dermatology practices can work to combat droughts is through the use of water-conserving toilets, faucets, and urinals. Using water fixtures with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense label is a convenient way to do so. The WaterSense label helps identify water fixtures certified to use at least 20% less water as well as save energy and decrease water costs.

10. Advocate through local and national organizations. There are numerous ways in which dermatologists can advocate for action against climate change. Joining professional organizations focused on addressing the climate crisis can help you connect with fellow dermatologists and physicians. The Expert Resource Group on Climate Change and Environmental Issues affiliated with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) is one such organization with many opportunities to raise awareness within the field of dermatology. The AAD recently joined the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, an organization providing opportunities for policy and media outreach as well as research on climate change. Advocacy also can mean joining your local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility or encouraging divestment from fossil fuel companies within your institution. Voicing support for climate change–focused lectures at events such as grand rounds and society meetings at the local, regional, and state-wide levels can help raise awareness. As the dermatologic effects of climate change grow, being knowledgeable of the views of future leaders in our specialty and country on this issue will become increasingly important.

Final Thoughts

In addition to the climate-friendly decisions one can make as a dermatologist, there are many personal lifestyle choices to consider. Small dietary changes such as limiting consumption of beef and minimizing food waste can have large downstream effects. Opting for transportation via train and limiting air travel are both impactful decisions in reducing CO₂ emissions. Similarly, switching to an electric vehicle or vehicle with minimal emissions can work to reduce greenhouse gas accumulation. For additional resources, note the AAD has partnered with My Green Doctor, a nonprofit service for health care practices that includes practical cost-saving suggestions to support sustainability in physician practices.

A recent joint publication in more than 200 medical journals described climate change as the greatest threat to global public health.³⁵ Climate change is having devastating effects on dermatologic health and will only continue to do so if not addressed now. Dermatologists have the opportunity to join with our colleagues in the house of medicine and to take action to fight climate change and mitigate the health impacts on our patients, the population, and future generations.

The impacts of anthropogenic climate change on human health are numerous and growing. The evidence that climate change is occurring due to the burning of fossil fuels is substantial, with a 2019 report elevating the data supporting anthropogenic climate change to a gold standard 5-sigma level of significance.¹ In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the consensus that humans are causing climate change is greater than 99%.² Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have acknowledged the health impacts of climate change and importance for action. They encourage physicians to engage in environmentally sustainable practices and to advocate for effective climate change mitigation strategies.^3,4 A survey of dermatologists also found that 99.3% (n=148) recognize climate change is occurring, and similarly high numbers are concerned about its health impacts.⁵

Notably, the health care industry must grapple not only with the health impacts of climate change but with the fact that the health care sector itself is responsible for a large amount of carbon emissions.⁶ The global health care industry as a whole produces enough carbon emissions to be ranked as the fifth largest emitting nation in the world.⁷ A quarter of these emissions are attributed to the US health care system.^8,9 Climate science has shown we must limit CO₂ emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, with the sixth assessment report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement targeting large emission reductions within the next decade.¹⁰ In August 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services created the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Rachel L. Levine, MD, has committed to reducing the carbon emissions from the health care sector by 25% in the next decade, in line with scientific consensus regarding necessary changes.¹¹

The dermatologic impacts of climate change are myriad. Rising temperatures, increasing air and water pollution, and stratospheric ozone depletion will lead to expanded geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases, worsening of chronic skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis/eczema and pemphigus, and increasing rates of skin cancer.¹² For instance, warmer temperatures have allowed mosquitoes of the Aedes genus to infest new areas, leading to outbreaks of viral illnesses with cutaneous manifestations such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus in previously nonindigenous regions.¹³ Rising temperatures also have been associated with an expanding geographic range of tick- and sandfly-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and cutaneous leishmaniasis.^13,14 Additionally, short-term exposure to air pollution from wildfire smoke has been associated with an increased use of health care services by patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁵ Increased levels of air pollutants also have been found to be associated with psoriasis flares as well as hyperpigmentation and wrinkle formation.^16,17 Skin cancer incidence is predicted to rise due to increased UV radiation exposure secondary to stratospheric ozone depletion.¹⁸

Although the effects of climate change are significant and the magnitude of the climate crisis may feel overwhelming, it is essential to avoid doomerism and focus on meaningful impactful actions. Current CO₂ emissions will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, and the choices we make now commit future generations to live in a world shaped by our decisions. Importantly, there are impactful and low-cost, cost-effective, or cost-saving changes that can be made to mitigate the climate crisis. Herein, we provide 10 practical actionable interventions for dermatologists to help combat climate change.

