Mixed Topics

GASTROENTEROLOGY

October 2020
How to incorporate a chief fellow into a gastroenterology fellowship program. Mohammad Bilal et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1227-30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.001

Lower adenoma miss rate of computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy in a prospective tandem study. Pu Wang et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1252-61.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.023

November 2020
Simulation-based mastery learning with virtual coaching: experience in training standardized upper endoscopy to novice endoscopists. Roy Soetikno et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1632-6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.096

Risk of small bowel adenocarcinoma, adenomas, and carcinoids in a nationwide cohort of individuals with celiac disease. Louise Emilsson et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1686-94.e2 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.007

December 2020
Increased intestinal permeability is associated with later development of Crohn’s disease. Williams Turpin et al. 2020 Dec;159(6):2092-100.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.005

January 2021
The role of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in modulating gut microbiota, intestinal inflammation, and coronavirus infection. Josef M. Penninger et al. 2020 Oct 30:S0016-5085(20)35327-0. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.067

Behavioral and diet therapies in integrated care for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. William D. Chey et al. 2020 Oct 19:S0016-5085(20)35281-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.099

Efficacy and safety of tradipitant in patients with diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Jesse L. Carlin et al 2020 Jul 18;S0016-5085(20)34958-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.029

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY

November 2020
The virtual gastroenterology clinic. Toyia James-Stevenson. 2020 Nov;18(12):2679-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.012

Risk factors associated with early-onset colorectal cancer. Valerie Gausman et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2752-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.009

Association of daily aspirin therapy with hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis c virus infection. Teng-Yu Lee et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2784-92.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.036

December 2020
Sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer detection differs according to stage and location. Tobias Niedermaier et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2920-2928.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.025

Effects of colesevelam on bowel symptoms, biomarkers, and colonic mucosal gene expression in patients with bile acid diarrhea in a randomized trial. Priya Vijayvargiya et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2962-70.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.027

Endoscopy for gastric cancer screening is cost effective for Asian Americans in the United States. Shailja C. Shah et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):3026-39. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031

January 2021
C.O.V.I.D.: A survival guide for GI fellowship training during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tzu-Hao Lee et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):6-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.10.001

Use of proton pump inhibitors increases risk of incident kidney stones. Michael Simonov et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):72-9.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.053

TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY

Endoscopic extraction of large foreign bodies utilizing a novel push-pull extraction technique. Koushik K. Das and Michael L. Kochman. 2020 Oct;22(4):172-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.06.004

GASTROENTEROLOGY

October 2020
How to incorporate a chief fellow into a gastroenterology fellowship program. Mohammad Bilal et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1227-30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.001

Lower adenoma miss rate of computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy in a prospective tandem study. Pu Wang et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1252-61.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.023

November 2020
Simulation-based mastery learning with virtual coaching: experience in training standardized upper endoscopy to novice endoscopists. Roy Soetikno et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1632-6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.096

Risk of small bowel adenocarcinoma, adenomas, and carcinoids in a nationwide cohort of individuals with celiac disease. Louise Emilsson et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1686-94.e2 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.007

December 2020
Increased intestinal permeability is associated with later development of Crohn’s disease. Williams Turpin et al. 2020 Dec;159(6):2092-100.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.005

January 2021
The role of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in modulating gut microbiota, intestinal inflammation, and coronavirus infection. Josef M. Penninger et al. 2020 Oct 30:S0016-5085(20)35327-0. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.067

Behavioral and diet therapies in integrated care for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. William D. Chey et al. 2020 Oct 19:S0016-5085(20)35281-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.099

Efficacy and safety of tradipitant in patients with diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Jesse L. Carlin et al 2020 Jul 18;S0016-5085(20)34958-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.029

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY

November 2020
The virtual gastroenterology clinic. Toyia James-Stevenson. 2020 Nov;18(12):2679-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.012

Risk factors associated with early-onset colorectal cancer. Valerie Gausman et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2752-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.009

Association of daily aspirin therapy with hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis c virus infection. Teng-Yu Lee et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2784-92.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.036

December 2020
Sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer detection differs according to stage and location. Tobias Niedermaier et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2920-2928.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.025

Effects of colesevelam on bowel symptoms, biomarkers, and colonic mucosal gene expression in patients with bile acid diarrhea in a randomized trial. Priya Vijayvargiya et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2962-70.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.027

Endoscopy for gastric cancer screening is cost effective for Asian Americans in the United States. Shailja C. Shah et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):3026-39. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031

January 2021
C.O.V.I.D.: A survival guide for GI fellowship training during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tzu-Hao Lee et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):6-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.10.001

Use of proton pump inhibitors increases risk of incident kidney stones. Michael Simonov et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):72-9.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.053

TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY

Endoscopic extraction of large foreign bodies utilizing a novel push-pull extraction technique. Koushik K. Das and Michael L. Kochman. 2020 Oct;22(4):172-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.06.004

GASTROENTEROLOGY

October 2020
How to incorporate a chief fellow into a gastroenterology fellowship program. Mohammad Bilal et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1227-30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.001

Lower adenoma miss rate of computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy in a prospective tandem study. Pu Wang et al. 2020 Oct;159(4):1252-61.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.023

November 2020
Simulation-based mastery learning with virtual coaching: experience in training standardized upper endoscopy to novice endoscopists. Roy Soetikno et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1632-6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.096

Risk of small bowel adenocarcinoma, adenomas, and carcinoids in a nationwide cohort of individuals with celiac disease. Louise Emilsson et al. 2020 Nov;159(5):1686-94.e2 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.007

December 2020
Increased intestinal permeability is associated with later development of Crohn’s disease. Williams Turpin et al. 2020 Dec;159(6):2092-100.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.005

January 2021
The role of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in modulating gut microbiota, intestinal inflammation, and coronavirus infection. Josef M. Penninger et al. 2020 Oct 30:S0016-5085(20)35327-0. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.067

Behavioral and diet therapies in integrated care for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. William D. Chey et al. 2020 Oct 19:S0016-5085(20)35281-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.099

Efficacy and safety of tradipitant in patients with diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Jesse L. Carlin et al 2020 Jul 18;S0016-5085(20)34958-1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.029

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY

November 2020
The virtual gastroenterology clinic. Toyia James-Stevenson. 2020 Nov;18(12):2679-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.012

Risk factors associated with early-onset colorectal cancer. Valerie Gausman et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2752-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.009

Association of daily aspirin therapy with hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis c virus infection. Teng-Yu Lee et al. 2020 Nov;18(12):2784-92.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.036

December 2020
Sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer detection differs according to stage and location. Tobias Niedermaier et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2920-2928.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.025

Effects of colesevelam on bowel symptoms, biomarkers, and colonic mucosal gene expression in patients with bile acid diarrhea in a randomized trial. Priya Vijayvargiya et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):2962-70.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.027

Endoscopy for gastric cancer screening is cost effective for Asian Americans in the United States. Shailja C. Shah et al. 2020 Dec;18(13):3026-39. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031

January 2021
C.O.V.I.D.: A survival guide for GI fellowship training during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tzu-Hao Lee et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):6-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.10.001

Use of proton pump inhibitors increases risk of incident kidney stones. Michael Simonov et al. 2021 Jan;19(1):72-9.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.02.053

TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY

Endoscopic extraction of large foreign bodies utilizing a novel push-pull extraction technique. Koushik K. Das and Michael L. Kochman. 2020 Oct;22(4):172-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.06.004

The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services released new dietary guidelines Dec. 29 that for the first time include recommended dietary patterns for infants and toddlers.

LoveTheWind/iStock/Getty Images

Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.

The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions: 

• Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
• Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
• Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
• Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
 

Proposed cutoffs rejected

The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.

It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.

The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.

The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.

In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.

“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
 

Guidance for infants and toddlers

The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise. 

At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk. 

The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.

Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.

“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
 

For all ages

From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.

According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:

• Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
• Fruits (especially whole fruit).
• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain. 
• Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
• Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
• Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.

The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.

Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.

“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”

An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.

The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.

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

The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services released new dietary guidelines Dec. 29 that for the first time include recommended dietary patterns for infants and toddlers.

LoveTheWind/iStock/Getty Images

Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.

The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions: 

• Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
• Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
• Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
• Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
 

Proposed cutoffs rejected

The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.

It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.

The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.

The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.

In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.

“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
 

Guidance for infants and toddlers

The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise. 

At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk. 

The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.

Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.

“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
 

For all ages

From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.

According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:

• Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
• Fruits (especially whole fruit).
• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain. 
• Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
• Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
• Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.

The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.

Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.

“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”

An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.

The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.

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

The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services released new dietary guidelines Dec. 29 that for the first time include recommended dietary patterns for infants and toddlers.

LoveTheWind/iStock/Getty Images

Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.

The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions: 

• Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
• Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
• Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
• Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
 

Proposed cutoffs rejected

The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.

It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.

The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.

The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.

In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.

“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
 

Guidance for infants and toddlers

The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise. 

At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk. 

The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.

Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.

“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
 

For all ages

From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.

According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:

• Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
• Fruits (especially whole fruit).
• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain. 
• Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
• Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
• Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.

The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.

Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.

“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”

An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.

The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.

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

A diagnosis of atopic dermatitis in individuals ages 15 years or older, compared with controls without atopic dermatitis, was nearly twice as likely to be associated with autoimmune disease, in a case control study derived from Swedish national health care registry data.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is known to be associated with other atopic conditions, and there is increasing evidence it is associated with some nonatopic conditions, including some cancers, cardiovascular disease, and neuropsychiatric disorders, according to Lina U. Ivert, MD, of the dermatology and venereology unit at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and coauthors. There are also some data indicating that autoimmune diseases, particularly those involving the skin and gastrointestinal tract, are more common in people with AD.

The aim of their study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, was to investigate a wide spectrum of autoimmune diseases for associations with AD in a large-scale, population-based study using Swedish registers. Findings could lead to better monitoring of comorbidities and deeper understanding of disease burden and AD pathophysiology, they noted.
 

Large-scale study

With data from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare’s National Patient Register on inpatient diagnoses since 1964 and specialist outpatient visits since 2001, the investigators included all patients aged 15 years and older with AD diagnoses (104,832) and matched them with controls from the general population (1,022,435). The authors noted that the large number of people included in the analysis allowed for robust estimates, and underscored that 80% of the AD patients included had received their diagnosis in a dermatology department, which reduces the risk of misclassification.

Association with autoimmune disease

The investigators found an association between AD and autoimmune disease, with an adjusted odds ratio) of 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.01). The association was present with several organ systems, particularly the skin and gastrointestinal tract, and with connective tissue diseases. The strongest associations with autoimmune skin diseases were found for dermatitis herpetiformis (aOR, 9.76; 95% CI, 8.10-11.8), alopecia areata (aOR, 5.11; 95% CI, 4.75-5.49), and chronic urticaria (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 4.48-5.19).

AD was associated with gastrointestinal diseases, including celiac disease (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.84-2.09), Crohn disease (aOR 1.83; CI, 1.71-1.96), and ulcerative colitis (aOR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.49-1.68).

Connective tissue diseases significantly associated with AD included systemic lupus erythematosus (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.90), ankylosing spondylitis (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.66), and RA (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI,1.34-1.54]). Hematologic or hepatic autoimmune disease associations with AD were not observed.
 

Stronger association with multiple diseases

The association between AD and two or more autoimmune diseases was significantly stronger than the association between AD and having one autoimmune disease. For example, the OR for AD among people with three to five autoimmune diseases was 3.33 (95% CI, 2.86-3.87), and was stronger in men (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.92-5.37) than in women (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.63-3.74).
 

Sex differences

In the study overall, the association with AD and autoimmune diseases was stronger in men (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.10-2.25), compared with women (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.85-1.93), but this “sex difference was only statistically significant between AD and RA and between AD and Celiac disease,” they noted.

Associations between AD and dermatomyositis, systemic scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s disease, Graves disease, multiple sclerosis, and polymyalgia rheumatica were found only in women. Dr. Ivert and coauthors observed that “women are in general more likely to develop autoimmune diseases, and 80% of patients with autoimmune diseases are women.”
 

Provocative questions

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said, “At a high level, it is important for clinicians to recognize that atopic dermatitis is a systemic immune-mediated disease. AD is associated with higher rates of comorbid autoimmune disease, similar to psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases.”

“At this point, there is nothing immediately actionable about these results,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who was not an author of this study. “That said, in my mind, they raise some provocative questions: What is the difference between AD in adults who do versus those who do not get comorbid autoimmune disease? Does AD then present differently? Does it respond to the same therapies? These will have to be the subject of future research.”

The study was funded by the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association Research Foundation, Hudfonden (the Welander-Finsen Foundation), and the Swedish Society for Dermatology and Venereology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ivert LU et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19624.

A diagnosis of atopic dermatitis in individuals ages 15 years or older, compared with controls without atopic dermatitis, was nearly twice as likely to be associated with autoimmune disease, in a case control study derived from Swedish national health care registry data.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is known to be associated with other atopic conditions, and there is increasing evidence it is associated with some nonatopic conditions, including some cancers, cardiovascular disease, and neuropsychiatric disorders, according to Lina U. Ivert, MD, of the dermatology and venereology unit at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and coauthors. There are also some data indicating that autoimmune diseases, particularly those involving the skin and gastrointestinal tract, are more common in people with AD.

The aim of their study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, was to investigate a wide spectrum of autoimmune diseases for associations with AD in a large-scale, population-based study using Swedish registers. Findings could lead to better monitoring of comorbidities and deeper understanding of disease burden and AD pathophysiology, they noted.
 

Large-scale study

With data from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare’s National Patient Register on inpatient diagnoses since 1964 and specialist outpatient visits since 2001, the investigators included all patients aged 15 years and older with AD diagnoses (104,832) and matched them with controls from the general population (1,022,435). The authors noted that the large number of people included in the analysis allowed for robust estimates, and underscored that 80% of the AD patients included had received their diagnosis in a dermatology department, which reduces the risk of misclassification.

Association with autoimmune disease

The investigators found an association between AD and autoimmune disease, with an adjusted odds ratio) of 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.01). The association was present with several organ systems, particularly the skin and gastrointestinal tract, and with connective tissue diseases. The strongest associations with autoimmune skin diseases were found for dermatitis herpetiformis (aOR, 9.76; 95% CI, 8.10-11.8), alopecia areata (aOR, 5.11; 95% CI, 4.75-5.49), and chronic urticaria (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 4.48-5.19).

AD was associated with gastrointestinal diseases, including celiac disease (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.84-2.09), Crohn disease (aOR 1.83; CI, 1.71-1.96), and ulcerative colitis (aOR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.49-1.68).

Connective tissue diseases significantly associated with AD included systemic lupus erythematosus (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.90), ankylosing spondylitis (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.66), and RA (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI,1.34-1.54]). Hematologic or hepatic autoimmune disease associations with AD were not observed.
 

Stronger association with multiple diseases

The association between AD and two or more autoimmune diseases was significantly stronger than the association between AD and having one autoimmune disease. For example, the OR for AD among people with three to five autoimmune diseases was 3.33 (95% CI, 2.86-3.87), and was stronger in men (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.92-5.37) than in women (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.63-3.74).
 

Sex differences

In the study overall, the association with AD and autoimmune diseases was stronger in men (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.10-2.25), compared with women (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.85-1.93), but this “sex difference was only statistically significant between AD and RA and between AD and Celiac disease,” they noted.

Associations between AD and dermatomyositis, systemic scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s disease, Graves disease, multiple sclerosis, and polymyalgia rheumatica were found only in women. Dr. Ivert and coauthors observed that “women are in general more likely to develop autoimmune diseases, and 80% of patients with autoimmune diseases are women.”
 

Provocative questions

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said, “At a high level, it is important for clinicians to recognize that atopic dermatitis is a systemic immune-mediated disease. AD is associated with higher rates of comorbid autoimmune disease, similar to psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases.”

“At this point, there is nothing immediately actionable about these results,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who was not an author of this study. “That said, in my mind, they raise some provocative questions: What is the difference between AD in adults who do versus those who do not get comorbid autoimmune disease? Does AD then present differently? Does it respond to the same therapies? These will have to be the subject of future research.”

The study was funded by the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association Research Foundation, Hudfonden (the Welander-Finsen Foundation), and the Swedish Society for Dermatology and Venereology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ivert LU et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19624.

A diagnosis of atopic dermatitis in individuals ages 15 years or older, compared with controls without atopic dermatitis, was nearly twice as likely to be associated with autoimmune disease, in a case control study derived from Swedish national health care registry data.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is known to be associated with other atopic conditions, and there is increasing evidence it is associated with some nonatopic conditions, including some cancers, cardiovascular disease, and neuropsychiatric disorders, according to Lina U. Ivert, MD, of the dermatology and venereology unit at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and coauthors. There are also some data indicating that autoimmune diseases, particularly those involving the skin and gastrointestinal tract, are more common in people with AD.

The aim of their study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, was to investigate a wide spectrum of autoimmune diseases for associations with AD in a large-scale, population-based study using Swedish registers. Findings could lead to better monitoring of comorbidities and deeper understanding of disease burden and AD pathophysiology, they noted.
 

Large-scale study

With data from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare’s National Patient Register on inpatient diagnoses since 1964 and specialist outpatient visits since 2001, the investigators included all patients aged 15 years and older with AD diagnoses (104,832) and matched them with controls from the general population (1,022,435). The authors noted that the large number of people included in the analysis allowed for robust estimates, and underscored that 80% of the AD patients included had received their diagnosis in a dermatology department, which reduces the risk of misclassification.

Association with autoimmune disease

The investigators found an association between AD and autoimmune disease, with an adjusted odds ratio) of 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.01). The association was present with several organ systems, particularly the skin and gastrointestinal tract, and with connective tissue diseases. The strongest associations with autoimmune skin diseases were found for dermatitis herpetiformis (aOR, 9.76; 95% CI, 8.10-11.8), alopecia areata (aOR, 5.11; 95% CI, 4.75-5.49), and chronic urticaria (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 4.48-5.19).

AD was associated with gastrointestinal diseases, including celiac disease (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.84-2.09), Crohn disease (aOR 1.83; CI, 1.71-1.96), and ulcerative colitis (aOR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.49-1.68).

Connective tissue diseases significantly associated with AD included systemic lupus erythematosus (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.90), ankylosing spondylitis (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.66), and RA (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI,1.34-1.54]). Hematologic or hepatic autoimmune disease associations with AD were not observed.
 

Stronger association with multiple diseases

The association between AD and two or more autoimmune diseases was significantly stronger than the association between AD and having one autoimmune disease. For example, the OR for AD among people with three to five autoimmune diseases was 3.33 (95% CI, 2.86-3.87), and was stronger in men (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.92-5.37) than in women (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.63-3.74).
 

Sex differences

In the study overall, the association with AD and autoimmune diseases was stronger in men (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.10-2.25), compared with women (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.85-1.93), but this “sex difference was only statistically significant between AD and RA and between AD and Celiac disease,” they noted.

Associations between AD and dermatomyositis, systemic scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s disease, Graves disease, multiple sclerosis, and polymyalgia rheumatica were found only in women. Dr. Ivert and coauthors observed that “women are in general more likely to develop autoimmune diseases, and 80% of patients with autoimmune diseases are women.”
 

Provocative questions

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, said, “At a high level, it is important for clinicians to recognize that atopic dermatitis is a systemic immune-mediated disease. AD is associated with higher rates of comorbid autoimmune disease, similar to psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases.”