10 Interventions for Dermatologists to Combat Climate Change

1. Consider switching to renewable sources of energy. Making this switch often is the most impactful decision a dermatologist can make to address climate change. The electricity sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US health care system, and dermatology outpatient practices in particular have been observed to have a higher peak energy consumption than most other specialties studied.^19,20 Many dermatology practices—both privately owned and academic—can switch to renewable energy seamlessly through power purchase agreements (PPAs), which are contracts between power providers and private entities to install renewable energy equipment or source renewable energy from offsite sources at a fixed rate. Using PPAs instead of traditional fossil fuel energy can provide cost savings as well as protect buyers from electrical price volatility. Numerous health care systems utilize PPAs such as Kaiser Permanente, Cleveland Clinic, and Rochester Regional Health. Additionally, dermatologists can directly purchase renewable energy equipment and eventually receive a return on investment from substantially lowered electric bills. It is important to note that the cost of commercial solar energy systems has decreased 69% since 2010 with further cost reductions predicted.^21,22

2. Reduce standby power consumption. This refers to the use of electricity by a device when it appears to be off or is not in use, which can lead to considerable energy consumption and subsequently a larger carbon footprint for your practice. Ensuring electronics such as phone chargers, light fixtures, television screens, and computers are switched off prior to the end of the workday can make a large difference; for instance, a single radiology department at the University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland) found that if clinical workstations were shut down when not in use after an 8-hour workday, it would save 83,866 kWh of energy and $9225.33 per year.²³ Additionally, using power strips with an automatic shutoff feature to shut off power to devices not in use provides a more convenient way to reduce standby power.

3. Optimize thermostat settings. An analysis of energy consumption in 157,000 US health care facilities found that space heating and cooling accounted for 40% of their total energy consumption.²⁴ Thus, ensuring your thermostat and heating/cooling systems are working efficiently can conserve a substantial amount of energy. For maximum efficiency, it is recommended to set air conditioners to 74 °F (24 °C) and heaters to 68 °F (20 °C) or employ smart thermostats to optimally adjust temperatures when the office is not in use.²⁵ In addition, routinely replacing or cleaning air conditioner filters can lower energy consumption by 5% to 15%.²⁶ Similarly, improving insulation and ruggedization of both homes and offices may reduce heating and cooling waste and limit costs and emissions as a result.

4. Offer bicycle racks and charging ports for electric vehicles. In the United States, transportation generates more greenhouse gas emissions than any other source, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels to power automobiles, trains, and planes. Because bicycles do not consume any fossil fuels and the use of electric vehicles has been found to result in substantial air pollution health benefits, encouraging the use of both can make a considerable positive impact on our climate.²⁷ Providing these resources not only allows those who already travel sustainably to continue to do so but also serves as a reminder to your patients that sustainability is important to you as their health care provider. As electric vehicle sales continue to climb, infrastructure to support their use, including charging stations, will grow in importance. A physician’s office that offers a car-charging station may soon have a competitive advantage over others in the area.

5. Ensure properly regulated medical waste management. Regulated medical waste (also known as infectious medical waste or red bag waste) refers to health care–generated waste unsuitable for disposal in municipal solid waste systems due to concern for the spread of infectious or pathogenic materials. This waste largely is disposed via incineration, which harms the environment in a multitude of ways—both through harmful byproducts and from the CO₂ emissions required to ship the waste to special processing facilities.²⁸ Incineration of regulated medical waste emits potent toxins such as dioxins and furans as well as particulate matter, which contribute to air pollution. Ensuring only materials with infectious potential (as defined by each state’s Environmental Protection Agency) are disposed in regulated medical waste containers can dramatically reduce the harmful effects of incineration. Additionally, limiting regulated medical waste can be very cost-effective, as its disposal is 5- to 10-times more expensive than that of unregulated medical waste.²⁹ Simple nudge measures such as educating staff about what waste goes in which receptacle, placing signage over the red bag waste to prompt staff to pause to consider if use of that bin is required before utilizing, using weights or clasps to make opening red bag waste containers slightly harder, and positioning different trash receptacles in different parts of examination rooms may help reduce inappropriate use of red bag waste.

6. Consider virtual platforms when possible. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meeting platforms saw a considerable increase in usage by dermatologists. Teledermatology for patient care became much more widely adopted, and traditionally in-person meetings turned virtual.³⁰ The reduction in emissions from these changes was remarkable. A recent study looking at the environmental impact of 3 months of teledermatology visits early during the COVID-19 pandemic found that 1476 teledermatology appointments saved 55,737 miles of car travel, equivalent to 15.37 metric tons of CO₂.³¹ Whether for patient care when appropriate, academic conferences and continuing medical education credit, or for interviews (eg, medical students, residents, other staff), use of virtual platforms can reduce unnecessary travel and therefore substantially reduce travel-related emissions. When travel is unavoidable, consider exploring validated vetted companies that offer carbon offsets to reduce the harmful environmental impact of high-emission flights.

7. Limit use of single-use disposable items. Although single-use items such as examination gloves or needles are necessary in a dermatology practice, there are many opportunities to incorporate reusable items in your workplace. For instance, you can replace plastic cutlery and single-use plates in kitchen or dining areas with reusable alternatives. Additionally, using reusable isolation gowns instead of their single-use counterparts can help reduce waste; a reusable isolation gown system for providers including laundering services was found to consume 28% less energy and emit 30% fewer greenhouse gases than a single-use isolation gown system.³² Similarly, opting for reusable instruments instead of single-use instruments when possible also can help reduce your practice’s carbon footprint. Carefully evaluating each part of your “dermatology visit supply chain” may offer opportunities to utilize additional cost-saving, environmentally friendly options; for example, an individually plastic-wrapped Dermablade vs a bulk-packaged blade for shave biopsies has a higher cost and worse environmental impact. A single gauze often is sufficient for shave biopsies, but many practices open a plastic container of bulk gauze, much of which results in waste that too often is inappropriately disposed of as regulated medical waste despite not being saturated in blood/body fluids.

8. Educate on the effects of climate change. Dermatologists and other physicians have the unique opportunity to teach members of their community every day through patient care. Physicians are trusted messengers, and appropriately counseling patients regarding the risks of climate change and its effects on their dermatologic health is in line with both American Medical Association and American College of Physicians guidelines.^3,4 For instance, patients with Lyme disease in Canada or Maine were unheard of a few decades ago, but now they are common; flares of atopic dermatitis in regions adjacent to recent wildfires may be attributable to harmful particulate matter resulting from fossil-fueled climate change and record droughts. Educating medical trainees on the impacts of climate change is just as vital, as it is a topic that often is neglected in medical school and residency curricula.³³

9. Install water-efficient toilets and faucets. Anthropogenic climate change has been shown to increase the duration and intensity of droughts throughout the world.³⁴ Much of the western United States also is experiencing record droughts. One way in which dermatology practices can work to combat droughts is through the use of water-conserving toilets, faucets, and urinals. Using water fixtures with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense label is a convenient way to do so. The WaterSense label helps identify water fixtures certified to use at least 20% less water as well as save energy and decrease water costs.

10. Advocate through local and national organizations. There are numerous ways in which dermatologists can advocate for action against climate change. Joining professional organizations focused on addressing the climate crisis can help you connect with fellow dermatologists and physicians. The Expert Resource Group on Climate Change and Environmental Issues affiliated with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) is one such organization with many opportunities to raise awareness within the field of dermatology. The AAD recently joined the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, an organization providing opportunities for policy and media outreach as well as research on climate change. Advocacy also can mean joining your local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility or encouraging divestment from fossil fuel companies within your institution. Voicing support for climate change–focused lectures at events such as grand rounds and society meetings at the local, regional, and state-wide levels can help raise awareness. As the dermatologic effects of climate change grow, being knowledgeable of the views of future leaders in our specialty and country on this issue will become increasingly important.