“At this point, there is nothing immediately actionable about these results,” noted Dr. Silverberg, who was not an author of this study. “That said, in my mind, they raise some provocative questions: What is the difference between AD in adults who do versus those who do not get comorbid autoimmune disease? Does AD then present differently? Does it respond to the same therapies? These will have to be the subject of future research.”

The study was funded by the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association Research Foundation, Hudfonden (the Welander-Finsen Foundation), and the Swedish Society for Dermatology and Venereology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ivert LU et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19624.

Psychiatry has made significant scientific advances over the past century. However, it is still saddled with archaic terms, with pejorative connotations, disguised as official medical diagnoses. It is time to “cancel” those terms and replace them with ones that are neutral and have not accumulated baggage.

This process of “creative destruction” of psychiatric terminology is long overdue. It is frankly disturbing that the psychiatric jargon used around the time that the American Psychiatric Association was established 175 years ago (1844) is now considered insults and epithets. We no longer work in “lunatic asylums for the insane,” and our patients with intellectual disabilities are no longer classified as “morons,” “idiots,” or “imbeciles.” Such “diagnoses” have certainly contributed to the stigma of psychiatric brain disorders. Even the noble word “asylum” has acquired a negative valence because in the past it referred to hospitals that housed persons with serious mental illness.

Thankfully, some of the outrageous terms fabricated during the condemnable and dark era of slavery 2 centuries ago were never adopted by organized psychiatry. The absurd diagnosis of “negritude,” whose tenet was that black skin is a disease curable by whitening the skin, was “invented” by none other than Benjamin Rush, the Father of Psychiatry, whose conflicted soul was depicted by concomitantly owning a slave and positioning himself as an ardent abolitionist!

Terms that need to be replaced

Fast-forward to the modern era and consider the following:

Borderline personality disorder. It is truly tragic how this confusing and non-scientific term is used as an official diagnosis for a set of seriously ill persons. It is loaded with obloquy, indignity, and derision that completely ignore the tumult, self-harm, and disability with which patients who carry this label are burdened throughout their lives, despite being intelligent. This is a serious brain disorder that has been shown to be highly genetic and is characterized by many well-established structural brain abnormalities that have been documented in neuroimaging studies.^1,2 Borderline personality should not be classified as a personality disorder but as an illness with multiple signs and symptoms, including mood lability, anger, impulsivity, self-cutting, suicidal urges, feelings of abandonment, and micro-psychotic episodes. A more clinically accurate term should be coined very soon to replace borderline personality, which should be discarded to the trash heap of obsolete psychiatric terms, and no longer inflicted on patients.

Neurosis. What is the justification for continuing to use the term “neurotic” for a person who has an anxiety disorder? Is it used because Jung and Freud propagated the term “neurosis” (after it was coined by William Cullen in 1769)? Neurosis has degenerated from a psychiatric diagnosis to a scornful snub that must never be used for any patient.

Schizophrenia. This diagnosis, coined by Eugen Bleuler to replace the narrow and pessimistic “dementia praecox” proposed by Emil Kraepelin in the 1920s, initially seemed to be a neutral description of a thought disorder (split associations, not split personality). Bleuler was perceptive enough to call his book Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias, which is consistent with the modern scientific research that confirms schizophrenia is a very heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of genetic and environmental biotypes with a similar phenotype but a wide range of severity, treatment response, and functional outcomes. However, in subsequent decades, schizophrenia became one of the most demeaning labels in psychiatry, casting a shadow of hopelessness and disability on the people who have this serious neurologic condition with many psychiatric symptoms. The term that should replace schizophrenia should be no more degrading than stroke, multiple sclerosis, or myocardial infarction.

Continue to: Over the past 15 years...

Over the past 15 years, an expanding group of schizophrenia experts have agreed that this term must be changed to one that reflects the core features of this syndrome, and have proposed terms such as “salience syndrome,” “psychosis-spectrum,” and “reality distortion and cognitive impairment disorder.”³ In fact, several countries have already adopted a new official diagnosis for schizophrenia.⁴ Japan now uses the term “integration disorder,” which has significantly reduced the stigma of this brain disorder.⁵ South Korea changed the name to “attunement disorder.” Hong Kong and Taiwan now use “dysfunction of thought and perception.” Some researchers recommend calling schizophrenia “Bleuler’s syndrome,” a neutral eponymous designation.

One of the most irritating things about the term schizophrenia is the widespread misconception that it means “split personality.” This prompts some sports announcers to call a football team “schizophrenic” if they play well in the first half and badly in the second. The stock market is labeled “schizophrenic” if it goes up one day and way down on the next. No other medical term is misused by the media as often as the term schizophrenia.

Narcissistic personality disorder. The origin of this diagnostic category is the concept of “malignant narcissism” coined by Erich Fromm in 1964, which he designated as “the quintessence of evil.” I strongly object to implying that evil is part of any psychiatric diagnosis. Numerous studies have found structural brain abnormalities (in both gray and white matter) in patients diagnosed with psychopathic traits.⁶ Later, malignant narcissism was reframed as narcissistic personality disorder in 1971 by Herbert Rosenfeld. Although malignant narcissism was never accepted by either the DSM or the International Classification of Diseases, narcissistic personality disorder has been included in the DSM for the past few decades. This diagnosis reeks of disparagement and negativity. Persons with narcissistic personality disorder have been shown to have pathological brain changes in resting-state functional connectivity,⁷ weakened frontostriatal white matter connectivity,^8,9 and a reduced frontal thickness and cortical volume.¹⁰ A distorted sense of self and others is a socially disabling disorder that should generate empathy, not disdain. Narcissistic personality disorder should be replaced by a term that accurately describes its behavioral pathology, and should not incorporate Greek mythology.

Mania. This is another unfortunate diagnosis that immediately evokes a negative image of patients who suffer from a potentially lethal brain disorder. It was fortunate that Robert Kendall coined the term “bipolar disorder” to replace “manic-depressive illness,” but mania is still being used within bipolar disorder as a prominent clinical phase. While depression accurately describes the mood in the other phase of this disorder, the term mania evokes wild, irrational behavior. Because the actual mood symptom cluster in mania is either elation/grandiosity or irritability/anger, why not replace mania with “elation/irritability phase of bipolar disorder”? It is more descriptive of the patient’s mood and is less pejorative.

Nomenclature is vital, and words do matter, especially when used as a diagnostic medical term. Psychiatry must “cancel” its archaic names, which are infused with negative connotations. Reinventing the psychiatric lexicon is a necessary act of renewal in a specialty where a poorly worded diagnostic label can morph into the equivalent of a “scarlet letter.” Think of other contemptuous terms, such as refrigerator mother, male hysteria, moral insanity, toxic parents, inadequate personality disorder, neurasthenia, or catastrophic schizophrenia.

General medicine regularly discards many of its obsolete terms.¹¹ These include terms such as ablepsy, ague, camp fever, bloody flux, chlorosis, catarrh, consumption, dropsy, French pox, phthisis, milk sickness, and scrumpox.

Think also of how society abandoned the antediluvian names of boys and girls. Few parents these days would name their son Ackley, Allard, Arundel, Awarnach, Beldon, Durward, Grower, Kenlm, or Legolan, or name their daughter Afton, Agrona, Arantxa, Corliss, Demelza, Eartha, Maida, Obsession, Radella, or Sacrifice.In summary, a necessary part of psychiatry’s progress is shedding obsolete terminology, even if it means slaughtering some widely used “traditional” vocabulary. It is a necessary act of renewal, and the image of psychiatry will be burnished by it.

Psychiatry has made significant scientific advances over the past century. However, it is still saddled with archaic terms, with pejorative connotations, disguised as official medical diagnoses. It is time to “cancel” those terms and replace them with ones that are neutral and have not accumulated baggage.

This process of “creative destruction” of psychiatric terminology is long overdue. It is frankly disturbing that the psychiatric jargon used around the time that the American Psychiatric Association was established 175 years ago (1844) is now considered insults and epithets. We no longer work in “lunatic asylums for the insane,” and our patients with intellectual disabilities are no longer classified as “morons,” “idiots,” or “imbeciles.” Such “diagnoses” have certainly contributed to the stigma of psychiatric brain disorders. Even the noble word “asylum” has acquired a negative valence because in the past it referred to hospitals that housed persons with serious mental illness.

Thankfully, some of the outrageous terms fabricated during the condemnable and dark era of slavery 2 centuries ago were never adopted by organized psychiatry. The absurd diagnosis of “negritude,” whose tenet was that black skin is a disease curable by whitening the skin, was “invented” by none other than Benjamin Rush, the Father of Psychiatry, whose conflicted soul was depicted by concomitantly owning a slave and positioning himself as an ardent abolitionist!

Terms that need to be replaced

Fast-forward to the modern era and consider the following:

Borderline personality disorder. It is truly tragic how this confusing and non-scientific term is used as an official diagnosis for a set of seriously ill persons. It is loaded with obloquy, indignity, and derision that completely ignore the tumult, self-harm, and disability with which patients who carry this label are burdened throughout their lives, despite being intelligent. This is a serious brain disorder that has been shown to be highly genetic and is characterized by many well-established structural brain abnormalities that have been documented in neuroimaging studies.^1,2 Borderline personality should not be classified as a personality disorder but as an illness with multiple signs and symptoms, including mood lability, anger, impulsivity, self-cutting, suicidal urges, feelings of abandonment, and micro-psychotic episodes. A more clinically accurate term should be coined very soon to replace borderline personality, which should be discarded to the trash heap of obsolete psychiatric terms, and no longer inflicted on patients.

Neurosis. What is the justification for continuing to use the term “neurotic” for a person who has an anxiety disorder? Is it used because Jung and Freud propagated the term “neurosis” (after it was coined by William Cullen in 1769)? Neurosis has degenerated from a psychiatric diagnosis to a scornful snub that must never be used for any patient.

Schizophrenia. This diagnosis, coined by Eugen Bleuler to replace the narrow and pessimistic “dementia praecox” proposed by Emil Kraepelin in the 1920s, initially seemed to be a neutral description of a thought disorder (split associations, not split personality). Bleuler was perceptive enough to call his book Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias, which is consistent with the modern scientific research that confirms schizophrenia is a very heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of genetic and environmental biotypes with a similar phenotype but a wide range of severity, treatment response, and functional outcomes. However, in subsequent decades, schizophrenia became one of the most demeaning labels in psychiatry, casting a shadow of hopelessness and disability on the people who have this serious neurologic condition with many psychiatric symptoms. The term that should replace schizophrenia should be no more degrading than stroke, multiple sclerosis, or myocardial infarction.

Continue to: Over the past 15 years...

Over the past 15 years, an expanding group of schizophrenia experts have agreed that this term must be changed to one that reflects the core features of this syndrome, and have proposed terms such as “salience syndrome,” “psychosis-spectrum,” and “reality distortion and cognitive impairment disorder.”³ In fact, several countries have already adopted a new official diagnosis for schizophrenia.⁴ Japan now uses the term “integration disorder,” which has significantly reduced the stigma of this brain disorder.⁵ South Korea changed the name to “attunement disorder.” Hong Kong and Taiwan now use “dysfunction of thought and perception.” Some researchers recommend calling schizophrenia “Bleuler’s syndrome,” a neutral eponymous designation.

One of the most irritating things about the term schizophrenia is the widespread misconception that it means “split personality.” This prompts some sports announcers to call a football team “schizophrenic” if they play well in the first half and badly in the second. The stock market is labeled “schizophrenic” if it goes up one day and way down on the next. No other medical term is misused by the media as often as the term schizophrenia.

Narcissistic personality disorder. The origin of this diagnostic category is the concept of “malignant narcissism” coined by Erich Fromm in 1964, which he designated as “the quintessence of evil.” I strongly object to implying that evil is part of any psychiatric diagnosis. Numerous studies have found structural brain abnormalities (in both gray and white matter) in patients diagnosed with psychopathic traits.⁶ Later, malignant narcissism was reframed as narcissistic personality disorder in 1971 by Herbert Rosenfeld. Although malignant narcissism was never accepted by either the DSM or the International Classification of Diseases, narcissistic personality disorder has been included in the DSM for the past few decades. This diagnosis reeks of disparagement and negativity. Persons with narcissistic personality disorder have been shown to have pathological brain changes in resting-state functional connectivity,⁷ weakened frontostriatal white matter connectivity,^8,9 and a reduced frontal thickness and cortical volume.¹⁰ A distorted sense of self and others is a socially disabling disorder that should generate empathy, not disdain. Narcissistic personality disorder should be replaced by a term that accurately describes its behavioral pathology, and should not incorporate Greek mythology.

Mania. This is another unfortunate diagnosis that immediately evokes a negative image of patients who suffer from a potentially lethal brain disorder. It was fortunate that Robert Kendall coined the term “bipolar disorder” to replace “manic-depressive illness,” but mania is still being used within bipolar disorder as a prominent clinical phase. While depression accurately describes the mood in the other phase of this disorder, the term mania evokes wild, irrational behavior. Because the actual mood symptom cluster in mania is either elation/grandiosity or irritability/anger, why not replace mania with “elation/irritability phase of bipolar disorder”? It is more descriptive of the patient’s mood and is less pejorative.

Nomenclature is vital, and words do matter, especially when used as a diagnostic medical term. Psychiatry must “cancel” its archaic names, which are infused with negative connotations. Reinventing the psychiatric lexicon is a necessary act of renewal in a specialty where a poorly worded diagnostic label can morph into the equivalent of a “scarlet letter.” Think of other contemptuous terms, such as refrigerator mother, male hysteria, moral insanity, toxic parents, inadequate personality disorder, neurasthenia, or catastrophic schizophrenia.

General medicine regularly discards many of its obsolete terms.¹¹ These include terms such as ablepsy, ague, camp fever, bloody flux, chlorosis, catarrh, consumption, dropsy, French pox, phthisis, milk sickness, and scrumpox.

Think also of how society abandoned the antediluvian names of boys and girls. Few parents these days would name their son Ackley, Allard, Arundel, Awarnach, Beldon, Durward, Grower, Kenlm, or Legolan, or name their daughter Afton, Agrona, Arantxa, Corliss, Demelza, Eartha, Maida, Obsession, Radella, or Sacrifice.In summary, a necessary part of psychiatry’s progress is shedding obsolete terminology, even if it means slaughtering some widely used “traditional” vocabulary. It is a necessary act of renewal, and the image of psychiatry will be burnished by it.

Psychiatry has made significant scientific advances over the past century. However, it is still saddled with archaic terms, with pejorative connotations, disguised as official medical diagnoses. It is time to “cancel” those terms and replace them with ones that are neutral and have not accumulated baggage.

This process of “creative destruction” of psychiatric terminology is long overdue. It is frankly disturbing that the psychiatric jargon used around the time that the American Psychiatric Association was established 175 years ago (1844) is now considered insults and epithets. We no longer work in “lunatic asylums for the insane,” and our patients with intellectual disabilities are no longer classified as “morons,” “idiots,” or “imbeciles.” Such “diagnoses” have certainly contributed to the stigma of psychiatric brain disorders. Even the noble word “asylum” has acquired a negative valence because in the past it referred to hospitals that housed persons with serious mental illness.

Thankfully, some of the outrageous terms fabricated during the condemnable and dark era of slavery 2 centuries ago were never adopted by organized psychiatry. The absurd diagnosis of “negritude,” whose tenet was that black skin is a disease curable by whitening the skin, was “invented” by none other than Benjamin Rush, the Father of Psychiatry, whose conflicted soul was depicted by concomitantly owning a slave and positioning himself as an ardent abolitionist!

Terms that need to be replaced

Fast-forward to the modern era and consider the following:

Borderline personality disorder. It is truly tragic how this confusing and non-scientific term is used as an official diagnosis for a set of seriously ill persons. It is loaded with obloquy, indignity, and derision that completely ignore the tumult, self-harm, and disability with which patients who carry this label are burdened throughout their lives, despite being intelligent. This is a serious brain disorder that has been shown to be highly genetic and is characterized by many well-established structural brain abnormalities that have been documented in neuroimaging studies.^1,2 Borderline personality should not be classified as a personality disorder but as an illness with multiple signs and symptoms, including mood lability, anger, impulsivity, self-cutting, suicidal urges, feelings of abandonment, and micro-psychotic episodes. A more clinically accurate term should be coined very soon to replace borderline personality, which should be discarded to the trash heap of obsolete psychiatric terms, and no longer inflicted on patients.

Neurosis. What is the justification for continuing to use the term “neurotic” for a person who has an anxiety disorder? Is it used because Jung and Freud propagated the term “neurosis” (after it was coined by William Cullen in 1769)? Neurosis has degenerated from a psychiatric diagnosis to a scornful snub that must never be used for any patient.

Schizophrenia. This diagnosis, coined by Eugen Bleuler to replace the narrow and pessimistic “dementia praecox” proposed by Emil Kraepelin in the 1920s, initially seemed to be a neutral description of a thought disorder (split associations, not split personality). Bleuler was perceptive enough to call his book Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias, which is consistent with the modern scientific research that confirms schizophrenia is a very heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of genetic and environmental biotypes with a similar phenotype but a wide range of severity, treatment response, and functional outcomes. However, in subsequent decades, schizophrenia became one of the most demeaning labels in psychiatry, casting a shadow of hopelessness and disability on the people who have this serious neurologic condition with many psychiatric symptoms. The term that should replace schizophrenia should be no more degrading than stroke, multiple sclerosis, or myocardial infarction.

Continue to: Over the past 15 years...

Over the past 15 years, an expanding group of schizophrenia experts have agreed that this term must be changed to one that reflects the core features of this syndrome, and have proposed terms such as “salience syndrome,” “psychosis-spectrum,” and “reality distortion and cognitive impairment disorder.”³ In fact, several countries have already adopted a new official diagnosis for schizophrenia.⁴ Japan now uses the term “integration disorder,” which has significantly reduced the stigma of this brain disorder.⁵ South Korea changed the name to “attunement disorder.” Hong Kong and Taiwan now use “dysfunction of thought and perception.” Some researchers recommend calling schizophrenia “Bleuler’s syndrome,” a neutral eponymous designation.

One of the most irritating things about the term schizophrenia is the widespread misconception that it means “split personality.” This prompts some sports announcers to call a football team “schizophrenic” if they play well in the first half and badly in the second. The stock market is labeled “schizophrenic” if it goes up one day and way down on the next. No other medical term is misused by the media as often as the term schizophrenia.

Narcissistic personality disorder. The origin of this diagnostic category is the concept of “malignant narcissism” coined by Erich Fromm in 1964, which he designated as “the quintessence of evil.” I strongly object to implying that evil is part of any psychiatric diagnosis. Numerous studies have found structural brain abnormalities (in both gray and white matter) in patients diagnosed with psychopathic traits.⁶ Later, malignant narcissism was reframed as narcissistic personality disorder in 1971 by Herbert Rosenfeld. Although malignant narcissism was never accepted by either the DSM or the International Classification of Diseases, narcissistic personality disorder has been included in the DSM for the past few decades. This diagnosis reeks of disparagement and negativity. Persons with narcissistic personality disorder have been shown to have pathological brain changes in resting-state functional connectivity,⁷ weakened frontostriatal white matter connectivity,^8,9 and a reduced frontal thickness and cortical volume.¹⁰ A distorted sense of self and others is a socially disabling disorder that should generate empathy, not disdain. Narcissistic personality disorder should be replaced by a term that accurately describes its behavioral pathology, and should not incorporate Greek mythology.