Final Thoughts

In addition to the climate-friendly decisions one can make as a dermatologist, there are many personal lifestyle choices to consider. Small dietary changes such as limiting consumption of beef and minimizing food waste can have large downstream effects. Opting for transportation via train and limiting air travel are both impactful decisions in reducing CO₂ emissions. Similarly, switching to an electric vehicle or vehicle with minimal emissions can work to reduce greenhouse gas accumulation. For additional resources, note the AAD has partnered with My Green Doctor, a nonprofit service for health care practices that includes practical cost-saving suggestions to support sustainability in physician practices.

A recent joint publication in more than 200 medical journals described climate change as the greatest threat to global public health.³⁵ Climate change is having devastating effects on dermatologic health and will only continue to do so if not addressed now. Dermatologists have the opportunity to join with our colleagues in the house of medicine and to take action to fight climate change and mitigate the health impacts on our patients, the population, and future generations.

The impacts of anthropogenic climate change on human health are numerous and growing. The evidence that climate change is occurring due to the burning of fossil fuels is substantial, with a 2019 report elevating the data supporting anthropogenic climate change to a gold standard 5-sigma level of significance.¹ In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the consensus that humans are causing climate change is greater than 99%.² Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have acknowledged the health impacts of climate change and importance for action. They encourage physicians to engage in environmentally sustainable practices and to advocate for effective climate change mitigation strategies.^3,4 A survey of dermatologists also found that 99.3% (n=148) recognize climate change is occurring, and similarly high numbers are concerned about its health impacts.⁵

Notably, the health care industry must grapple not only with the health impacts of climate change but with the fact that the health care sector itself is responsible for a large amount of carbon emissions.⁶ The global health care industry as a whole produces enough carbon emissions to be ranked as the fifth largest emitting nation in the world.⁷ A quarter of these emissions are attributed to the US health care system.^8,9 Climate science has shown we must limit CO₂ emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, with the sixth assessment report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement targeting large emission reductions within the next decade.¹⁰ In August 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services created the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Rachel L. Levine, MD, has committed to reducing the carbon emissions from the health care sector by 25% in the next decade, in line with scientific consensus regarding necessary changes.¹¹

The dermatologic impacts of climate change are myriad. Rising temperatures, increasing air and water pollution, and stratospheric ozone depletion will lead to expanded geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases, worsening of chronic skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis/eczema and pemphigus, and increasing rates of skin cancer.¹² For instance, warmer temperatures have allowed mosquitoes of the Aedes genus to infest new areas, leading to outbreaks of viral illnesses with cutaneous manifestations such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus in previously nonindigenous regions.¹³ Rising temperatures also have been associated with an expanding geographic range of tick- and sandfly-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and cutaneous leishmaniasis.^13,14 Additionally, short-term exposure to air pollution from wildfire smoke has been associated with an increased use of health care services by patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁵ Increased levels of air pollutants also have been found to be associated with psoriasis flares as well as hyperpigmentation and wrinkle formation.^16,17 Skin cancer incidence is predicted to rise due to increased UV radiation exposure secondary to stratospheric ozone depletion.¹⁸

Although the effects of climate change are significant and the magnitude of the climate crisis may feel overwhelming, it is essential to avoid doomerism and focus on meaningful impactful actions. Current CO₂ emissions will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, and the choices we make now commit future generations to live in a world shaped by our decisions. Importantly, there are impactful and low-cost, cost-effective, or cost-saving changes that can be made to mitigate the climate crisis. Herein, we provide 10 practical actionable interventions for dermatologists to help combat climate change.