Mania. This is another unfortunate diagnosis that immediately evokes a negative image of patients who suffer from a potentially lethal brain disorder. It was fortunate that Robert Kendall coined the term “bipolar disorder” to replace “manic-depressive illness,” but mania is still being used within bipolar disorder as a prominent clinical phase. While depression accurately describes the mood in the other phase of this disorder, the term mania evokes wild, irrational behavior. Because the actual mood symptom cluster in mania is either elation/grandiosity or irritability/anger, why not replace mania with “elation/irritability phase of bipolar disorder”? It is more descriptive of the patient’s mood and is less pejorative.

Nomenclature is vital, and words do matter, especially when used as a diagnostic medical term. Psychiatry must “cancel” its archaic names, which are infused with negative connotations. Reinventing the psychiatric lexicon is a necessary act of renewal in a specialty where a poorly worded diagnostic label can morph into the equivalent of a “scarlet letter.” Think of other contemptuous terms, such as refrigerator mother, male hysteria, moral insanity, toxic parents, inadequate personality disorder, neurasthenia, or catastrophic schizophrenia.

General medicine regularly discards many of its obsolete terms.¹¹ These include terms such as ablepsy, ague, camp fever, bloody flux, chlorosis, catarrh, consumption, dropsy, French pox, phthisis, milk sickness, and scrumpox.

Think also of how society abandoned the antediluvian names of boys and girls. Few parents these days would name their son Ackley, Allard, Arundel, Awarnach, Beldon, Durward, Grower, Kenlm, or Legolan, or name their daughter Afton, Agrona, Arantxa, Corliss, Demelza, Eartha, Maida, Obsession, Radella, or Sacrifice.In summary, a necessary part of psychiatry’s progress is shedding obsolete terminology, even if it means slaughtering some widely used “traditional” vocabulary. It is a necessary act of renewal, and the image of psychiatry will be burnished by it.

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is the direct and deliberate destruction of body tissue without intent to die.¹ Cutting is the most common form of NSSI; other methods include burning, scraping/scratching skin, interfering with wound healing, hitting, biting, self-poisoning, and purposeful non-recreational risk-taking.^2,3 Although most individuals who engage in NSSI have no intention to die, suicidal ideation often precedes the initial engagement in NSSI,⁴ and a history of repeated NSSI is a risk factor for suicide attempts.⁴ In a systematic review, Cipriano et al⁵ found that NSSI is most common among adolescents and young adults, with onset most often occurring between age 12 and 14. Prevalence rates of NSSI are 7.5% to 46.5% in adolescents, 38.9% in university students, and 4% to 23% in adults.⁵

Although no medications have consistently shown efficacy for treating NSSI, research suggests cognitive-behavioral therapy and dialectical behavioral therapy may be helpful. Unfortunately, these therapies are often not available during a patient’s acute crisis.³ Because a thorough review of the treatment options for NSSI is beyond the scope of this article, here I offer tips for caring for adults who engage in NSSI. Although there are slight differences in managing NSSI in adolescents (eg, the need for parental monitoring and reducing risk of contagion), these tips also can be used with adolescents.

Explore why your patient engages in NSSI. Identifying the reasons for our patients’ NSSI makes it easier for us to empathize with them, and puts us in a better position to treat them.³ The most widely reported reasons for NSSI are to cope with distress/anguish and to exert influence on others.⁶ In a systematic review, self-reported reasons for NSSI also included punishing oneself for having positive feelings, punishing others, managing dissociation (ie, active pursuit of numbness), sensation-seeking (ie, to generate excitement or exhilaration), averting suicide (ie, warding off suicidal thoughts), maintaining or exploring boundaries, and expressing or coping with sexuality.⁶ When exploring your patient’s reasons for NSSI, determine if the behavior is based on a true suicidal desire. Because NSSI is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and other disorders, also assess for any underlying psychiatric conditions, and treat them accordingly because mental health treatment has been empirically proven to reduce suicide rates.^2,7

Conduct a suicide risk assessment. Regardless of your patient’s reasons for NSSI, an individualized and thorough suicide risk assessment is needed to identify modifiable, non-modifiable, and protective factors that you can consider when developing a treatment plan. Key components of such assessments include (but are not limited to) current and past urges to engage in NSSI, past NSSI and suicide attempts, access to lethal means, and ability to follow a safety plan.

Avoid exaggerating the danger and importance of NSSI. Treating a patient who engages in NSSI who is motivated by a true suicidal desire and/or has underlying psychiatric conditions may prompt you to consider hospitalization and/or prescribing psychotropic medications.³ However, because most NSSI is not due to a true suicidal desire, overreacting may unwittingly communicate to the patient that self-harm is a way to sustain someone’s attention, thus reinforcing that such behaviors can help them obtain support when distressed.³ Further, overreacting will not help patients comprehend and better cope with the reasons for their self-injurious behaviors.³

Restrict your patient’s access to lethal means. Restricting access to items such as firearms, sharp objects (eg, knives and razors), medications, implements for suffocation/hanging (eg, belts), and household poisons has been empirically proven to reduce suicide rates.⁷ Such restrictions can also potentially reduce the likelihood of NSSI. It is important to repeatedly ask your patient if they have acquired any new means, and to listen for information that indicates they possess means that they did not previously disclose. It is also important to ask if the patient has moved existing means to an area for easier access to use them.

Create a safety plan. Written safety plans can include a list of warning signs (thoughts, images, mood, situations, behaviors) that a crisis is developing, coping strategies (eg, going for a walk, exercising, engaging in a hobby, socializing with friends or family), and contact information for 24-hour crisis hotlines, emergency rooms, and mental health clinicians.⁸ The Suicide Prevention Resource Center offers a safety plan template at www.sprc.org/sites/default/files/resource-program/Brown_StanleySafetyPlanTemplate.pdf.⁸ 

Offer empathy. Individuals who engage in NSSI are making a desperate call for help that requires concerned and supportive responses.³ One such response is to provide empathy. In addition to expressing concern and compassion, empathy involves recognizing and sharing your patients’ emotions. Empathy also can help you avoid any resistance during the visit by considering what is appropriate to say to patients.

Manage countertransference. You may have negative feelings toward a patient who engages in NSSI, or may even view self-harm as a willful act designed to gain attention. However, such feelings could lead you to minimize or dismiss the importance of your patient’s behaviors, which may push them to engage in more dangerous self-harm.³ Acknowledging any feelings of derision for a patient who engages in NSSI and understanding why you have these emotions will help you better understand your patient, improve rapport, and ensure that you are not impeding the delivery of appropriate clinical care.

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is the direct and deliberate destruction of body tissue without intent to die.¹ Cutting is the most common form of NSSI; other methods include burning, scraping/scratching skin, interfering with wound healing, hitting, biting, self-poisoning, and purposeful non-recreational risk-taking.^2,3 Although most individuals who engage in NSSI have no intention to die, suicidal ideation often precedes the initial engagement in NSSI,⁴ and a history of repeated NSSI is a risk factor for suicide attempts.⁴ In a systematic review, Cipriano et al⁵ found that NSSI is most common among adolescents and young adults, with onset most often occurring between age 12 and 14. Prevalence rates of NSSI are 7.5% to 46.5% in adolescents, 38.9% in university students, and 4% to 23% in adults.⁵

Although no medications have consistently shown efficacy for treating NSSI, research suggests cognitive-behavioral therapy and dialectical behavioral therapy may be helpful. Unfortunately, these therapies are often not available during a patient’s acute crisis.³ Because a thorough review of the treatment options for NSSI is beyond the scope of this article, here I offer tips for caring for adults who engage in NSSI. Although there are slight differences in managing NSSI in adolescents (eg, the need for parental monitoring and reducing risk of contagion), these tips also can be used with adolescents.

Explore why your patient engages in NSSI. Identifying the reasons for our patients’ NSSI makes it easier for us to empathize with them, and puts us in a better position to treat them.³ The most widely reported reasons for NSSI are to cope with distress/anguish and to exert influence on others.⁶ In a systematic review, self-reported reasons for NSSI also included punishing oneself for having positive feelings, punishing others, managing dissociation (ie, active pursuit of numbness), sensation-seeking (ie, to generate excitement or exhilaration), averting suicide (ie, warding off suicidal thoughts), maintaining or exploring boundaries, and expressing or coping with sexuality.⁶ When exploring your patient’s reasons for NSSI, determine if the behavior is based on a true suicidal desire. Because NSSI is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and other disorders, also assess for any underlying psychiatric conditions, and treat them accordingly because mental health treatment has been empirically proven to reduce suicide rates.^2,7

Conduct a suicide risk assessment. Regardless of your patient’s reasons for NSSI, an individualized and thorough suicide risk assessment is needed to identify modifiable, non-modifiable, and protective factors that you can consider when developing a treatment plan. Key components of such assessments include (but are not limited to) current and past urges to engage in NSSI, past NSSI and suicide attempts, access to lethal means, and ability to follow a safety plan.

Avoid exaggerating the danger and importance of NSSI. Treating a patient who engages in NSSI who is motivated by a true suicidal desire and/or has underlying psychiatric conditions may prompt you to consider hospitalization and/or prescribing psychotropic medications.³ However, because most NSSI is not due to a true suicidal desire, overreacting may unwittingly communicate to the patient that self-harm is a way to sustain someone’s attention, thus reinforcing that such behaviors can help them obtain support when distressed.³ Further, overreacting will not help patients comprehend and better cope with the reasons for their self-injurious behaviors.³

Restrict your patient’s access to lethal means. Restricting access to items such as firearms, sharp objects (eg, knives and razors), medications, implements for suffocation/hanging (eg, belts), and household poisons has been empirically proven to reduce suicide rates.⁷ Such restrictions can also potentially reduce the likelihood of NSSI. It is important to repeatedly ask your patient if they have acquired any new means, and to listen for information that indicates they possess means that they did not previously disclose. It is also important to ask if the patient has moved existing means to an area for easier access to use them.

Create a safety plan. Written safety plans can include a list of warning signs (thoughts, images, mood, situations, behaviors) that a crisis is developing, coping strategies (eg, going for a walk, exercising, engaging in a hobby, socializing with friends or family), and contact information for 24-hour crisis hotlines, emergency rooms, and mental health clinicians.⁸ The Suicide Prevention Resource Center offers a safety plan template at www.sprc.org/sites/default/files/resource-program/Brown_StanleySafetyPlanTemplate.pdf.⁸ 

Offer empathy. Individuals who engage in NSSI are making a desperate call for help that requires concerned and supportive responses.³ One such response is to provide empathy. In addition to expressing concern and compassion, empathy involves recognizing and sharing your patients’ emotions. Empathy also can help you avoid any resistance during the visit by considering what is appropriate to say to patients.

Manage countertransference. You may have negative feelings toward a patient who engages in NSSI, or may even view self-harm as a willful act designed to gain attention. However, such feelings could lead you to minimize or dismiss the importance of your patient’s behaviors, which may push them to engage in more dangerous self-harm.³ Acknowledging any feelings of derision for a patient who engages in NSSI and understanding why you have these emotions will help you better understand your patient, improve rapport, and ensure that you are not impeding the delivery of appropriate clinical care.

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is the direct and deliberate destruction of body tissue without intent to die.¹ Cutting is the most common form of NSSI; other methods include burning, scraping/scratching skin, interfering with wound healing, hitting, biting, self-poisoning, and purposeful non-recreational risk-taking.^2,3 Although most individuals who engage in NSSI have no intention to die, suicidal ideation often precedes the initial engagement in NSSI,⁴ and a history of repeated NSSI is a risk factor for suicide attempts.⁴ In a systematic review, Cipriano et al⁵ found that NSSI is most common among adolescents and young adults, with onset most often occurring between age 12 and 14. Prevalence rates of NSSI are 7.5% to 46.5% in adolescents, 38.9% in university students, and 4% to 23% in adults.⁵

Although no medications have consistently shown efficacy for treating NSSI, research suggests cognitive-behavioral therapy and dialectical behavioral therapy may be helpful. Unfortunately, these therapies are often not available during a patient’s acute crisis.³ Because a thorough review of the treatment options for NSSI is beyond the scope of this article, here I offer tips for caring for adults who engage in NSSI. Although there are slight differences in managing NSSI in adolescents (eg, the need for parental monitoring and reducing risk of contagion), these tips also can be used with adolescents.

Explore why your patient engages in NSSI. Identifying the reasons for our patients’ NSSI makes it easier for us to empathize with them, and puts us in a better position to treat them.³ The most widely reported reasons for NSSI are to cope with distress/anguish and to exert influence on others.⁶ In a systematic review, self-reported reasons for NSSI also included punishing oneself for having positive feelings, punishing others, managing dissociation (ie, active pursuit of numbness), sensation-seeking (ie, to generate excitement or exhilaration), averting suicide (ie, warding off suicidal thoughts), maintaining or exploring boundaries, and expressing or coping with sexuality.⁶ When exploring your patient’s reasons for NSSI, determine if the behavior is based on a true suicidal desire. Because NSSI is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and other disorders, also assess for any underlying psychiatric conditions, and treat them accordingly because mental health treatment has been empirically proven to reduce suicide rates.^2,7

Conduct a suicide risk assessment. Regardless of your patient’s reasons for NSSI, an individualized and thorough suicide risk assessment is needed to identify modifiable, non-modifiable, and protective factors that you can consider when developing a treatment plan. Key components of such assessments include (but are not limited to) current and past urges to engage in NSSI, past NSSI and suicide attempts, access to lethal means, and ability to follow a safety plan.

Avoid exaggerating the danger and importance of NSSI. Treating a patient who engages in NSSI who is motivated by a true suicidal desire and/or has underlying psychiatric conditions may prompt you to consider hospitalization and/or prescribing psychotropic medications.³ However, because most NSSI is not due to a true suicidal desire, overreacting may unwittingly communicate to the patient that self-harm is a way to sustain someone’s attention, thus reinforcing that such behaviors can help them obtain support when distressed.³ Further, overreacting will not help patients comprehend and better cope with the reasons for their self-injurious behaviors.³

Restrict your patient’s access to lethal means. Restricting access to items such as firearms, sharp objects (eg, knives and razors), medications, implements for suffocation/hanging (eg, belts), and household poisons has been empirically proven to reduce suicide rates.⁷ Such restrictions can also potentially reduce the likelihood of NSSI. It is important to repeatedly ask your patient if they have acquired any new means, and to listen for information that indicates they possess means that they did not previously disclose. It is also important to ask if the patient has moved existing means to an area for easier access to use them.

Create a safety plan. Written safety plans can include a list of warning signs (thoughts, images, mood, situations, behaviors) that a crisis is developing, coping strategies (eg, going for a walk, exercising, engaging in a hobby, socializing with friends or family), and contact information for 24-hour crisis hotlines, emergency rooms, and mental health clinicians.⁸ The Suicide Prevention Resource Center offers a safety plan template at www.sprc.org/sites/default/files/resource-program/Brown_StanleySafetyPlanTemplate.pdf.⁸ 

Offer empathy. Individuals who engage in NSSI are making a desperate call for help that requires concerned and supportive responses.³ One such response is to provide empathy. In addition to expressing concern and compassion, empathy involves recognizing and sharing your patients’ emotions. Empathy also can help you avoid any resistance during the visit by considering what is appropriate to say to patients.

Manage countertransference. You may have negative feelings toward a patient who engages in NSSI, or may even view self-harm as a willful act designed to gain attention. However, such feelings could lead you to minimize or dismiss the importance of your patient’s behaviors, which may push them to engage in more dangerous self-harm.³ Acknowledging any feelings of derision for a patient who engages in NSSI and understanding why you have these emotions will help you better understand your patient, improve rapport, and ensure that you are not impeding the delivery of appropriate clinical care.

In this Career Choices, Siddhi Bhivandkar, MD, spoke with Captain Paulette T. Cazares, MD, MPH. Dr. Cazares is Director for Mental Health at U.S. Navy Medicine Readiness and Training Command Okinawa, Japan. She also is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and serves as Secretary of the American Medical Women’s Association, Schaumburg, Illinois.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What made you choose the Navy psychiatry track, and how did your training lead you towards this path?

Dr. Cazares: I had considered a career in the Navy early on in my education, and when I was ready to apply to medical school, I saw Uniformed Services University (USU) as one of my top choices. I wasn’t 100% sure, but after a tour and my interview, I was sold on serving those who serve.

During my clinical rotations at USU, I had great experiences in inpatient and emergency psychiatry. I became fascinated with understanding all I could about brain circuitry and chemistry, and how that interacts with the environment to create or protect individuals from disease. Once I talked with some mentors, it became clear to me that I would love a career in psychiatry, and that remains true today.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the pros and cons of working in Navy psychiatry?

Dr. Cazares: As a Navy psychiatrist, I have found great reward in caring for our nation’s volunteer force. I have had wonderful colleagues with whom I have deployed, and with whom I have served in both small military hospitals and large military training and academic centers. I have been able to work in research in military mental health, and feel I have specifically advanced the field of women’s mental health in the Navy.

I had 4 children while I have been on active duty, and had paid maternity leave for all of them, as well as practices that protected my choice to breastfeed and pump, even after returning to work. I have moved to areas of the country I didn’t expect to with the Navy, and my husband’s career took unexpected turns as a result. While this can be seen as a challenge, it can also be a surprisingly rewarding experience, seeing areas of our nation and world that I otherwise would not have seen. I have deployed and been away from family. While that was a challenge, my family came through it very strong, and I found myself a more humble human and a better clinician as a result of that time.

Dr. Bhivandkar: Based on your personal experience, what should one consider when choosing a Navy psychiatry program?

Dr. Cazares: In considering a Navy training program, one should consider that in the military, our patient population is generally young and healthy, yet also exposed to unique occupational stressors. This means that we generally see routine mental health diagnoses, and some early-break severe cases. We do not typically follow long-term patients with chronic mental illness, because those patients tend to be medically retired from active duty service.

Continue to: We see many unique populations...

We see many unique populations that have specific health care needs, including service members who work on submarines, who are pilots or military police members, and those who handle and manage weapons. We get to learn the unique balance between serving our patients, and the units they work for and in. We see the impact of occupational stress on individuals, and are part of the multidisciplinary team that helps to build resilience in our young service members.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the career options and work settings for Navy psychiatrists?

Dr. Cazares: My peers and I have worked across both operational and multiple hospital settings, with both the US Marine Corps, as well as the US Navy. Psychiatrists can apply for fellowship, as the Navy regularly trains child and adolescent psychiatrists, as well as those who want to specialize in addiction psychiatry.

We can work in large Navy medical centers on faculty, in community-style Navy hospitals both in the United States and overseas, as well as on ships, with the Marines, or in headquarters jobs, advising on policy and the future of the military health system.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the challenges of working in this field?

Dr. Cazares: Health care and the military are both demanding career fields. Like many areas of medicine, work-life harmony is an important part of a career in Navy psychiatry. I work hard to balance my own needs, and model this for those I lead.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What advice do you have for those contemplating a career in Navy psychiatry?

Dr. Cazares: Consider joining a team that offers incredible purpose. I have served wonderful patients and had incredibly impressive colleagues, and I am grateful for the choice I made to take an oath and wear the uniform.

In this Career Choices, Siddhi Bhivandkar, MD, spoke with Captain Paulette T. Cazares, MD, MPH. Dr. Cazares is Director for Mental Health at U.S. Navy Medicine Readiness and Training Command Okinawa, Japan. She also is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and serves as Secretary of the American Medical Women’s Association, Schaumburg, Illinois.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What made you choose the Navy psychiatry track, and how did your training lead you towards this path?

Dr. Cazares: I had considered a career in the Navy early on in my education, and when I was ready to apply to medical school, I saw Uniformed Services University (USU) as one of my top choices. I wasn’t 100% sure, but after a tour and my interview, I was sold on serving those who serve.