10 Interventions for Dermatologists to Combat Climate Change

1. Consider switching to renewable sources of energy. Making this switch often is the most impactful decision a dermatologist can make to address climate change. The electricity sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US health care system, and dermatology outpatient practices in particular have been observed to have a higher peak energy consumption than most other specialties studied.^19,20 Many dermatology practices—both privately owned and academic—can switch to renewable energy seamlessly through power purchase agreements (PPAs), which are contracts between power providers and private entities to install renewable energy equipment or source renewable energy from offsite sources at a fixed rate. Using PPAs instead of traditional fossil fuel energy can provide cost savings as well as protect buyers from electrical price volatility. Numerous health care systems utilize PPAs such as Kaiser Permanente, Cleveland Clinic, and Rochester Regional Health. Additionally, dermatologists can directly purchase renewable energy equipment and eventually receive a return on investment from substantially lowered electric bills. It is important to note that the cost of commercial solar energy systems has decreased 69% since 2010 with further cost reductions predicted.^21,22

2. Reduce standby power consumption. This refers to the use of electricity by a device when it appears to be off or is not in use, which can lead to considerable energy consumption and subsequently a larger carbon footprint for your practice. Ensuring electronics such as phone chargers, light fixtures, television screens, and computers are switched off prior to the end of the workday can make a large difference; for instance, a single radiology department at the University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland) found that if clinical workstations were shut down when not in use after an 8-hour workday, it would save 83,866 kWh of energy and $9225.33 per year.²³ Additionally, using power strips with an automatic shutoff feature to shut off power to devices not in use provides a more convenient way to reduce standby power.

3. Optimize thermostat settings. An analysis of energy consumption in 157,000 US health care facilities found that space heating and cooling accounted for 40% of their total energy consumption.²⁴ Thus, ensuring your thermostat and heating/cooling systems are working efficiently can conserve a substantial amount of energy. For maximum efficiency, it is recommended to set air conditioners to 74 °F (24 °C) and heaters to 68 °F (20 °C) or employ smart thermostats to optimally adjust temperatures when the office is not in use.²⁵ In addition, routinely replacing or cleaning air conditioner filters can lower energy consumption by 5% to 15%.²⁶ Similarly, improving insulation and ruggedization of both homes and offices may reduce heating and cooling waste and limit costs and emissions as a result.

4. Offer bicycle racks and charging ports for electric vehicles. In the United States, transportation generates more greenhouse gas emissions than any other source, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels to power automobiles, trains, and planes. Because bicycles do not consume any fossil fuels and the use of electric vehicles has been found to result in substantial air pollution health benefits, encouraging the use of both can make a considerable positive impact on our climate.²⁷ Providing these resources not only allows those who already travel sustainably to continue to do so but also serves as a reminder to your patients that sustainability is important to you as their health care provider. As electric vehicle sales continue to climb, infrastructure to support their use, including charging stations, will grow in importance. A physician’s office that offers a car-charging station may soon have a competitive advantage over others in the area.

5. Ensure properly regulated medical waste management. Regulated medical waste (also known as infectious medical waste or red bag waste) refers to health care–generated waste unsuitable for disposal in municipal solid waste systems due to concern for the spread of infectious or pathogenic materials. This waste largely is disposed via incineration, which harms the environment in a multitude of ways—both through harmful byproducts and from the CO₂ emissions required to ship the waste to special processing facilities.²⁸ Incineration of regulated medical waste emits potent toxins such as dioxins and furans as well as particulate matter, which contribute to air pollution. Ensuring only materials with infectious potential (as defined by each state’s Environmental Protection Agency) are disposed in regulated medical waste containers can dramatically reduce the harmful effects of incineration. Additionally, limiting regulated medical waste can be very cost-effective, as its disposal is 5- to 10-times more expensive than that of unregulated medical waste.²⁹ Simple nudge measures such as educating staff about what waste goes in which receptacle, placing signage over the red bag waste to prompt staff to pause to consider if use of that bin is required before utilizing, using weights or clasps to make opening red bag waste containers slightly harder, and positioning different trash receptacles in different parts of examination rooms may help reduce inappropriate use of red bag waste.

6. Consider virtual platforms when possible. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meeting platforms saw a considerable increase in usage by dermatologists. Teledermatology for patient care became much more widely adopted, and traditionally in-person meetings turned virtual.³⁰ The reduction in emissions from these changes was remarkable. A recent study looking at the environmental impact of 3 months of teledermatology visits early during the COVID-19 pandemic found that 1476 teledermatology appointments saved 55,737 miles of car travel, equivalent to 15.37 metric tons of CO₂.³¹ Whether for patient care when appropriate, academic conferences and continuing medical education credit, or for interviews (eg, medical students, residents, other staff), use of virtual platforms can reduce unnecessary travel and therefore substantially reduce travel-related emissions. When travel is unavoidable, consider exploring validated vetted companies that offer carbon offsets to reduce the harmful environmental impact of high-emission flights.