During my clinical rotations at USU, I had great experiences in inpatient and emergency psychiatry. I became fascinated with understanding all I could about brain circuitry and chemistry, and how that interacts with the environment to create or protect individuals from disease. Once I talked with some mentors, it became clear to me that I would love a career in psychiatry, and that remains true today.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the pros and cons of working in Navy psychiatry?

Dr. Cazares: As a Navy psychiatrist, I have found great reward in caring for our nation’s volunteer force. I have had wonderful colleagues with whom I have deployed, and with whom I have served in both small military hospitals and large military training and academic centers. I have been able to work in research in military mental health, and feel I have specifically advanced the field of women’s mental health in the Navy.

I had 4 children while I have been on active duty, and had paid maternity leave for all of them, as well as practices that protected my choice to breastfeed and pump, even after returning to work. I have moved to areas of the country I didn’t expect to with the Navy, and my husband’s career took unexpected turns as a result. While this can be seen as a challenge, it can also be a surprisingly rewarding experience, seeing areas of our nation and world that I otherwise would not have seen. I have deployed and been away from family. While that was a challenge, my family came through it very strong, and I found myself a more humble human and a better clinician as a result of that time.

Dr. Bhivandkar: Based on your personal experience, what should one consider when choosing a Navy psychiatry program?

Dr. Cazares: In considering a Navy training program, one should consider that in the military, our patient population is generally young and healthy, yet also exposed to unique occupational stressors. This means that we generally see routine mental health diagnoses, and some early-break severe cases. We do not typically follow long-term patients with chronic mental illness, because those patients tend to be medically retired from active duty service.

Continue to: We see many unique populations...

We see many unique populations that have specific health care needs, including service members who work on submarines, who are pilots or military police members, and those who handle and manage weapons. We get to learn the unique balance between serving our patients, and the units they work for and in. We see the impact of occupational stress on individuals, and are part of the multidisciplinary team that helps to build resilience in our young service members.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the career options and work settings for Navy psychiatrists?

Dr. Cazares: My peers and I have worked across both operational and multiple hospital settings, with both the US Marine Corps, as well as the US Navy. Psychiatrists can apply for fellowship, as the Navy regularly trains child and adolescent psychiatrists, as well as those who want to specialize in addiction psychiatry.

We can work in large Navy medical centers on faculty, in community-style Navy hospitals both in the United States and overseas, as well as on ships, with the Marines, or in headquarters jobs, advising on policy and the future of the military health system.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the challenges of working in this field?

Dr. Cazares: Health care and the military are both demanding career fields. Like many areas of medicine, work-life harmony is an important part of a career in Navy psychiatry. I work hard to balance my own needs, and model this for those I lead.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What advice do you have for those contemplating a career in Navy psychiatry?

Dr. Cazares: Consider joining a team that offers incredible purpose. I have served wonderful patients and had incredibly impressive colleagues, and I am grateful for the choice I made to take an oath and wear the uniform.

In this Career Choices, Siddhi Bhivandkar, MD, spoke with Captain Paulette T. Cazares, MD, MPH. Dr. Cazares is Director for Mental Health at U.S. Navy Medicine Readiness and Training Command Okinawa, Japan. She also is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and serves as Secretary of the American Medical Women’s Association, Schaumburg, Illinois.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What made you choose the Navy psychiatry track, and how did your training lead you towards this path?

Dr. Cazares: I had considered a career in the Navy early on in my education, and when I was ready to apply to medical school, I saw Uniformed Services University (USU) as one of my top choices. I wasn’t 100% sure, but after a tour and my interview, I was sold on serving those who serve.

During my clinical rotations at USU, I had great experiences in inpatient and emergency psychiatry. I became fascinated with understanding all I could about brain circuitry and chemistry, and how that interacts with the environment to create or protect individuals from disease. Once I talked with some mentors, it became clear to me that I would love a career in psychiatry, and that remains true today.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the pros and cons of working in Navy psychiatry?

Dr. Cazares: As a Navy psychiatrist, I have found great reward in caring for our nation’s volunteer force. I have had wonderful colleagues with whom I have deployed, and with whom I have served in both small military hospitals and large military training and academic centers. I have been able to work in research in military mental health, and feel I have specifically advanced the field of women’s mental health in the Navy.

I had 4 children while I have been on active duty, and had paid maternity leave for all of them, as well as practices that protected my choice to breastfeed and pump, even after returning to work. I have moved to areas of the country I didn’t expect to with the Navy, and my husband’s career took unexpected turns as a result. While this can be seen as a challenge, it can also be a surprisingly rewarding experience, seeing areas of our nation and world that I otherwise would not have seen. I have deployed and been away from family. While that was a challenge, my family came through it very strong, and I found myself a more humble human and a better clinician as a result of that time.

Dr. Bhivandkar: Based on your personal experience, what should one consider when choosing a Navy psychiatry program?

Dr. Cazares: In considering a Navy training program, one should consider that in the military, our patient population is generally young and healthy, yet also exposed to unique occupational stressors. This means that we generally see routine mental health diagnoses, and some early-break severe cases. We do not typically follow long-term patients with chronic mental illness, because those patients tend to be medically retired from active duty service.

Continue to: We see many unique populations...

We see many unique populations that have specific health care needs, including service members who work on submarines, who are pilots or military police members, and those who handle and manage weapons. We get to learn the unique balance between serving our patients, and the units they work for and in. We see the impact of occupational stress on individuals, and are part of the multidisciplinary team that helps to build resilience in our young service members.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the career options and work settings for Navy psychiatrists?

Dr. Cazares: My peers and I have worked across both operational and multiple hospital settings, with both the US Marine Corps, as well as the US Navy. Psychiatrists can apply for fellowship, as the Navy regularly trains child and adolescent psychiatrists, as well as those who want to specialize in addiction psychiatry.

We can work in large Navy medical centers on faculty, in community-style Navy hospitals both in the United States and overseas, as well as on ships, with the Marines, or in headquarters jobs, advising on policy and the future of the military health system.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What are some of the challenges of working in this field?

Dr. Cazares: Health care and the military are both demanding career fields. Like many areas of medicine, work-life harmony is an important part of a career in Navy psychiatry. I work hard to balance my own needs, and model this for those I lead.

Dr. Bhivandkar: What advice do you have for those contemplating a career in Navy psychiatry?

Dr. Cazares: Consider joining a team that offers incredible purpose. I have served wonderful patients and had incredibly impressive colleagues, and I am grateful for the choice I made to take an oath and wear the uniform.

COVID-19 and decision-making capacity

Dr. Ryznar’s article “Evaluating patients’ decision-making capacity during COVID-19” (Evidence-Based Reviews, Current Psychiatry. October 2020, p. 34-40) provides a cogent overview of the “threshold” or “gradient” approach to capacity evaluations, wherein the assessment of a patient’s decisional capacity hinges on the risks and benefits of the specific clinical intervention. From a medico­legal perspective, however, I am concerned that Dr. Ryznar makes a consequential category error in framing sociopolitically-driven noncompliance with infectious disease control measures as a capacity problem. In the United States, public health powers—including the use of isolation and quarantine—fall to properly constituted public health authorities, predominantly at the state and local levels. An infectious patient with suspect ideas about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) whose decision-making process is not directly compromised by neurocognitive illness does not present a capacity issue, but rather a potential public health issue.

For example, in a controversial 2007 case in Atlanta, Georgia, an attorney with active tuberculosis failed to heed medical advice to refrain from traveling.¹ The patient’s uncooperativeness did not implicate concerns over his decisional capacity.¹ However, his international and interstate travel triggered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s legal authority under the Public Health Service Act to prevent the entry and spread of communicable disease.^1-3 An authorized order from a duly constituted public health authority is issued and enforceable without regard to clinical determinations of capacity (and is generally subject to challenge via judicial or other due process mechanisms as a government-sanctioned deprivation of liberty to protect public welfare). State laws and local ordinances require physicians to notify the appropriate public health department when patients test positive for certain contagious diseases.

The difficulty with involuntarily detaining a cognitively intact patient due to concern over their contagion risk and erroneous beliefs runs considerably deeper than eliciting a “political backlash” or managing the qualms of hospital security officers. It is a fundamental matter of proper legal authority. Psychiatrists and other physicians assess patients’ decision-making capacity for specific treatment decisions on a case-by-case basis, seeking to preserve autonomy while practicing beneficence. Public health officers are agents of the state with designated authorities to control the spread of disease. A capacity determination in the absence of neurocognitive deficits implies the psychiatrist is evaluating the soundness of the patient’s ideas as opposed to their cognition, overlooking the reality that fully capable individuals can possess dubious—and even unsalutary—beliefs. While physicians educate patients about the risks of contracting and communicating infection, they are thankfully not tasked with arbitrating sociopolitical disputes at the bedside. Such controversies regarding pandemic response do not belong under the rubric of medical decision-making capacity. Conflating psychosomatic medicine consultations with public health orders risks unmooring capacity determinations from their medicolegal and bioethical foundations.

Charles G. Kels, JD
S Army Medical Center of Excellence
San Antonio, Texas  

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of any government agency.

References

1. Tanne JH. Tuberculosis case exposes flaws in international public health systems. BMJ. 2007;334(7605):1187.
2. Public Health Service Act, 42 USC § 264-272 (1944).
3. Interstate and Foreign Quarantine, 42 CFR Parts 70-71 (2017).

The author responds

I appreciate Mr. Kels’s letter and explicit discussion of the limits of decision-making capacity. I agree that physicians should not overstep their legal authority and ethical mandate. The specific case discussed in my article was a patient who was symptomatic from COVID-19 who wanted to leave the hospital against medical advice. The contagious nature of this virus certainly falls under the risk/benefit analysis of the clinical situation because it is an important aspect of understanding the nature of the illness and treatment/recovery process (as a thought example, consider that such a patient lives with their elderly mother who has heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the patient does not want their mother to die). From a medico­legal perspective, the risk of infection to others may not necessarily outweigh the benefit of autonomy, especially because decision-making capacity assessments are made with the purpose of balancing autonomy and beneficence of the patient, not others. I highlighted the relative importance of autonomy using the weight of the arrows in Figure 2 of my article. I did not task physicians with arbitrating sociopolitical disputes, but merely highlighted how the current climate can impact people’s personal views on COVID-19, which sometimes can run counter to scientific evidence. If a patient has an erroneous view about an illness, it is our duty to try to help them understand if it directly impacts their health or affects their decision-making process, especially in a high-stakes clinical scenario.

Elizabeth Ryznar, MD, MSc
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Baltimore, Maryland

Continue to: Olanzapine for treatment-resistant anxiety

Olanzapine for treatment-resistant anxiety

Ms. A, age 62, was a retired high school teacher. Her primary care physician referred her to me for persistent, disabling anxiety. Her condition was recently worsened by a trial of escitalopram, 5 mg/d, which led her to visit the emergency department (ED). There she was prescribed lorazepam, 0.5 mg as needed, which helped her somewhat. Her medical conditions included prominent gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, with nausea and a restricted diet; tinnitus; and chronic bilateral hand tremors. Her initial Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score was 11, and her Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) score was 10.

Initially, I encouraged Ms. A to exercise regularly, and I changed her lorazepam from 0.5 mg as-needed to 0.5 mg twice a day. I also referred her to a psychologist for psychotherapy. She showed limited improvement. I increased her lorazepam to 1 mg 3 times a day and started sertraline, 12.5 mg/d, but she soon experienced chest tightness and was admitted to the ED for observation and a cardiac workup. After she visited the ED, Ms. A stopped taking sertraline.

When I next saw Ms. A, she agreed to a trial of olanzapine, 2.5 mg/d at bedtime. Three weeks later, she told me, “I feel so much better.” Her scores on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were 0 and 1, respectively. Her GI complaints decreased, she had gained a little weight, and her tinnitus bothered her less. Lorazepam was gradually decreased and stopped.

After approximately 2 years, Ms. A had experienced no long-term adverse effects. We agreed to gradually discontinue olanzapine. Over the next 4 months, Ms. A decreased and stopped taking olanzapine at her own discretion.Three weeks after she stopped taking olanzapine, Ms. A reported that her psychiatric and GI symptoms had returned. She still maintained weekly visits with her psychotherapist. Her GI specialist asked if I could prescribe her olanzapine again. I restarted Ms. A on olanzapine, 2.5 mg/d at bedtime. By the next month, she said she felt much better (PHQ-9: 0; GAD-7: 1). I last saw Ms. A approximately 1 year ago.

Over the years, I have usually prescribed low-dose olanzapine alone or with other medications for patients with treatment-resistance who had no overt psychotic symptoms, I have used this medication for patients with “soft” psychotic thinking marked by severe anxiety, obsessions, compulsivity, perfectionism, and/or rumination.¹ Evidence suggests olanzapine also may be effective for anorexia nervosa.² There is good evidence for its use in the DSM-5 diagnosis of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (“a food avoidance emotional disorder”).^3,4 In retrospect, Ms. A also likely met the criteria for the diagnosis of unspecified eating disorder. Despite extensive GI workup and follow-up, physical signs of GI pathology were equivocal.

Among antipsychotics, olanzapine most closely resembles clozapine, the only antipsychotic that has been proved more efficacious than others for psychotic symptoms.⁵ There is also some research suggesting that olanzapine may be more efficacious.⁶ Obsessions and perfectionism are associated with dopamine D4 receptor activity, and D1, D2, and D3 receptors are involved in normalizing cognition and reward.⁷ There are appropriate concerns about adverse effects, especially metabolic syndrome and obesity, with olanzapine, but patients can have different profiles of receptor sensitivity. In my conversations with Ms. A’s primary care physician and GI specialist, metabolic syndrome was not an issue. Clearly, low-dose olanzapine was very helpful in her treatment.

Daniel Storch, MD
Key Point Health Services
Catonsville, Maryland

References

1. Goodnick PJ, Barrios CA. Use of olanzapine in non-psychotic psychiatric disorders. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2001;2(4):667-680.
2. Brewerton TD. Psychopharmacologic management of eating disorders. Presented at: 25th Annual National Psychopharmacology Update; February 2020; Las Vegas, Nevada. Accessed December 8, 2020. https://legacy.audio-digest.org/pages/htmlos/pastissues.html?sub1=psychiatry&sub2=2020
3. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
4. Brewerton TD, D’Agostino M. Adjunctive use of olanzapine in the treatment of avoidant restrictive food intake disorder in children and adolescents in an eating disorders program. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2017;27(10):920-922.
5. Lobos CA, Komossa K, Rummel-Kluge C, et al. Clozapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(11):CD006633.
6. Komossa K, Rummel-Kluge C, Hunger H, et al. Olanzapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD006654.
7. Bachner-Melman R, Lerer E, Zohar AH, et al. Anorexia nervosa, perfectionism, and dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4). Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2007;144B(6):748-756.

Continue to: Neuro-politics and academic paralysis...

Neuro-politics and academic paralysis

I commend Dr. Nasrallah for his brief, precisely defined, scientific editorial “Neuro-politics: Will you vote with your cortex or limbic system?” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. October 2020, p. 14-15,63). Furthermore, he has demonstrated an admirable intellectual juggling ability to discuss politics while staying off it. This is no easy task when we witness stress, fear, and loathing from the media in the streets and academic institutes.

I would like to see Current Psychiatry and the academic psychiatric community dig deeper into what I will term as the emerging academic paralysis. Psychiatric forums and publications have been sheepish about addressing, probing, and analyzing the bitter divisions in the United States and in other nations. It appears apropos to Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial that the limbic system has trumped the prefrontal cortex. As in adolescence, this process has risks, because brain regions governing reward, impulsivity, and sensation-seeking have become—due to the choice of the “Bon Ton” political-correctness church—more influential than higher-order cognitive regions regulating behavioral inhibition, decision-making, and planning,

Similar to a hurricane or tsunami that pushes water into a river, this retro­grade shift of feedback pathways is demonstrated by emotional narratives that have flooded the public and drowned facts and evidence-based practice. Furthermore, the science of convenience has emerged, where facts are eligible only if they justify the narrative. Any discussion, debate, or questioning of the rationale of the approach is met with hostility, naming, shaming, and even loss of employment at universities. I have sadly learned from frightened colleagues and from reading reports by academicians whose publications have been either rejected or coerced for revision following acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or even retracted post-publication due to complaints, harassment, and threats by the politically correct “thought police.” Diversity of thinking and freedom of speech—core values and principles in academic dialogue—have been violated. Academicians are as perplexed as laboratory rats that need to learn which lever to push in order to receive a reward and avoid punishment in an ever-shifting environment. People have been pondering, “Is it time for flight, fright, or fight?” As Buffalo Springfield’s legendary Vietnam 1960s–era song “For What it’s Worth” states: “There’s battle lines being drawn and nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.”

What we have learned from history is that the majority of people exercise passivity and hope as bystanders in order to avoid becoming victims of “collateral damage.” Are there no modern Giordano Bruno (the martyr of science), Copernicus, or Michelangelo who would challenge the “Church of the People” that has created new language, terminology, and culture and is on the verge of creating nouveau scientific principles that could lead to a monopoly of one segment of society that threatens pluralism of thought. Do we need dystopic books such as 1984 or Fahrenheit 451, or the experience of the French and Russian revolution (epitomized by the guillotine and the gulag) to remind us that we are a step away from education and reprogramming camps that used to be called universities? The American Association of University Professors’ most recent announcement on academic freedom ominously avoids using terms such as freedom of speech, diversity of opinions, or even pluralism.

I hope that psychiatrists will lead the way back to sanity, starting with focus groups and forums. It would amount to a group cognitive-behavioral therapy of immense proportion following a paradigm of “Problem Solving,” according to Albert Bandura’s social learning model. There is simply no other constructive way to get to the cheese at the end of the maze.

Yifrah Kaminer, MD

Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Pediatrics
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Farmington, Connecticut

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

COVID-19 and decision-making capacity

Dr. Ryznar’s article “Evaluating patients’ decision-making capacity during COVID-19” (Evidence-Based Reviews, Current Psychiatry. October 2020, p. 34-40) provides a cogent overview of the “threshold” or “gradient” approach to capacity evaluations, wherein the assessment of a patient’s decisional capacity hinges on the risks and benefits of the specific clinical intervention. From a medico­legal perspective, however, I am concerned that Dr. Ryznar makes a consequential category error in framing sociopolitically-driven noncompliance with infectious disease control measures as a capacity problem. In the United States, public health powers—including the use of isolation and quarantine—fall to properly constituted public health authorities, predominantly at the state and local levels. An infectious patient with suspect ideas about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) whose decision-making process is not directly compromised by neurocognitive illness does not present a capacity issue, but rather a potential public health issue.

For example, in a controversial 2007 case in Atlanta, Georgia, an attorney with active tuberculosis failed to heed medical advice to refrain from traveling.¹ The patient’s uncooperativeness did not implicate concerns over his decisional capacity.¹ However, his international and interstate travel triggered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s legal authority under the Public Health Service Act to prevent the entry and spread of communicable disease.^1-3 An authorized order from a duly constituted public health authority is issued and enforceable without regard to clinical determinations of capacity (and is generally subject to challenge via judicial or other due process mechanisms as a government-sanctioned deprivation of liberty to protect public welfare). State laws and local ordinances require physicians to notify the appropriate public health department when patients test positive for certain contagious diseases.

The difficulty with involuntarily detaining a cognitively intact patient due to concern over their contagion risk and erroneous beliefs runs considerably deeper than eliciting a “political backlash” or managing the qualms of hospital security officers. It is a fundamental matter of proper legal authority. Psychiatrists and other physicians assess patients’ decision-making capacity for specific treatment decisions on a case-by-case basis, seeking to preserve autonomy while practicing beneficence. Public health officers are agents of the state with designated authorities to control the spread of disease. A capacity determination in the absence of neurocognitive deficits implies the psychiatrist is evaluating the soundness of the patient’s ideas as opposed to their cognition, overlooking the reality that fully capable individuals can possess dubious—and even unsalutary—beliefs. While physicians educate patients about the risks of contracting and communicating infection, they are thankfully not tasked with arbitrating sociopolitical disputes at the bedside. Such controversies regarding pandemic response do not belong under the rubric of medical decision-making capacity. Conflating psychosomatic medicine consultations with public health orders risks unmooring capacity determinations from their medicolegal and bioethical foundations.

Charles G. Kels, JD
S Army Medical Center of Excellence
San Antonio, Texas  

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of any government agency.

References

1. Tanne JH. Tuberculosis case exposes flaws in international public health systems. BMJ. 2007;334(7605):1187.
2. Public Health Service Act, 42 USC § 264-272 (1944).
3. Interstate and Foreign Quarantine, 42 CFR Parts 70-71 (2017).

The author responds

I appreciate Mr. Kels’s letter and explicit discussion of the limits of decision-making capacity. I agree that physicians should not overstep their legal authority and ethical mandate. The specific case discussed in my article was a patient who was symptomatic from COVID-19 who wanted to leave the hospital against medical advice. The contagious nature of this virus certainly falls under the risk/benefit analysis of the clinical situation because it is an important aspect of understanding the nature of the illness and treatment/recovery process (as a thought example, consider that such a patient lives with their elderly mother who has heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the patient does not want their mother to die). From a medico­legal perspective, the risk of infection to others may not necessarily outweigh the benefit of autonomy, especially because decision-making capacity assessments are made with the purpose of balancing autonomy and beneficence of the patient, not others. I highlighted the relative importance of autonomy using the weight of the arrows in Figure 2 of my article. I did not task physicians with arbitrating sociopolitical disputes, but merely highlighted how the current climate can impact people’s personal views on COVID-19, which sometimes can run counter to scientific evidence. If a patient has an erroneous view about an illness, it is our duty to try to help them understand if it directly impacts their health or affects their decision-making process, especially in a high-stakes clinical scenario.

Elizabeth Ryznar, MD, MSc
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Baltimore, Maryland

Continue to: Olanzapine for treatment-resistant anxiety

Olanzapine for treatment-resistant anxiety

Ms. A, age 62, was a retired high school teacher. Her primary care physician referred her to me for persistent, disabling anxiety. Her condition was recently worsened by a trial of escitalopram, 5 mg/d, which led her to visit the emergency department (ED). There she was prescribed lorazepam, 0.5 mg as needed, which helped her somewhat. Her medical conditions included prominent gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, with nausea and a restricted diet; tinnitus; and chronic bilateral hand tremors. Her initial Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score was 11, and her Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) score was 10.

Initially, I encouraged Ms. A to exercise regularly, and I changed her lorazepam from 0.5 mg as-needed to 0.5 mg twice a day. I also referred her to a psychologist for psychotherapy. She showed limited improvement. I increased her lorazepam to 1 mg 3 times a day and started sertraline, 12.5 mg/d, but she soon experienced chest tightness and was admitted to the ED for observation and a cardiac workup. After she visited the ED, Ms. A stopped taking sertraline.

When I next saw Ms. A, she agreed to a trial of olanzapine, 2.5 mg/d at bedtime. Three weeks later, she told me, “I feel so much better.” Her scores on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were 0 and 1, respectively. Her GI complaints decreased, she had gained a little weight, and her tinnitus bothered her less. Lorazepam was gradually decreased and stopped.

After approximately 2 years, Ms. A had experienced no long-term adverse effects. We agreed to gradually discontinue olanzapine. Over the next 4 months, Ms. A decreased and stopped taking olanzapine at her own discretion.Three weeks after she stopped taking olanzapine, Ms. A reported that her psychiatric and GI symptoms had returned. She still maintained weekly visits with her psychotherapist. Her GI specialist asked if I could prescribe her olanzapine again. I restarted Ms. A on olanzapine, 2.5 mg/d at bedtime. By the next month, she said she felt much better (PHQ-9: 0; GAD-7: 1). I last saw Ms. A approximately 1 year ago.

Over the years, I have usually prescribed low-dose olanzapine alone or with other medications for patients with treatment-resistance who had no overt psychotic symptoms, I have used this medication for patients with “soft” psychotic thinking marked by severe anxiety, obsessions, compulsivity, perfectionism, and/or rumination.¹ Evidence suggests olanzapine also may be effective for anorexia nervosa.² There is good evidence for its use in the DSM-5 diagnosis of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (“a food avoidance emotional disorder”).^3,4 In retrospect, Ms. A also likely met the criteria for the diagnosis of unspecified eating disorder. Despite extensive GI workup and follow-up, physical signs of GI pathology were equivocal.

Among antipsychotics, olanzapine most closely resembles clozapine, the only antipsychotic that has been proved more efficacious than others for psychotic symptoms.⁵ There is also some research suggesting that olanzapine may be more efficacious.⁶ Obsessions and perfectionism are associated with dopamine D4 receptor activity, and D1, D2, and D3 receptors are involved in normalizing cognition and reward.⁷ There are appropriate concerns about adverse effects, especially metabolic syndrome and obesity, with olanzapine, but patients can have different profiles of receptor sensitivity. In my conversations with Ms. A’s primary care physician and GI specialist, metabolic syndrome was not an issue. Clearly, low-dose olanzapine was very helpful in her treatment.

Daniel Storch, MD
Key Point Health Services
Catonsville, Maryland

References

1. Goodnick PJ, Barrios CA. Use of olanzapine in non-psychotic psychiatric disorders. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2001;2(4):667-680.
2. Brewerton TD. Psychopharmacologic management of eating disorders. Presented at: 25th Annual National Psychopharmacology Update; February 2020; Las Vegas, Nevada. Accessed December 8, 2020. https://legacy.audio-digest.org/pages/htmlos/pastissues.html?sub1=psychiatry&sub2=2020
3. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
4. Brewerton TD, D’Agostino M. Adjunctive use of olanzapine in the treatment of avoidant restrictive food intake disorder in children and adolescents in an eating disorders program. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2017;27(10):920-922.
5. Lobos CA, Komossa K, Rummel-Kluge C, et al. Clozapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(11):CD006633.
6. Komossa K, Rummel-Kluge C, Hunger H, et al. Olanzapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD006654.
7. Bachner-Melman R, Lerer E, Zohar AH, et al. Anorexia nervosa, perfectionism, and dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4). Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2007;144B(6):748-756.

Continue to: Neuro-politics and academic paralysis...

Neuro-politics and academic paralysis

I commend Dr. Nasrallah for his brief, precisely defined, scientific editorial “Neuro-politics: Will you vote with your cortex or limbic system?” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. October 2020, p. 14-15,63). Furthermore, he has demonstrated an admirable intellectual juggling ability to discuss politics while staying off it. This is no easy task when we witness stress, fear, and loathing from the media in the streets and academic institutes.

I would like to see Current Psychiatry and the academic psychiatric community dig deeper into what I will term as the emerging academic paralysis. Psychiatric forums and publications have been sheepish about addressing, probing, and analyzing the bitter divisions in the United States and in other nations. It appears apropos to Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial that the limbic system has trumped the prefrontal cortex. As in adolescence, this process has risks, because brain regions governing reward, impulsivity, and sensation-seeking have become—due to the choice of the “Bon Ton” political-correctness church—more influential than higher-order cognitive regions regulating behavioral inhibition, decision-making, and planning,

Similar to a hurricane or tsunami that pushes water into a river, this retro­grade shift of feedback pathways is demonstrated by emotional narratives that have flooded the public and drowned facts and evidence-based practice. Furthermore, the science of convenience has emerged, where facts are eligible only if they justify the narrative. Any discussion, debate, or questioning of the rationale of the approach is met with hostility, naming, shaming, and even loss of employment at universities. I have sadly learned from frightened colleagues and from reading reports by academicians whose publications have been either rejected or coerced for revision following acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or even retracted post-publication due to complaints, harassment, and threats by the politically correct “thought police.” Diversity of thinking and freedom of speech—core values and principles in academic dialogue—have been violated. Academicians are as perplexed as laboratory rats that need to learn which lever to push in order to receive a reward and avoid punishment in an ever-shifting environment. People have been pondering, “Is it time for flight, fright, or fight?” As Buffalo Springfield’s legendary Vietnam 1960s–era song “For What it’s Worth” states: “There’s battle lines being drawn and nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.”

What we have learned from history is that the majority of people exercise passivity and hope as bystanders in order to avoid becoming victims of “collateral damage.” Are there no modern Giordano Bruno (the martyr of science), Copernicus, or Michelangelo who would challenge the “Church of the People” that has created new language, terminology, and culture and is on the verge of creating nouveau scientific principles that could lead to a monopoly of one segment of society that threatens pluralism of thought. Do we need dystopic books such as 1984 or Fahrenheit 451, or the experience of the French and Russian revolution (epitomized by the guillotine and the gulag) to remind us that we are a step away from education and reprogramming camps that used to be called universities? The American Association of University Professors’ most recent announcement on academic freedom ominously avoids using terms such as freedom of speech, diversity of opinions, or even pluralism.

I hope that psychiatrists will lead the way back to sanity, starting with focus groups and forums. It would amount to a group cognitive-behavioral therapy of immense proportion following a paradigm of “Problem Solving,” according to Albert Bandura’s social learning model. There is simply no other constructive way to get to the cheese at the end of the maze.

Yifrah Kaminer, MD

Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Pediatrics
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Farmington, Connecticut

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

COVID-19 and decision-making capacity

Dr. Ryznar’s article “Evaluating patients’ decision-making capacity during COVID-19” (Evidence-Based Reviews, Current Psychiatry. October 2020, p. 34-40) provides a cogent overview of the “threshold” or “gradient” approach to capacity evaluations, wherein the assessment of a patient’s decisional capacity hinges on the risks and benefits of the specific clinical intervention. From a medico­legal perspective, however, I am concerned that Dr. Ryznar makes a consequential category error in framing sociopolitically-driven noncompliance with infectious disease control measures as a capacity problem. In the United States, public health powers—including the use of isolation and quarantine—fall to properly constituted public health authorities, predominantly at the state and local levels. An infectious patient with suspect ideas about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) whose decision-making process is not directly compromised by neurocognitive illness does not present a capacity issue, but rather a potential public health issue.

For example, in a controversial 2007 case in Atlanta, Georgia, an attorney with active tuberculosis failed to heed medical advice to refrain from traveling.¹ The patient’s uncooperativeness did not implicate concerns over his decisional capacity.¹ However, his international and interstate travel triggered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s legal authority under the Public Health Service Act to prevent the entry and spread of communicable disease.^1-3 An authorized order from a duly constituted public health authority is issued and enforceable without regard to clinical determinations of capacity (and is generally subject to challenge via judicial or other due process mechanisms as a government-sanctioned deprivation of liberty to protect public welfare). State laws and local ordinances require physicians to notify the appropriate public health department when patients test positive for certain contagious diseases.

The difficulty with involuntarily detaining a cognitively intact patient due to concern over their contagion risk and erroneous beliefs runs considerably deeper than eliciting a “political backlash” or managing the qualms of hospital security officers. It is a fundamental matter of proper legal authority. Psychiatrists and other physicians assess patients’ decision-making capacity for specific treatment decisions on a case-by-case basis, seeking to preserve autonomy while practicing beneficence. Public health officers are agents of the state with designated authorities to control the spread of disease. A capacity determination in the absence of neurocognitive deficits implies the psychiatrist is evaluating the soundness of the patient’s ideas as opposed to their cognition, overlooking the reality that fully capable individuals can possess dubious—and even unsalutary—beliefs. While physicians educate patients about the risks of contracting and communicating infection, they are thankfully not tasked with arbitrating sociopolitical disputes at the bedside. Such controversies regarding pandemic response do not belong under the rubric of medical decision-making capacity. Conflating psychosomatic medicine consultations with public health orders risks unmooring capacity determinations from their medicolegal and bioethical foundations.

Charles G. Kels, JD
S Army Medical Center of Excellence
San Antonio, Texas  

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of any government agency.

References

1. Tanne JH. Tuberculosis case exposes flaws in international public health systems. BMJ. 2007;334(7605):1187.
2. Public Health Service Act, 42 USC § 264-272 (1944).
3. Interstate and Foreign Quarantine, 42 CFR Parts 70-71 (2017).

The author responds

I appreciate Mr. Kels’s letter and explicit discussion of the limits of decision-making capacity. I agree that physicians should not overstep their legal authority and ethical mandate. The specific case discussed in my article was a patient who was symptomatic from COVID-19 who wanted to leave the hospital against medical advice. The contagious nature of this virus certainly falls under the risk/benefit analysis of the clinical situation because it is an important aspect of understanding the nature of the illness and treatment/recovery process (as a thought example, consider that such a patient lives with their elderly mother who has heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the patient does not want their mother to die). From a medico­legal perspective, the risk of infection to others may not necessarily outweigh the benefit of autonomy, especially because decision-making capacity assessments are made with the purpose of balancing autonomy and beneficence of the patient, not others. I highlighted the relative importance of autonomy using the weight of the arrows in Figure 2 of my article. I did not task physicians with arbitrating sociopolitical disputes, but merely highlighted how the current climate can impact people’s personal views on COVID-19, which sometimes can run counter to scientific evidence. If a patient has an erroneous view about an illness, it is our duty to try to help them understand if it directly impacts their health or affects their decision-making process, especially in a high-stakes clinical scenario.

Elizabeth Ryznar, MD, MSc
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Baltimore, Maryland

Continue to: Olanzapine for treatment-resistant anxiety

Olanzapine for treatment-resistant anxiety

Ms. A, age 62, was a retired high school teacher. Her primary care physician referred her to me for persistent, disabling anxiety. Her condition was recently worsened by a trial of escitalopram, 5 mg/d, which led her to visit the emergency department (ED). There she was prescribed lorazepam, 0.5 mg as needed, which helped her somewhat. Her medical conditions included prominent gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, with nausea and a restricted diet; tinnitus; and chronic bilateral hand tremors. Her initial Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score was 11, and her Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) score was 10.

Initially, I encouraged Ms. A to exercise regularly, and I changed her lorazepam from 0.5 mg as-needed to 0.5 mg twice a day. I also referred her to a psychologist for psychotherapy. She showed limited improvement. I increased her lorazepam to 1 mg 3 times a day and started sertraline, 12.5 mg/d, but she soon experienced chest tightness and was admitted to the ED for observation and a cardiac workup. After she visited the ED, Ms. A stopped taking sertraline.

When I next saw Ms. A, she agreed to a trial of olanzapine, 2.5 mg/d at bedtime. Three weeks later, she told me, “I feel so much better.” Her scores on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were 0 and 1, respectively. Her GI complaints decreased, she had gained a little weight, and her tinnitus bothered her less. Lorazepam was gradually decreased and stopped.

After approximately 2 years, Ms. A had experienced no long-term adverse effects. We agreed to gradually discontinue olanzapine. Over the next 4 months, Ms. A decreased and stopped taking olanzapine at her own discretion.Three weeks after she stopped taking olanzapine, Ms. A reported that her psychiatric and GI symptoms had returned. She still maintained weekly visits with her psychotherapist. Her GI specialist asked if I could prescribe her olanzapine again. I restarted Ms. A on olanzapine, 2.5 mg/d at bedtime. By the next month, she said she felt much better (PHQ-9: 0; GAD-7: 1). I last saw Ms. A approximately 1 year ago.

Over the years, I have usually prescribed low-dose olanzapine alone or with other medications for patients with treatment-resistance who had no overt psychotic symptoms, I have used this medication for patients with “soft” psychotic thinking marked by severe anxiety, obsessions, compulsivity, perfectionism, and/or rumination.¹ Evidence suggests olanzapine also may be effective for anorexia nervosa.² There is good evidence for its use in the DSM-5 diagnosis of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (“a food avoidance emotional disorder”).^3,4 In retrospect, Ms. A also likely met the criteria for the diagnosis of unspecified eating disorder. Despite extensive GI workup and follow-up, physical signs of GI pathology were equivocal.

Among antipsychotics, olanzapine most closely resembles clozapine, the only antipsychotic that has been proved more efficacious than others for psychotic symptoms.⁵ There is also some research suggesting that olanzapine may be more efficacious.⁶ Obsessions and perfectionism are associated with dopamine D4 receptor activity, and D1, D2, and D3 receptors are involved in normalizing cognition and reward.⁷ There are appropriate concerns about adverse effects, especially metabolic syndrome and obesity, with olanzapine, but patients can have different profiles of receptor sensitivity. In my conversations with Ms. A’s primary care physician and GI specialist, metabolic syndrome was not an issue. Clearly, low-dose olanzapine was very helpful in her treatment.

Daniel Storch, MD
Key Point Health Services
Catonsville, Maryland

References

1. Goodnick PJ, Barrios CA. Use of olanzapine in non-psychotic psychiatric disorders. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2001;2(4):667-680.
2. Brewerton TD. Psychopharmacologic management of eating disorders. Presented at: 25th Annual National Psychopharmacology Update; February 2020; Las Vegas, Nevada. Accessed December 8, 2020. https://legacy.audio-digest.org/pages/htmlos/pastissues.html?sub1=psychiatry&sub2=2020
3. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
4. Brewerton TD, D’Agostino M. Adjunctive use of olanzapine in the treatment of avoidant restrictive food intake disorder in children and adolescents in an eating disorders program. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2017;27(10):920-922.
5. Lobos CA, Komossa K, Rummel-Kluge C, et al. Clozapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(11):CD006633.
6. Komossa K, Rummel-Kluge C, Hunger H, et al. Olanzapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD006654.
7. Bachner-Melman R, Lerer E, Zohar AH, et al. Anorexia nervosa, perfectionism, and dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4). Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2007;144B(6):748-756.

Continue to: Neuro-politics and academic paralysis...

Neuro-politics and academic paralysis

I commend Dr. Nasrallah for his brief, precisely defined, scientific editorial “Neuro-politics: Will you vote with your cortex or limbic system?” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. October 2020, p. 14-15,63). Furthermore, he has demonstrated an admirable intellectual juggling ability to discuss politics while staying off it. This is no easy task when we witness stress, fear, and loathing from the media in the streets and academic institutes.

I would like to see Current Psychiatry and the academic psychiatric community dig deeper into what I will term as the emerging academic paralysis. Psychiatric forums and publications have been sheepish about addressing, probing, and analyzing the bitter divisions in the United States and in other nations. It appears apropos to Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial that the limbic system has trumped the prefrontal cortex. As in adolescence, this process has risks, because brain regions governing reward, impulsivity, and sensation-seeking have become—due to the choice of the “Bon Ton” political-correctness church—more influential than higher-order cognitive regions regulating behavioral inhibition, decision-making, and planning,

Similar to a hurricane or tsunami that pushes water into a river, this retro­grade shift of feedback pathways is demonstrated by emotional narratives that have flooded the public and drowned facts and evidence-based practice. Furthermore, the science of convenience has emerged, where facts are eligible only if they justify the narrative. Any discussion, debate, or questioning of the rationale of the approach is met with hostility, naming, shaming, and even loss of employment at universities. I have sadly learned from frightened colleagues and from reading reports by academicians whose publications have been either rejected or coerced for revision following acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or even retracted post-publication due to complaints, harassment, and threats by the politically correct “thought police.” Diversity of thinking and freedom of speech—core values and principles in academic dialogue—have been violated. Academicians are as perplexed as laboratory rats that need to learn which lever to push in order to receive a reward and avoid punishment in an ever-shifting environment. People have been pondering, “Is it time for flight, fright, or fight?” As Buffalo Springfield’s legendary Vietnam 1960s–era song “For What it’s Worth” states: “There’s battle lines being drawn and nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.”