7. Limit use of single-use disposable items. Although single-use items such as examination gloves or needles are necessary in a dermatology practice, there are many opportunities to incorporate reusable items in your workplace. For instance, you can replace plastic cutlery and single-use plates in kitchen or dining areas with reusable alternatives. Additionally, using reusable isolation gowns instead of their single-use counterparts can help reduce waste; a reusable isolation gown system for providers including laundering services was found to consume 28% less energy and emit 30% fewer greenhouse gases than a single-use isolation gown system.³² Similarly, opting for reusable instruments instead of single-use instruments when possible also can help reduce your practice’s carbon footprint. Carefully evaluating each part of your “dermatology visit supply chain” may offer opportunities to utilize additional cost-saving, environmentally friendly options; for example, an individually plastic-wrapped Dermablade vs a bulk-packaged blade for shave biopsies has a higher cost and worse environmental impact. A single gauze often is sufficient for shave biopsies, but many practices open a plastic container of bulk gauze, much of which results in waste that too often is inappropriately disposed of as regulated medical waste despite not being saturated in blood/body fluids.

8. Educate on the effects of climate change. Dermatologists and other physicians have the unique opportunity to teach members of their community every day through patient care. Physicians are trusted messengers, and appropriately counseling patients regarding the risks of climate change and its effects on their dermatologic health is in line with both American Medical Association and American College of Physicians guidelines.^3,4 For instance, patients with Lyme disease in Canada or Maine were unheard of a few decades ago, but now they are common; flares of atopic dermatitis in regions adjacent to recent wildfires may be attributable to harmful particulate matter resulting from fossil-fueled climate change and record droughts. Educating medical trainees on the impacts of climate change is just as vital, as it is a topic that often is neglected in medical school and residency curricula.³³

9. Install water-efficient toilets and faucets. Anthropogenic climate change has been shown to increase the duration and intensity of droughts throughout the world.³⁴ Much of the western United States also is experiencing record droughts. One way in which dermatology practices can work to combat droughts is through the use of water-conserving toilets, faucets, and urinals. Using water fixtures with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense label is a convenient way to do so. The WaterSense label helps identify water fixtures certified to use at least 20% less water as well as save energy and decrease water costs.

10. Advocate through local and national organizations. There are numerous ways in which dermatologists can advocate for action against climate change. Joining professional organizations focused on addressing the climate crisis can help you connect with fellow dermatologists and physicians. The Expert Resource Group on Climate Change and Environmental Issues affiliated with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) is one such organization with many opportunities to raise awareness within the field of dermatology. The AAD recently joined the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, an organization providing opportunities for policy and media outreach as well as research on climate change. Advocacy also can mean joining your local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility or encouraging divestment from fossil fuel companies within your institution. Voicing support for climate change–focused lectures at events such as grand rounds and society meetings at the local, regional, and state-wide levels can help raise awareness. As the dermatologic effects of climate change grow, being knowledgeable of the views of future leaders in our specialty and country on this issue will become increasingly important.

Final Thoughts

In addition to the climate-friendly decisions one can make as a dermatologist, there are many personal lifestyle choices to consider. Small dietary changes such as limiting consumption of beef and minimizing food waste can have large downstream effects. Opting for transportation via train and limiting air travel are both impactful decisions in reducing CO₂ emissions. Similarly, switching to an electric vehicle or vehicle with minimal emissions can work to reduce greenhouse gas accumulation. For additional resources, note the AAD has partnered with My Green Doctor, a nonprofit service for health care practices that includes practical cost-saving suggestions to support sustainability in physician practices.

A recent joint publication in more than 200 medical journals described climate change as the greatest threat to global public health.³⁵ Climate change is having devastating effects on dermatologic health and will only continue to do so if not addressed now. Dermatologists have the opportunity to join with our colleagues in the house of medicine and to take action to fight climate change and mitigate the health impacts on our patients, the population, and future generations.

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.