What we have learned from history is that the majority of people exercise passivity and hope as bystanders in order to avoid becoming victims of “collateral damage.” Are there no modern Giordano Bruno (the martyr of science), Copernicus, or Michelangelo who would challenge the “Church of the People” that has created new language, terminology, and culture and is on the verge of creating nouveau scientific principles that could lead to a monopoly of one segment of society that threatens pluralism of thought. Do we need dystopic books such as 1984 or Fahrenheit 451, or the experience of the French and Russian revolution (epitomized by the guillotine and the gulag) to remind us that we are a step away from education and reprogramming camps that used to be called universities? The American Association of University Professors’ most recent announcement on academic freedom ominously avoids using terms such as freedom of speech, diversity of opinions, or even pluralism.

I hope that psychiatrists will lead the way back to sanity, starting with focus groups and forums. It would amount to a group cognitive-behavioral therapy of immense proportion following a paradigm of “Problem Solving,” according to Albert Bandura’s social learning model. There is simply no other constructive way to get to the cheese at the end of the maze.

Yifrah Kaminer, MD

Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Pediatrics
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Farmington, Connecticut

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

I am reading an excellent book called “Choosing Civility,” by P. M. Forni, cofounder of the John Hopkins Civility Project. It is a quick read and is a book that, in particular, all politicians, reporters, and political pundits should read. Most of it deals with common-sense good manners – things your mother taught you. The chapter that has been the most difficult for me to read (and to apply in practice) was the one on listening. I must admit I have been, or am guilty of being, a poor listener. I often try to expedite things by jumping ahead of where the speaker is going, my logic being that I am saving everyone time. In reality, I am probably distorting what the speaker intends to say and certainly not endearing myself to the speaker.

This is, of course, a classic example of attention deficit disorder with which I am certain I am afflicted. I have to make a deliberate effort to pause in my responses to speakers so that they can finish what they have to say. This is extremely hard for those of us who have this problem. I have made progress over the years and can attend committee meetings and say very little, except an occasional clarification query. I make a deliberate attempt to be civil and respect other’s comments. I have learned to let meetings reach their natural conclusion, which takes great patience when we could have arrived there hours earlier if I had interrupted and been less civil. If that course is taken, you will not have the buy in from all participants, and any decision made might not stick.

Luckily, almost all our discussions in organized medicine are civil, and our behavior has improved. The attending surgeon throwing instruments at the nurse or hitting the resident with a retractor – incidents that I have personally witnessed – would not be tolerated today. Our medical meetings are usually civil, if not downright boring.

Of course, patients who are ill or anxious are exempt from any civility requirement. They need comfort and reassurance, as much as a discussion of their diagnosis and treatment plan. They are allowed to be uncivil in their questions and responses. Physicians must leave their preconceptions and civilized expectations at the door. However, there are exceptions.

A few years ago, when I was training a fellow who was Black, I was horrified when one of my patients treated him with disdain and a gross racist attitude. This patient was uncivil, which of course had nothing to do with his diagnosis or treatment. I excused the fellow, discussed this with the patient, and tried to explain that the doctor’s skin color had nothing to do with his training or competence. I went further and told him that if this continued, he would be excused from my practice, which he eventually was. I apologized to the fellow, who, after living in his skin his whole life, had already shaken it off, having heard it all before. Living in my bubble I had thought this type of uncivil behavior was long gone, but not so.

This topic has received discussion and policy action at the American Medical Association. The AMA has adopted a new policy that “recognizes racism as a public health threat and commits to actively work on dismantling racist policies and practices across all of health care,” according to an AMA press release. This includes a recommendation to “clearly and openly support physicians, trainees, and facility personnel who experience prejudiced behavior and discrimination by patients, including allowing physicians, trainees, and facility personnel to decline to care for those patients, without penalty, who have exhibited discriminatory behavior specifically toward them,” according to the AMA report.

As far as I go, not to worry; I still have personal issues to work on. My wife’s favorite song is by Alison Krauss when she sings, “you say it best when you say nothing at all.”

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

I am reading an excellent book called “Choosing Civility,” by P. M. Forni, cofounder of the John Hopkins Civility Project. It is a quick read and is a book that, in particular, all politicians, reporters, and political pundits should read. Most of it deals with common-sense good manners – things your mother taught you. The chapter that has been the most difficult for me to read (and to apply in practice) was the one on listening. I must admit I have been, or am guilty of being, a poor listener. I often try to expedite things by jumping ahead of where the speaker is going, my logic being that I am saving everyone time. In reality, I am probably distorting what the speaker intends to say and certainly not endearing myself to the speaker.

This is, of course, a classic example of attention deficit disorder with which I am certain I am afflicted. I have to make a deliberate effort to pause in my responses to speakers so that they can finish what they have to say. This is extremely hard for those of us who have this problem. I have made progress over the years and can attend committee meetings and say very little, except an occasional clarification query. I make a deliberate attempt to be civil and respect other’s comments. I have learned to let meetings reach their natural conclusion, which takes great patience when we could have arrived there hours earlier if I had interrupted and been less civil. If that course is taken, you will not have the buy in from all participants, and any decision made might not stick.

Luckily, almost all our discussions in organized medicine are civil, and our behavior has improved. The attending surgeon throwing instruments at the nurse or hitting the resident with a retractor – incidents that I have personally witnessed – would not be tolerated today. Our medical meetings are usually civil, if not downright boring.

Of course, patients who are ill or anxious are exempt from any civility requirement. They need comfort and reassurance, as much as a discussion of their diagnosis and treatment plan. They are allowed to be uncivil in their questions and responses. Physicians must leave their preconceptions and civilized expectations at the door. However, there are exceptions.

A few years ago, when I was training a fellow who was Black, I was horrified when one of my patients treated him with disdain and a gross racist attitude. This patient was uncivil, which of course had nothing to do with his diagnosis or treatment. I excused the fellow, discussed this with the patient, and tried to explain that the doctor’s skin color had nothing to do with his training or competence. I went further and told him that if this continued, he would be excused from my practice, which he eventually was. I apologized to the fellow, who, after living in his skin his whole life, had already shaken it off, having heard it all before. Living in my bubble I had thought this type of uncivil behavior was long gone, but not so.

This topic has received discussion and policy action at the American Medical Association. The AMA has adopted a new policy that “recognizes racism as a public health threat and commits to actively work on dismantling racist policies and practices across all of health care,” according to an AMA press release. This includes a recommendation to “clearly and openly support physicians, trainees, and facility personnel who experience prejudiced behavior and discrimination by patients, including allowing physicians, trainees, and facility personnel to decline to care for those patients, without penalty, who have exhibited discriminatory behavior specifically toward them,” according to the AMA report.

As far as I go, not to worry; I still have personal issues to work on. My wife’s favorite song is by Alison Krauss when she sings, “you say it best when you say nothing at all.”

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

I am reading an excellent book called “Choosing Civility,” by P. M. Forni, cofounder of the John Hopkins Civility Project. It is a quick read and is a book that, in particular, all politicians, reporters, and political pundits should read. Most of it deals with common-sense good manners – things your mother taught you. The chapter that has been the most difficult for me to read (and to apply in practice) was the one on listening. I must admit I have been, or am guilty of being, a poor listener. I often try to expedite things by jumping ahead of where the speaker is going, my logic being that I am saving everyone time. In reality, I am probably distorting what the speaker intends to say and certainly not endearing myself to the speaker.

This is, of course, a classic example of attention deficit disorder with which I am certain I am afflicted. I have to make a deliberate effort to pause in my responses to speakers so that they can finish what they have to say. This is extremely hard for those of us who have this problem. I have made progress over the years and can attend committee meetings and say very little, except an occasional clarification query. I make a deliberate attempt to be civil and respect other’s comments. I have learned to let meetings reach their natural conclusion, which takes great patience when we could have arrived there hours earlier if I had interrupted and been less civil. If that course is taken, you will not have the buy in from all participants, and any decision made might not stick.

Luckily, almost all our discussions in organized medicine are civil, and our behavior has improved. The attending surgeon throwing instruments at the nurse or hitting the resident with a retractor – incidents that I have personally witnessed – would not be tolerated today. Our medical meetings are usually civil, if not downright boring.

Of course, patients who are ill or anxious are exempt from any civility requirement. They need comfort and reassurance, as much as a discussion of their diagnosis and treatment plan. They are allowed to be uncivil in their questions and responses. Physicians must leave their preconceptions and civilized expectations at the door. However, there are exceptions.

A few years ago, when I was training a fellow who was Black, I was horrified when one of my patients treated him with disdain and a gross racist attitude. This patient was uncivil, which of course had nothing to do with his diagnosis or treatment. I excused the fellow, discussed this with the patient, and tried to explain that the doctor’s skin color had nothing to do with his training or competence. I went further and told him that if this continued, he would be excused from my practice, which he eventually was. I apologized to the fellow, who, after living in his skin his whole life, had already shaken it off, having heard it all before. Living in my bubble I had thought this type of uncivil behavior was long gone, but not so.

This topic has received discussion and policy action at the American Medical Association. The AMA has adopted a new policy that “recognizes racism as a public health threat and commits to actively work on dismantling racist policies and practices across all of health care,” according to an AMA press release. This includes a recommendation to “clearly and openly support physicians, trainees, and facility personnel who experience prejudiced behavior and discrimination by patients, including allowing physicians, trainees, and facility personnel to decline to care for those patients, without penalty, who have exhibited discriminatory behavior specifically toward them,” according to the AMA report.

As far as I go, not to worry; I still have personal issues to work on. My wife’s favorite song is by Alison Krauss when she sings, “you say it best when you say nothing at all.”

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

Matthew Whitson, MD, MSEd (lead host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I am currently the GI fellowship director at Hofstra-Northwell, by way of Mount Sinai in New York City for medical school and residency and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, for GI fellowship. I’m about 60:40 clinical and scholarship. My clinical focus is in esophageal and swallowing disorders, which came about because of mentorship and clinical exposure while at UPenn. During my fellowship, I also got a master’s in medical education again because of the tremendous sponsorship from the faculty and leadership. I have educational roles in the medical school, the internal medicine residency, and, of course, the GI fellowship.

What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

Favorite part: working with students and trainees. When you see a medical concept click for them and then see them apply that concept, or that skill, into practice it is incredibly rewarding. Least favorite part: the amount of written documentation needed to run a fellowship.

What are your interests outside of work?

I love going to see live music in New York and touring the museums of New York, preferably the MOMA, or getting to Storm King (an expansive sculpture garden) outside of the city when we can. Anytime we can get outside to go hiking or play golf is a good day.

What advice would you give to…

• Someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2: Celebrate; you’ve earned it! Those projects you started during residency – finish them now. Otherwise, it’s super hard to get them done during fellowship, especially if you are training at a different institution for GI fellowship.
• Someone who just graduated from GI fellowship: Negotiate that contract, and then negotiate it again. Have a budget, and don’t spend that “attending money” on anything major for at least 6 months.

How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

The way we access information is changing. Everything is at the tip of your fingers at any time, so much so, it can be overwhelming. I think that learning how to critically appraise and access clinically appropriate data is a skill that everyone will need going forward. I think it will take an even more central role in our medical education. Beyond this, the importance of shared decision-making with your patients will continue to increase in the world of personalized medicine, as will the assortment of noninvasive testing options.

Why did you want to host this podcast?

Reading about mentorship, sponsorship, career development, etc. is important, but it doesn’t do these topics justice. It is such a nuanced thing and talking about it, exploring it, teasing it out is just so fun. I find these topics to be fascinating, and I wanted to talk with experts and hear how they approached difficult situations. Plus, I was a radio DJ when younger and have always dreamed of doing something in the audio medium as a professional.


What’s your favorite episode so far?

I won’t say favorite, but I think the Laurie Keefer episode is up there. It was such a nice conversation about a challenging concept: Building resilience in our trainees and ourselves. I learned a lot from her and have begun integrating some of these skills into my work as a program director.


What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

I’m going to adopt this from a mentor of mine, but it’s the “me or my family rule.” What would you want done if the patient in front of you were your family member? If you keep that as your “True North,” then I think you are off to a good start as a clinician.

Nina Nandy, MD, MS (co-host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I think the biggest decision to make in medical school is medicine or surgery, and most things will fall under one of those categories. I liked the problem solving of medicine and the hands-on work of surgery, so I was leaning toward a procedural field then met some wonderful mentors in GI when I was in medical school. I think every field of medicine has a particular personality, and when I met gastroenterologists, it clicked with me, and I thought “I’ve found my people.” So, I went to residency in internal medicine with the goal of GI or bust. I am currently a practicing gastroenterologist, and I do general GI, liver disease, and motility.



What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

I really love GI. I feel like I’ve found my calling, and its really exciting to be able to say that. What drew me to GI was the use of technology and minimally invasive endoscopy to see a person inside out and understand their pathology, the mix of chronic and acute conditions, and the educational aspect of talking to folks in clinic. I like putting people at ease, and GI is a great field for jokes. My least favorite part is doing peer-to-peers with insurance companies to get inflammatory bowel disease drugs approved.



What are your interests outside of work?

Outside of work, this podcast, and being division vice chief, I like to learn languages. I speak five and am working on a sixth. I’m writing a secret screenplay. I play piano and guitar, which reminds me of a quote: “All my life I wanted to play guitar badly. And now I play guitar. Badly.” I also love art; I use oil paint, acrylics, pen and ink, mixed media. I love to dance and am just getting into Peloton. But perhaps my most important role is maintaining the Instagram account for my two famous cats who will hopefully enable me to retire early. Are you out there, Purina?



What advice would you give to…

• Someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2: First of all, celebrate! Treat yo’self; you did it! Welcome to the most exciting field of medicine. But seriously, congratulate yourself for your hard work and don’t worry about being terrible at scoping because there’s a learning curve. Don’t worry about what you need to study because you are going to do it. Come in with an inquisitive, open mind. Don’t turn down consults because they seem ridiculous. You can always learn something! I think the best thing to do in fellowship is to do everything. Learn that motility and capsule, cannulate that common bile duct, place that esophageal stent! You won’t have this kind of support in the future, and you should get comfortable with everything possible while you can.
• Someone who just graduated from GI fellowship: As with those matching into GI, celebrate! Treat yo’self; you did it! I think this is the hardest transition; you don’t have that safety net anymore. You are the be-all, end-all last stop on the train. Just kidding. It seems that way, but you can always collaborate with colleagues and look things up on UpToDate. You know more than you think, and it is a continuous learning process, so it’s okay to have questions; it means you care. Yes, there will be more responsibility, and you need to keep up on path and your inbox because it will pile up. You need to think about appropriate follow-up and resources to offer your patients. You can keep up on current guidelines through your GI societies; do continuing medical education and postgraduate courses as well.

How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

I think the future of GI is innovation, technology, social media, multidisciplinary learning. GI is a technology-centered field, and there will be new developments in medical devices and basic science research, such as the microbiome, which holds the key for numerous pathogenic processes. Physicians will need to be physician-scientists, physician-innovators, physician-business people, and physician-leaders. We must learn things beyond our own field to be successful in this changing world.



Why did you want to host this podcast?

I wanted to host this podcast because I think there is so much in fellowship we learn about GI but also so much we don’t learn about GI careers and the “real world” of practice. I wanted to create content focused on career development for early GIs and trainees and discuss “everything you wanted to know in fellowship but were afraid to ask.” I wanted to interview real successful people in the field, whether it be focusing on a career in medical education, basic science research, transplant hepatology, therapeutic endoscopy, or private practice. There are a lot of podcasts that do a great job focusing on guidelines, case reports, and research, but we wanted to take this one in a different direction. It is a great way to reach a broad audience across many platforms.



What’s your favorite episode so far?

I really like the Janice Jou episode. Not just because I’m on it, but also because she is a great, a dynamic, speaker, and our conversation was so effortless, and because she is a phenomenal program director and educator and has such valuable advice for trainees and early career gastroenterologists, drawing from her own experiences. Her tips – or rather “Janice jewels,” as I am trying to trademark on negotiation – are excellent. Check it out!



What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

Don’t buy a house right out of training. Also, “live your life, not someone else’s.”

C.S. Tse, MD (co-host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I grew up in Toronto and moved to the United States for medical school at the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and internal medicine residency at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. During my residency, I became interested in gastroenterology with a particular interest in inflammatory bowel disease after studying the postoperative outcomes of IBD patients on biologics and examining the clinical course of IBD patients with coexistent celiac disease. I am a third-year gastroenterology fellow at Brown University. I will spend a year as the advanced IBD fellow at the University of California–San Diego from July 2021 to June 2022. My current research examines IBD patients’ quality of care and the psychosocial impacts on patients’ disease course. I am working with the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation’s IBD Qorus Learning Health System to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with IBD. 



What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

My favorite part of my current role is to combine patient care with clinical research, particularly for patients with IBD. My least favorite part is encountering “red tape” that may give a false sense of productivity but not actually be beneficial for patient care. Some of this is discussed in this article from the Harvard Business Review.



What are your interests outside of work?

I serve as the National President of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) Residents & Fellows Division. I am a Core Faculty member of the AMWA IGNITE MD program, which is a nation-wide initiative to educate and empower female medical trainees. I currently serve as an abstract reviewer for Digestive Diseases Week® (since 2018). I previously served as an abstract reviewer and judge for the American Medical Association’s Scientific Symposium (2019 & 2020). Outside of work, I enjoy hiking, traveling, and reading.

 

What advice would you give to someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2:

Identify mentors early. (You can have more than one!) Try to imagine where you want your career to be in 5 years – generalist vs. specialist. Will you have a niche in practice? Is advanced endoscopy (ERCP, EUS, etc.) going to be a part of your practice? Academic, private practice, community practice, or hybrid? Knowing your goals will help tailor the GI fellowship experience to get you to where you want to be in your career. GI fellowship may be like a buffet table where there are many opportunities and options, but one can rarely do it all! Choosing and pursuing experiences that ultimately align with your goals can help you make the most out of your time during GI fellowship training. 



How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

I think that there will be more integration of information technology and artificial intelligence into GI, just as for the rest of society. For example, we can see this clearly illustrated in the rapid uptake of telemedicine (including GI) during COVID-19. 



Why did you want to host this podcast?

I am intrigued by the opportunity to connect with GIs broadly through this AGA podcast. It is a portable way to use on-demand technology to engage in conversations relevant to other early GIs who may not be conventionally addressed by other means, such as journal articles, conferences, traditional didactics, and books. 



What’s your favorite episode so far?

Janice Jou’s podcast was phenomenal in providing mentorship advice (at a distance) to trainees who are interested in an academic career in clinical medicine.



What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit.” This advice is most commonly credited to Aristotle.


Be sure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts or listen on the AGA website: https://gastro.org/podcast.
 

Dr. Whitson is GI fellowship director, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, Great Neck, N.Y. @MJWhitsonMD. Dr. Nandy is a gastroenterologist at Presbyterian Medical Group, Albuquerque, N.M. @NinaNandyMD. Dr. Tse is a GI fellow at Brown University, Providence, R.I. @CSTseMD.

Matthew Whitson, MD, MSEd (lead host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I am currently the GI fellowship director at Hofstra-Northwell, by way of Mount Sinai in New York City for medical school and residency and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, for GI fellowship. I’m about 60:40 clinical and scholarship. My clinical focus is in esophageal and swallowing disorders, which came about because of mentorship and clinical exposure while at UPenn. During my fellowship, I also got a master’s in medical education again because of the tremendous sponsorship from the faculty and leadership. I have educational roles in the medical school, the internal medicine residency, and, of course, the GI fellowship.

What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

Favorite part: working with students and trainees. When you see a medical concept click for them and then see them apply that concept, or that skill, into practice it is incredibly rewarding. Least favorite part: the amount of written documentation needed to run a fellowship.

What are your interests outside of work?

I love going to see live music in New York and touring the museums of New York, preferably the MOMA, or getting to Storm King (an expansive sculpture garden) outside of the city when we can. Anytime we can get outside to go hiking or play golf is a good day.

What advice would you give to…

• Someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2: Celebrate; you’ve earned it! Those projects you started during residency – finish them now. Otherwise, it’s super hard to get them done during fellowship, especially if you are training at a different institution for GI fellowship.
• Someone who just graduated from GI fellowship: Negotiate that contract, and then negotiate it again. Have a budget, and don’t spend that “attending money” on anything major for at least 6 months.

How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

The way we access information is changing. Everything is at the tip of your fingers at any time, so much so, it can be overwhelming. I think that learning how to critically appraise and access clinically appropriate data is a skill that everyone will need going forward. I think it will take an even more central role in our medical education. Beyond this, the importance of shared decision-making with your patients will continue to increase in the world of personalized medicine, as will the assortment of noninvasive testing options.

Why did you want to host this podcast?

Reading about mentorship, sponsorship, career development, etc. is important, but it doesn’t do these topics justice. It is such a nuanced thing and talking about it, exploring it, teasing it out is just so fun. I find these topics to be fascinating, and I wanted to talk with experts and hear how they approached difficult situations. Plus, I was a radio DJ when younger and have always dreamed of doing something in the audio medium as a professional.


What’s your favorite episode so far?

I won’t say favorite, but I think the Laurie Keefer episode is up there. It was such a nice conversation about a challenging concept: Building resilience in our trainees and ourselves. I learned a lot from her and have begun integrating some of these skills into my work as a program director.


What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

I’m going to adopt this from a mentor of mine, but it’s the “me or my family rule.” What would you want done if the patient in front of you were your family member? If you keep that as your “True North,” then I think you are off to a good start as a clinician.

Nina Nandy, MD, MS (co-host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I think the biggest decision to make in medical school is medicine or surgery, and most things will fall under one of those categories. I liked the problem solving of medicine and the hands-on work of surgery, so I was leaning toward a procedural field then met some wonderful mentors in GI when I was in medical school. I think every field of medicine has a particular personality, and when I met gastroenterologists, it clicked with me, and I thought “I’ve found my people.” So, I went to residency in internal medicine with the goal of GI or bust. I am currently a practicing gastroenterologist, and I do general GI, liver disease, and motility.



What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

I really love GI. I feel like I’ve found my calling, and its really exciting to be able to say that. What drew me to GI was the use of technology and minimally invasive endoscopy to see a person inside out and understand their pathology, the mix of chronic and acute conditions, and the educational aspect of talking to folks in clinic. I like putting people at ease, and GI is a great field for jokes. My least favorite part is doing peer-to-peers with insurance companies to get inflammatory bowel disease drugs approved.



What are your interests outside of work?

Outside of work, this podcast, and being division vice chief, I like to learn languages. I speak five and am working on a sixth. I’m writing a secret screenplay. I play piano and guitar, which reminds me of a quote: “All my life I wanted to play guitar badly. And now I play guitar. Badly.” I also love art; I use oil paint, acrylics, pen and ink, mixed media. I love to dance and am just getting into Peloton. But perhaps my most important role is maintaining the Instagram account for my two famous cats who will hopefully enable me to retire early. Are you out there, Purina?



What advice would you give to…

• Someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2: First of all, celebrate! Treat yo’self; you did it! Welcome to the most exciting field of medicine. But seriously, congratulate yourself for your hard work and don’t worry about being terrible at scoping because there’s a learning curve. Don’t worry about what you need to study because you are going to do it. Come in with an inquisitive, open mind. Don’t turn down consults because they seem ridiculous. You can always learn something! I think the best thing to do in fellowship is to do everything. Learn that motility and capsule, cannulate that common bile duct, place that esophageal stent! You won’t have this kind of support in the future, and you should get comfortable with everything possible while you can.
• Someone who just graduated from GI fellowship: As with those matching into GI, celebrate! Treat yo’self; you did it! I think this is the hardest transition; you don’t have that safety net anymore. You are the be-all, end-all last stop on the train. Just kidding. It seems that way, but you can always collaborate with colleagues and look things up on UpToDate. You know more than you think, and it is a continuous learning process, so it’s okay to have questions; it means you care. Yes, there will be more responsibility, and you need to keep up on path and your inbox because it will pile up. You need to think about appropriate follow-up and resources to offer your patients. You can keep up on current guidelines through your GI societies; do continuing medical education and postgraduate courses as well.

How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

I think the future of GI is innovation, technology, social media, multidisciplinary learning. GI is a technology-centered field, and there will be new developments in medical devices and basic science research, such as the microbiome, which holds the key for numerous pathogenic processes. Physicians will need to be physician-scientists, physician-innovators, physician-business people, and physician-leaders. We must learn things beyond our own field to be successful in this changing world.



Why did you want to host this podcast?

I wanted to host this podcast because I think there is so much in fellowship we learn about GI but also so much we don’t learn about GI careers and the “real world” of practice. I wanted to create content focused on career development for early GIs and trainees and discuss “everything you wanted to know in fellowship but were afraid to ask.” I wanted to interview real successful people in the field, whether it be focusing on a career in medical education, basic science research, transplant hepatology, therapeutic endoscopy, or private practice. There are a lot of podcasts that do a great job focusing on guidelines, case reports, and research, but we wanted to take this one in a different direction. It is a great way to reach a broad audience across many platforms.



What’s your favorite episode so far?

I really like the Janice Jou episode. Not just because I’m on it, but also because she is a great, a dynamic, speaker, and our conversation was so effortless, and because she is a phenomenal program director and educator and has such valuable advice for trainees and early career gastroenterologists, drawing from her own experiences. Her tips – or rather “Janice jewels,” as I am trying to trademark on negotiation – are excellent. Check it out!



What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

Don’t buy a house right out of training. Also, “live your life, not someone else’s.”

C.S. Tse, MD (co-host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I grew up in Toronto and moved to the United States for medical school at the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and internal medicine residency at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. During my residency, I became interested in gastroenterology with a particular interest in inflammatory bowel disease after studying the postoperative outcomes of IBD patients on biologics and examining the clinical course of IBD patients with coexistent celiac disease. I am a third-year gastroenterology fellow at Brown University. I will spend a year as the advanced IBD fellow at the University of California–San Diego from July 2021 to June 2022. My current research examines IBD patients’ quality of care and the psychosocial impacts on patients’ disease course. I am working with the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation’s IBD Qorus Learning Health System to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with IBD. 



What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

My favorite part of my current role is to combine patient care with clinical research, particularly for patients with IBD. My least favorite part is encountering “red tape” that may give a false sense of productivity but not actually be beneficial for patient care. Some of this is discussed in this article from the Harvard Business Review.



What are your interests outside of work?

I serve as the National President of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) Residents & Fellows Division. I am a Core Faculty member of the AMWA IGNITE MD program, which is a nation-wide initiative to educate and empower female medical trainees. I currently serve as an abstract reviewer for Digestive Diseases Week® (since 2018). I previously served as an abstract reviewer and judge for the American Medical Association’s Scientific Symposium (2019 & 2020). Outside of work, I enjoy hiking, traveling, and reading.

 

What advice would you give to someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2:

Identify mentors early. (You can have more than one!) Try to imagine where you want your career to be in 5 years – generalist vs. specialist. Will you have a niche in practice? Is advanced endoscopy (ERCP, EUS, etc.) going to be a part of your practice? Academic, private practice, community practice, or hybrid? Knowing your goals will help tailor the GI fellowship experience to get you to where you want to be in your career. GI fellowship may be like a buffet table where there are many opportunities and options, but one can rarely do it all! Choosing and pursuing experiences that ultimately align with your goals can help you make the most out of your time during GI fellowship training. 



How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

I think that there will be more integration of information technology and artificial intelligence into GI, just as for the rest of society. For example, we can see this clearly illustrated in the rapid uptake of telemedicine (including GI) during COVID-19. 



Why did you want to host this podcast?

I am intrigued by the opportunity to connect with GIs broadly through this AGA podcast. It is a portable way to use on-demand technology to engage in conversations relevant to other early GIs who may not be conventionally addressed by other means, such as journal articles, conferences, traditional didactics, and books. 



What’s your favorite episode so far?

Janice Jou’s podcast was phenomenal in providing mentorship advice (at a distance) to trainees who are interested in an academic career in clinical medicine.



What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit.” This advice is most commonly credited to Aristotle.


Be sure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts or listen on the AGA website: https://gastro.org/podcast.
 

Dr. Whitson is GI fellowship director, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, Great Neck, N.Y. @MJWhitsonMD. Dr. Nandy is a gastroenterologist at Presbyterian Medical Group, Albuquerque, N.M. @NinaNandyMD. Dr. Tse is a GI fellow at Brown University, Providence, R.I. @CSTseMD.

Matthew Whitson, MD, MSEd (lead host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I am currently the GI fellowship director at Hofstra-Northwell, by way of Mount Sinai in New York City for medical school and residency and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, for GI fellowship. I’m about 60:40 clinical and scholarship. My clinical focus is in esophageal and swallowing disorders, which came about because of mentorship and clinical exposure while at UPenn. During my fellowship, I also got a master’s in medical education again because of the tremendous sponsorship from the faculty and leadership. I have educational roles in the medical school, the internal medicine residency, and, of course, the GI fellowship.

What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

Favorite part: working with students and trainees. When you see a medical concept click for them and then see them apply that concept, or that skill, into practice it is incredibly rewarding. Least favorite part: the amount of written documentation needed to run a fellowship.

What are your interests outside of work?

I love going to see live music in New York and touring the museums of New York, preferably the MOMA, or getting to Storm King (an expansive sculpture garden) outside of the city when we can. Anytime we can get outside to go hiking or play golf is a good day.

What advice would you give to…

• Someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2: Celebrate; you’ve earned it! Those projects you started during residency – finish them now. Otherwise, it’s super hard to get them done during fellowship, especially if you are training at a different institution for GI fellowship.
• Someone who just graduated from GI fellowship: Negotiate that contract, and then negotiate it again. Have a budget, and don’t spend that “attending money” on anything major for at least 6 months.

How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

The way we access information is changing. Everything is at the tip of your fingers at any time, so much so, it can be overwhelming. I think that learning how to critically appraise and access clinically appropriate data is a skill that everyone will need going forward. I think it will take an even more central role in our medical education. Beyond this, the importance of shared decision-making with your patients will continue to increase in the world of personalized medicine, as will the assortment of noninvasive testing options.

Why did you want to host this podcast?

Reading about mentorship, sponsorship, career development, etc. is important, but it doesn’t do these topics justice. It is such a nuanced thing and talking about it, exploring it, teasing it out is just so fun. I find these topics to be fascinating, and I wanted to talk with experts and hear how they approached difficult situations. Plus, I was a radio DJ when younger and have always dreamed of doing something in the audio medium as a professional.


What’s your favorite episode so far?

I won’t say favorite, but I think the Laurie Keefer episode is up there. It was such a nice conversation about a challenging concept: Building resilience in our trainees and ourselves. I learned a lot from her and have begun integrating some of these skills into my work as a program director.


What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

I’m going to adopt this from a mentor of mine, but it’s the “me or my family rule.” What would you want done if the patient in front of you were your family member? If you keep that as your “True North,” then I think you are off to a good start as a clinician.

Nina Nandy, MD, MS (co-host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I think the biggest decision to make in medical school is medicine or surgery, and most things will fall under one of those categories. I liked the problem solving of medicine and the hands-on work of surgery, so I was leaning toward a procedural field then met some wonderful mentors in GI when I was in medical school. I think every field of medicine has a particular personality, and when I met gastroenterologists, it clicked with me, and I thought “I’ve found my people.” So, I went to residency in internal medicine with the goal of GI or bust. I am currently a practicing gastroenterologist, and I do general GI, liver disease, and motility.



What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

I really love GI. I feel like I’ve found my calling, and its really exciting to be able to say that. What drew me to GI was the use of technology and minimally invasive endoscopy to see a person inside out and understand their pathology, the mix of chronic and acute conditions, and the educational aspect of talking to folks in clinic. I like putting people at ease, and GI is a great field for jokes. My least favorite part is doing peer-to-peers with insurance companies to get inflammatory bowel disease drugs approved.



What are your interests outside of work?

Outside of work, this podcast, and being division vice chief, I like to learn languages. I speak five and am working on a sixth. I’m writing a secret screenplay. I play piano and guitar, which reminds me of a quote: “All my life I wanted to play guitar badly. And now I play guitar. Badly.” I also love art; I use oil paint, acrylics, pen and ink, mixed media. I love to dance and am just getting into Peloton. But perhaps my most important role is maintaining the Instagram account for my two famous cats who will hopefully enable me to retire early. Are you out there, Purina?



What advice would you give to…

• Someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2: First of all, celebrate! Treat yo’self; you did it! Welcome to the most exciting field of medicine. But seriously, congratulate yourself for your hard work and don’t worry about being terrible at scoping because there’s a learning curve. Don’t worry about what you need to study because you are going to do it. Come in with an inquisitive, open mind. Don’t turn down consults because they seem ridiculous. You can always learn something! I think the best thing to do in fellowship is to do everything. Learn that motility and capsule, cannulate that common bile duct, place that esophageal stent! You won’t have this kind of support in the future, and you should get comfortable with everything possible while you can.
• Someone who just graduated from GI fellowship: As with those matching into GI, celebrate! Treat yo’self; you did it! I think this is the hardest transition; you don’t have that safety net anymore. You are the be-all, end-all last stop on the train. Just kidding. It seems that way, but you can always collaborate with colleagues and look things up on UpToDate. You know more than you think, and it is a continuous learning process, so it’s okay to have questions; it means you care. Yes, there will be more responsibility, and you need to keep up on path and your inbox because it will pile up. You need to think about appropriate follow-up and resources to offer your patients. You can keep up on current guidelines through your GI societies; do continuing medical education and postgraduate courses as well.

How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

I think the future of GI is innovation, technology, social media, multidisciplinary learning. GI is a technology-centered field, and there will be new developments in medical devices and basic science research, such as the microbiome, which holds the key for numerous pathogenic processes. Physicians will need to be physician-scientists, physician-innovators, physician-business people, and physician-leaders. We must learn things beyond our own field to be successful in this changing world.



Why did you want to host this podcast?

I wanted to host this podcast because I think there is so much in fellowship we learn about GI but also so much we don’t learn about GI careers and the “real world” of practice. I wanted to create content focused on career development for early GIs and trainees and discuss “everything you wanted to know in fellowship but were afraid to ask.” I wanted to interview real successful people in the field, whether it be focusing on a career in medical education, basic science research, transplant hepatology, therapeutic endoscopy, or private practice. There are a lot of podcasts that do a great job focusing on guidelines, case reports, and research, but we wanted to take this one in a different direction. It is a great way to reach a broad audience across many platforms.



What’s your favorite episode so far?

I really like the Janice Jou episode. Not just because I’m on it, but also because she is a great, a dynamic, speaker, and our conversation was so effortless, and because she is a phenomenal program director and educator and has such valuable advice for trainees and early career gastroenterologists, drawing from her own experiences. Her tips – or rather “Janice jewels,” as I am trying to trademark on negotiation – are excellent. Check it out!



What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

Don’t buy a house right out of training. Also, “live your life, not someone else’s.”

C.S. Tse, MD (co-host)

Walk us through your current GI role and your path to getting there:

I grew up in Toronto and moved to the United States for medical school at the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and internal medicine residency at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. During my residency, I became interested in gastroenterology with a particular interest in inflammatory bowel disease after studying the postoperative outcomes of IBD patients on biologics and examining the clinical course of IBD patients with coexistent celiac disease. I am a third-year gastroenterology fellow at Brown University. I will spend a year as the advanced IBD fellow at the University of California–San Diego from July 2021 to June 2022. My current research examines IBD patients’ quality of care and the psychosocial impacts on patients’ disease course. I am working with the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation’s IBD Qorus Learning Health System to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with IBD. 



What is your favorite part about your current role? Least favorite part?

My favorite part of my current role is to combine patient care with clinical research, particularly for patients with IBD. My least favorite part is encountering “red tape” that may give a false sense of productivity but not actually be beneficial for patient care. Some of this is discussed in this article from the Harvard Business Review.



What are your interests outside of work?

I serve as the National President of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) Residents & Fellows Division. I am a Core Faculty member of the AMWA IGNITE MD program, which is a nation-wide initiative to educate and empower female medical trainees. I currently serve as an abstract reviewer for Digestive Diseases Week® (since 2018). I previously served as an abstract reviewer and judge for the American Medical Association’s Scientific Symposium (2019 & 2020). Outside of work, I enjoy hiking, traveling, and reading.

 

What advice would you give to someone who matches into GI on Dec. 2:

Identify mentors early. (You can have more than one!) Try to imagine where you want your career to be in 5 years – generalist vs. specialist. Will you have a niche in practice? Is advanced endoscopy (ERCP, EUS, etc.) going to be a part of your practice? Academic, private practice, community practice, or hybrid? Knowing your goals will help tailor the GI fellowship experience to get you to where you want to be in your career. GI fellowship may be like a buffet table where there are many opportunities and options, but one can rarely do it all! Choosing and pursuing experiences that ultimately align with your goals can help you make the most out of your time during GI fellowship training. 



How do you see the future of GI changing as a new generation of trainees enters the workforce?

I think that there will be more integration of information technology and artificial intelligence into GI, just as for the rest of society. For example, we can see this clearly illustrated in the rapid uptake of telemedicine (including GI) during COVID-19. 



Why did you want to host this podcast?

I am intrigued by the opportunity to connect with GIs broadly through this AGA podcast. It is a portable way to use on-demand technology to engage in conversations relevant to other early GIs who may not be conventionally addressed by other means, such as journal articles, conferences, traditional didactics, and books. 



What’s your favorite episode so far?

Janice Jou’s podcast was phenomenal in providing mentorship advice (at a distance) to trainees who are interested in an academic career in clinical medicine.



What’s the best piece of advice you’ve gotten that’s helped you in your career so far?

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit.” This advice is most commonly credited to Aristotle.


Be sure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts or listen on the AGA website: https://gastro.org/podcast.
 

Dr. Whitson is GI fellowship director, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, Great Neck, N.Y. @MJWhitsonMD. Dr. Nandy is a gastroenterologist at Presbyterian Medical Group, Albuquerque, N.M. @NinaNandyMD. Dr. Tse is a GI fellow at Brown University, Providence, R.I. @CSTseMD.

As an aspiring physician, I like learning about how things work. Since medical students learn very little about the “business” of medicine in school, this led me to pioneer a project on missed billing by hospitalists at a medium-sized hospital in the northeastern US. Although hospitalists do a tremendous amount of work, they do not always bill for what they are doing. The question became: Why are hospitalists missing charges and what can we do to stop it?

Shortly into my study, I recognized there was little daily communication between the administrators and the hospitalists; neither the hospitalists nor administrators understood the different dynamics that the others faced in their own workplace. It became apparent that administrators needed to learn what was important to hospitalists and to address them at their level in order to bring about change.

Some trending themes emerged as I started shadowing the hospitalists. Many of them asked how this project would benefit them. They argued that administrative needs should be dealt with at the administrative level. A major point was made that current incentives, such as the bonuses given for exceeding a certain number of RVUs, were not the motivating force behind their work ethics. From my observations, the motivating factors were the quality of their patient care, the needs of their patients, and teaching. The hospitalists also were eager to teach and continually instructed me on clinical skills and how to be a better medical student.

Bonuses or notoriety didn’t seem to be the main incentives for them. However, efficiency – especially in rounding – was important, and that became the focal point of the project. I found several studies that showed that improvements in aspects of rounding led to increased quality of patient care, decreased burnout, increased patient satisfaction, and decreased workload and discussed some of those findings with the hospitalists.^1-10 When the hospitalists felt that their concerns were being heard, they became even more involved in the project, and the administrators and hospitalists started working together as a team.

One hospitalist spent two hours helping me design the platform that would be used for hospitalists to report barriers in their rounding process that may cause them to miss a charge. Once we identified those barriers, we discussed the possibility of standardizing their workflow based off these data. Many hospitalists argued that each physician has unique skills and practices that make them successful; therefore, the disruption of an already established workflow may cause a decrease in efficiency.

The hospitalists and I talked a lot about the importance of them rounding more efficiently and how that could positively affect the time that they have with their patients and themselves. We discussed that due to the additional work missed billing causes, minimizing this burden can possibly help decrease burnout. As a result, seven hospitalists, the administrative staff, and I met and created thirteen best practices, six of which they were able to get approved to use immediately. To note, hospitalists bill differently; some use a software company, fill out paper forms still or have integration within their EMR. Although these solutions were made for a program which has the ability to bill within the EMR, many of the principles will apply to your program too.

When a doctor signs a note, it opens a charge option or there is a hard stop.

Charge delinquencies are sent via email to the hospitalist.

Standardize that hospitalists charge directly after writing a note consistently as part of their workflow.*

Prioritize discharges before rounding.*

Standardize the use of the “my prof charges” column, a feature of this hospital’s EMR system that tells them if they had made a charge to a patient or not, in order to remind them to/confirm billing a patient.*

Create reports by the EMR system to provide charge data for individual providers.

Create a report for bill vs note to help providers self-audit. At this hospital, this feature was offered to the administrators as a way to audit their providers and doctors.

Ensure that when a patient is seen by a physician hospitalist as well as an NP/PA hospitalist, the appropriate charge for the physician is entered.

Notifications get sent to the physician hospitalist if a charge gets deleted by another person (e.g., NP/PA hospitalist).

Handoff of daily rounding sheets, or a paper copy of the patients assigned to a hospitalist for his/her shift, at the end of the shift to the project specialist.*

To keep the rounding sheets a complete and accurate account of the patients seen by the hospitalist.*

Hospitalists are to complete and check all billing at the end of their shift at the latest.*

Hospitalists are to participate on Provider Efficiency Training to optimize workflow, by creating more efficient note-writing behavior using Dragon.

*Indicates the practices the hospitalists were able to implement immediately. Practices 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 request EMR changes. Practice 8 was already an established practice the hospitalists wished to continue. Practice 13 was suggested by the Lean Director for the continuation of a previous project.


Six of the best practices were easier to implement right away because they were at the discretion of the hospitalists. We found that the hospitalists who had the highest billing performances were more likely to start writing notes and charge earlier while rounding. Those who had poorer billing performances were more likely to leave all note writing and billing towards the end of their shift. The few exceptions (hospitalists who left all note writing and charging to the end of their shift yet had high billing performances) were found to have a consistent and standardized workflow. This was unlike the hospitalists who had the lowest billing performances. Having practices that help remind hospitalists to bill will surely help prevent missed billing, but because of the findings from this project, it was important to have consistent and standardized practices to additionally improve missed billing.

• Hospitalists favor solutions that benefit them or their patients.
• Hospitalists want to be part of the solution process.
• Hospitalists were more likely to accept ideas to improve their rounding if it meant they could keep their routine.

Obstacles exist in our health care system that prevent administrators and hospitalists from working together as a team. The more we are able to communicate and collaborate to fix problems in the health system, the more we can use the system to our mutual advantage. With the ongoing changes in medicine, especially during uncertain times, better communication needs be a major priority to affect positive change.

Ms. Mirabella attends the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Conn., in the class of 2022. She has interests in internal/hospital medicine, primary care, and health management and leadership. Dr. Rosenberg is associate professor at the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University where she is director of clinical skills coaching. Dr. Kiassat is associate dean of the School of Engineering and associate clinical professor at Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, at Quinnipiac University. His research interests are in process improvement in health care, using Lean Six Sigma.

References

1. Burdick K, et al. Bedside interprofessional rounding. J Patient Exp. 2017;4(1):22-27. doi: 10.1177/2374373517692910.

2. Patel CR. Improving communication between hospitalists and consultants. The Hospital Leader. 2018. https://thehospitalleader.org/improving-communication-between-hospitalists-and-consultants/.

3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist perspective of interactions with medicine subspecialty consult services. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(5):318-323. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.

4. Michtalik HJ, et al. Impact of attending physician workload on patient care: A survey of hospitalists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):375-377. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1864.

5. Chandra R, et al. How hospitalists can improve efficiency on inpatient wards. The Hospitalist. 2014. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/126231/how-hospitalists-can-improve-efficiency-inpatient-wards.

6. Chand DV. Observational study using the tools of lean six sigma to improve the efficiency of the resident rounding process. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3(2):144-150. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-10-00116.1.

7. O’Leary KJ, et al. How hospitalists spend their time: Insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93. doi: 10.1002/jhm.88.

8. Wachter RM. Hospitalist workload: The search for the magic number. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):794-795. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.18.

9. Bryson C, et al. Geographical assignment of hospitalists in an urban teaching hospital: Feasibility and impact on efficiency and provider satisfaction. Hospital Practice. 2017;45(4):135-142. doi: 10.1080/21548331.2017.1353884.

10. Calderon AS, et al. Transforming ward rounds through rounding-in-flow. J Grad Med Educ. 2014 Dec;6(4):750-5. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-13-00324.1.

As an aspiring physician, I like learning about how things work. Since medical students learn very little about the “business” of medicine in school, this led me to pioneer a project on missed billing by hospitalists at a medium-sized hospital in the northeastern US. Although hospitalists do a tremendous amount of work, they do not always bill for what they are doing. The question became: Why are hospitalists missing charges and what can we do to stop it?

Shortly into my study, I recognized there was little daily communication between the administrators and the hospitalists; neither the hospitalists nor administrators understood the different dynamics that the others faced in their own workplace. It became apparent that administrators needed to learn what was important to hospitalists and to address them at their level in order to bring about change.

Some trending themes emerged as I started shadowing the hospitalists. Many of them asked how this project would benefit them. They argued that administrative needs should be dealt with at the administrative level. A major point was made that current incentives, such as the bonuses given for exceeding a certain number of RVUs, were not the motivating force behind their work ethics. From my observations, the motivating factors were the quality of their patient care, the needs of their patients, and teaching. The hospitalists also were eager to teach and continually instructed me on clinical skills and how to be a better medical student.

Bonuses or notoriety didn’t seem to be the main incentives for them. However, efficiency – especially in rounding – was important, and that became the focal point of the project. I found several studies that showed that improvements in aspects of rounding led to increased quality of patient care, decreased burnout, increased patient satisfaction, and decreased workload and discussed some of those findings with the hospitalists.^1-10 When the hospitalists felt that their concerns were being heard, they became even more involved in the project, and the administrators and hospitalists started working together as a team.

One hospitalist spent two hours helping me design the platform that would be used for hospitalists to report barriers in their rounding process that may cause them to miss a charge. Once we identified those barriers, we discussed the possibility of standardizing their workflow based off these data. Many hospitalists argued that each physician has unique skills and practices that make them successful; therefore, the disruption of an already established workflow may cause a decrease in efficiency.

The hospitalists and I talked a lot about the importance of them rounding more efficiently and how that could positively affect the time that they have with their patients and themselves. We discussed that due to the additional work missed billing causes, minimizing this burden can possibly help decrease burnout. As a result, seven hospitalists, the administrative staff, and I met and created thirteen best practices, six of which they were able to get approved to use immediately. To note, hospitalists bill differently; some use a software company, fill out paper forms still or have integration within their EMR. Although these solutions were made for a program which has the ability to bill within the EMR, many of the principles will apply to your program too.

When a doctor signs a note, it opens a charge option or there is a hard stop.

Charge delinquencies are sent via email to the hospitalist.

Standardize that hospitalists charge directly after writing a note consistently as part of their workflow.*

Prioritize discharges before rounding.*

Standardize the use of the “my prof charges” column, a feature of this hospital’s EMR system that tells them if they had made a charge to a patient or not, in order to remind them to/confirm billing a patient.*

Create reports by the EMR system to provide charge data for individual providers.

Create a report for bill vs note to help providers self-audit. At this hospital, this feature was offered to the administrators as a way to audit their providers and doctors.

Ensure that when a patient is seen by a physician hospitalist as well as an NP/PA hospitalist, the appropriate charge for the physician is entered.

Notifications get sent to the physician hospitalist if a charge gets deleted by another person (e.g., NP/PA hospitalist).

Handoff of daily rounding sheets, or a paper copy of the patients assigned to a hospitalist for his/her shift, at the end of the shift to the project specialist.*

To keep the rounding sheets a complete and accurate account of the patients seen by the hospitalist.*

Hospitalists are to complete and check all billing at the end of their shift at the latest.*

Hospitalists are to participate on Provider Efficiency Training to optimize workflow, by creating more efficient note-writing behavior using Dragon.

*Indicates the practices the hospitalists were able to implement immediately. Practices 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 request EMR changes. Practice 8 was already an established practice the hospitalists wished to continue. Practice 13 was suggested by the Lean Director for the continuation of a previous project.


Six of the best practices were easier to implement right away because they were at the discretion of the hospitalists. We found that the hospitalists who had the highest billing performances were more likely to start writing notes and charge earlier while rounding. Those who had poorer billing performances were more likely to leave all note writing and billing towards the end of their shift. The few exceptions (hospitalists who left all note writing and charging to the end of their shift yet had high billing performances) were found to have a consistent and standardized workflow. This was unlike the hospitalists who had the lowest billing performances. Having practices that help remind hospitalists to bill will surely help prevent missed billing, but because of the findings from this project, it was important to have consistent and standardized practices to additionally improve missed billing.

• Hospitalists favor solutions that benefit them or their patients.
• Hospitalists want to be part of the solution process.
• Hospitalists were more likely to accept ideas to improve their rounding if it meant they could keep their routine.

Obstacles exist in our health care system that prevent administrators and hospitalists from working together as a team. The more we are able to communicate and collaborate to fix problems in the health system, the more we can use the system to our mutual advantage. With the ongoing changes in medicine, especially during uncertain times, better communication needs be a major priority to affect positive change.

Ms. Mirabella attends the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Conn., in the class of 2022. She has interests in internal/hospital medicine, primary care, and health management and leadership. Dr. Rosenberg is associate professor at the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University where she is director of clinical skills coaching. Dr. Kiassat is associate dean of the School of Engineering and associate clinical professor at Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, at Quinnipiac University. His research interests are in process improvement in health care, using Lean Six Sigma.

References

1. Burdick K, et al. Bedside interprofessional rounding. J Patient Exp. 2017;4(1):22-27. doi: 10.1177/2374373517692910.

2. Patel CR. Improving communication between hospitalists and consultants. The Hospital Leader. 2018. https://thehospitalleader.org/improving-communication-between-hospitalists-and-consultants/.

3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist perspective of interactions with medicine subspecialty consult services. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(5):318-323. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.

4. Michtalik HJ, et al. Impact of attending physician workload on patient care: A survey of hospitalists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):375-377. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1864.

5. Chandra R, et al. How hospitalists can improve efficiency on inpatient wards. The Hospitalist. 2014. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/126231/how-hospitalists-can-improve-efficiency-inpatient-wards.

6. Chand DV. Observational study using the tools of lean six sigma to improve the efficiency of the resident rounding process. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3(2):144-150. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-10-00116.1.

7. O’Leary KJ, et al. How hospitalists spend their time: Insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93. doi: 10.1002/jhm.88.

8. Wachter RM. Hospitalist workload: The search for the magic number. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):794-795. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.18.

9. Bryson C, et al. Geographical assignment of hospitalists in an urban teaching hospital: Feasibility and impact on efficiency and provider satisfaction. Hospital Practice. 2017;45(4):135-142. doi: 10.1080/21548331.2017.1353884.

10. Calderon AS, et al. Transforming ward rounds through rounding-in-flow. J Grad Med Educ. 2014 Dec;6(4):750-5. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-13-00324.1.

As an aspiring physician, I like learning about how things work. Since medical students learn very little about the “business” of medicine in school, this led me to pioneer a project on missed billing by hospitalists at a medium-sized hospital in the northeastern US. Although hospitalists do a tremendous amount of work, they do not always bill for what they are doing. The question became: Why are hospitalists missing charges and what can we do to stop it?

Shortly into my study, I recognized there was little daily communication between the administrators and the hospitalists; neither the hospitalists nor administrators understood the different dynamics that the others faced in their own workplace. It became apparent that administrators needed to learn what was important to hospitalists and to address them at their level in order to bring about change.

Some trending themes emerged as I started shadowing the hospitalists. Many of them asked how this project would benefit them. They argued that administrative needs should be dealt with at the administrative level. A major point was made that current incentives, such as the bonuses given for exceeding a certain number of RVUs, were not the motivating force behind their work ethics. From my observations, the motivating factors were the quality of their patient care, the needs of their patients, and teaching. The hospitalists also were eager to teach and continually instructed me on clinical skills and how to be a better medical student.

Bonuses or notoriety didn’t seem to be the main incentives for them. However, efficiency – especially in rounding – was important, and that became the focal point of the project. I found several studies that showed that improvements in aspects of rounding led to increased quality of patient care, decreased burnout, increased patient satisfaction, and decreased workload and discussed some of those findings with the hospitalists.^1-10 When the hospitalists felt that their concerns were being heard, they became even more involved in the project, and the administrators and hospitalists started working together as a team.

One hospitalist spent two hours helping me design the platform that would be used for hospitalists to report barriers in their rounding process that may cause them to miss a charge. Once we identified those barriers, we discussed the possibility of standardizing their workflow based off these data. Many hospitalists argued that each physician has unique skills and practices that make them successful; therefore, the disruption of an already established workflow may cause a decrease in efficiency.

The hospitalists and I talked a lot about the importance of them rounding more efficiently and how that could positively affect the time that they have with their patients and themselves. We discussed that due to the additional work missed billing causes, minimizing this burden can possibly help decrease burnout. As a result, seven hospitalists, the administrative staff, and I met and created thirteen best practices, six of which they were able to get approved to use immediately. To note, hospitalists bill differently; some use a software company, fill out paper forms still or have integration within their EMR. Although these solutions were made for a program which has the ability to bill within the EMR, many of the principles will apply to your program too.

When a doctor signs a note, it opens a charge option or there is a hard stop.

Charge delinquencies are sent via email to the hospitalist.

Standardize that hospitalists charge directly after writing a note consistently as part of their workflow.*

Prioritize discharges before rounding.*

Standardize the use of the “my prof charges” column, a feature of this hospital’s EMR system that tells them if they had made a charge to a patient or not, in order to remind them to/confirm billing a patient.*

Create reports by the EMR system to provide charge data for individual providers.

Create a report for bill vs note to help providers self-audit. At this hospital, this feature was offered to the administrators as a way to audit their providers and doctors.

Ensure that when a patient is seen by a physician hospitalist as well as an NP/PA hospitalist, the appropriate charge for the physician is entered.

Notifications get sent to the physician hospitalist if a charge gets deleted by another person (e.g., NP/PA hospitalist).

Handoff of daily rounding sheets, or a paper copy of the patients assigned to a hospitalist for his/her shift, at the end of the shift to the project specialist.*

To keep the rounding sheets a complete and accurate account of the patients seen by the hospitalist.*

Hospitalists are to complete and check all billing at the end of their shift at the latest.*

Hospitalists are to participate on Provider Efficiency Training to optimize workflow, by creating more efficient note-writing behavior using Dragon.

*Indicates the practices the hospitalists were able to implement immediately. Practices 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 request EMR changes. Practice 8 was already an established practice the hospitalists wished to continue. Practice 13 was suggested by the Lean Director for the continuation of a previous project.


Six of the best practices were easier to implement right away because they were at the discretion of the hospitalists. We found that the hospitalists who had the highest billing performances were more likely to start writing notes and charge earlier while rounding. Those who had poorer billing performances were more likely to leave all note writing and billing towards the end of their shift. The few exceptions (hospitalists who left all note writing and charging to the end of their shift yet had high billing performances) were found to have a consistent and standardized workflow. This was unlike the hospitalists who had the lowest billing performances. Having practices that help remind hospitalists to bill will surely help prevent missed billing, but because of the findings from this project, it was important to have consistent and standardized practices to additionally improve missed billing.

• Hospitalists favor solutions that benefit them or their patients.
• Hospitalists want to be part of the solution process.
• Hospitalists were more likely to accept ideas to improve their rounding if it meant they could keep their routine.

Obstacles exist in our health care system that prevent administrators and hospitalists from working together as a team. The more we are able to communicate and collaborate to fix problems in the health system, the more we can use the system to our mutual advantage. With the ongoing changes in medicine, especially during uncertain times, better communication needs be a major priority to affect positive change.

Ms. Mirabella attends the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Conn., in the class of 2022. She has interests in internal/hospital medicine, primary care, and health management and leadership. Dr. Rosenberg is associate professor at the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University where she is director of clinical skills coaching. Dr. Kiassat is associate dean of the School of Engineering and associate clinical professor at Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, at Quinnipiac University. His research interests are in process improvement in health care, using Lean Six Sigma.

References

1. Burdick K, et al. Bedside interprofessional rounding. J Patient Exp. 2017;4(1):22-27. doi: 10.1177/2374373517692910.

2. Patel CR. Improving communication between hospitalists and consultants. The Hospital Leader. 2018. https://thehospitalleader.org/improving-communication-between-hospitalists-and-consultants/.

3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist perspective of interactions with medicine subspecialty consult services. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(5):318-323. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.

4. Michtalik HJ, et al. Impact of attending physician workload on patient care: A survey of hospitalists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):375-377. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1864.

5. Chandra R, et al. How hospitalists can improve efficiency on inpatient wards. The Hospitalist. 2014. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/126231/how-hospitalists-can-improve-efficiency-inpatient-wards.

6. Chand DV. Observational study using the tools of lean six sigma to improve the efficiency of the resident rounding process. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3(2):144-150. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-10-00116.1.

7. O’Leary KJ, et al. How hospitalists spend their time: Insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93. doi: 10.1002/jhm.88.

8. Wachter RM. Hospitalist workload: The search for the magic number. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):794-795. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.18.

9. Bryson C, et al. Geographical assignment of hospitalists in an urban teaching hospital: Feasibility and impact on efficiency and provider satisfaction. Hospital Practice. 2017;45(4):135-142. doi: 10.1080/21548331.2017.1353884.

10. Calderon AS, et al. Transforming ward rounds through rounding-in-flow. J Grad Med Educ. 2014 Dec;6(4):750-5. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-13-00324.1.