User login
Quality reporting of improvement activities in 2020
2020 has begun and therefore so has a new year of quality reporting requirements. Quality reporting under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) may seem like a burden, but it doesn’t need to be. You can likely get credit for the things you are already doing in your practice with little to no augmentation needed.
First, there are a few pieces of information to keep in mind when tracking your data and preparing your staff for their 2020 strategy.
1. Group Participation – For 2020 there is an increase in the MIPS participation threshold for those participating as part of a group. At least 50% of the MIPS eligible clinicians in the reporting group must participate in the same continuous 90-day period to receive credit for a quality improvement activity. That’s a significant increase from 2019 when only one (1) MIPS eligible clinician in a group was required to participate. Connect with your staff now to make sure your group meets the new 50% participation requirement.
2. Improvement Activities for Group Participation – Improvement Activities that are approved for credit by CMS are given a weight based on their requirements. Approved activities are weighted as either medium or high, and this impacts how many activities a practitioner must report on. In 2020, CMS increased the participation threshold for group reporting from a single clinician to 50% of the clinicians in the practice for the Improvement Activities category along with other changes such as modifying the definition of rural area to mean a ZIP code designated as rural by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy using the most recent file available, updating the improvement activities and removing some criteria for Patient-Centered Medical Home designation. Work with your staff now to make sure at least 50% of the MIPS-eligible clinicians in your group are participating in the same Improvement Activities.
3. Quantity of Improvement Activities Required – CMS requires most individuals or groups report on any of the following options during any continuous 90-day period (or as specified in the activity description) in the same performance year, provided that all participating clinicians are reporting on the same activities:
a. 2 high-weighted activities, or
b. 1 high-weighted and 2 medium-weighted activities, or
c. 4 medium-weighted activities
Be sure to pay attention to the weight of the activity you (if you’re reporting as an individual) or your group is reporting so you don’t have any surprises at the end of the reporting period.
There are a variety of options for activities you can report on and some may be a lower lift than you expect.
Does your practice treat Medicaid patients? If so, do you know their average wait time for an initial visit? If that number is 10 days or less, you can report on this activity. If you aren’t quite hitting this benchmark, then consider implementing a scheduling protocol for this population of your patients in the new year.
Engagement of new Medicaid patients and follow-up
Seeing new and follow-up Medicaid patients in a timely manner, including individuals dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. A timely manner is defined as within 10 business days for this activity.
Subcategory name: Achieving Health Equity
Activity weighting: High
Are you responsible for onboarding and training new clinicians to your rural practice? If so, you could report on the next activity. Eligible clinicians would be responsible for training of new clinicians including physicians, advanced practice providers and clinical nursing specialists. These clinicians must practice in small, underserved, or rural areas. What is considered a small, rural, or underserved practice for the purpose of MIPS?
Small practice
- Defined as a practice with 15 or fewer eligible clinicians-based billing under the same TIN
Rural/underserved practice
- Defined as a practice in a zip code included in the most recent set of Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs), as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
- HPSAs are designations that indicate health care provider shortages in primary care, dental health or mental health can be geographic population based or facility based.
Provide education opportunities for new clinicians
MIPS-eligible clinicians acting as a preceptor for clinicians-in-training (such as medical residents/fellows, medical students, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or clinical nurse specialists) and accepting such clinicians for clinical rotations in community practices in small, underserved, or rural areas.
Subcategory name: Achieving Health Equity
Activity weighting: High
There are also activities you can report on under the beneficiary engagement category that you may already be doing in your practice. First, the collection of patient experience and satisfaction data and the development of an improvement plan as necessary counts as one activity. Second, the engagement of the patient’s support team in the development of a plan of care, which needs to include goals and be documented in the electronic health record.
Collection and follow-up on patient experience and satisfaction data on beneficiary engagement
Collection and follow-up on patient experience and satisfaction data on beneficiary engagement, including development of improvement plan.
Subcategory name: Beneficiary Engagement
Activity weighting: High
Engagement of Patients, Family, and Caregivers in Developing a Plan of Care
Engage patients, family, and caregivers in developing a plan of care and prioritizing their goals for action, documented in the electronic health record (EHR) technology.
Subcategory name: Beneficiary Engagement
Activity weighting: Medium
Another data collection category is patient access to care. If you collect and use patient data on their satisfaction and experience related to access to care and commit to developing an improvement plan as necessary, you can receive credit for this reporting category.
Collection and use of patient experience and satisfaction data on access
Collection of patient experience and satisfaction data on access to care and development of an improvement plan, such as outlining steps for improving communications with patients to help understanding of urgent access needs.
Subcategory name: Expanded Practice Access
Activity weighting: Medium
One of the hallmarks of a medical practice in any specialty is improvement. We are always striving to improve something, whether it be the patient experience, patient outcomes, the bottom line, or the education of clinical staff. You can leverage the practice improvement plans you have put into place for credit.
Leadership engagement in regular guidance and demonstrated commitment for implementing practice improvement changes
Ensure full engagement of clinical and administrative leadership in practice improvement that could include one or more of the following: Make responsibility for guidance of practice change a component of clinical and administrative leadership roles; Allocate time for clinical and administrative leadership for practice improvement efforts, including participation in regular team meetings; and/or Incorporate population health, quality and patient experience metrics in regular reviews of practice performance.
Subcategory name: Patient Safety and Practice Assessment
Activity weighting: Medium
Prescription drug use is a topic on every providers’ radar right now. Proper prescribing and monitoring of patients are crucial to their safety and quality of care. In the field of gastroenterology, step-therapy adds a new level of complication to the use of prescription drugs. Ensuring the proper medication protocols allows you to provide appropriate and timely treatment for your patients.
Annual registration in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
Annual registration by eligible clinician or group in the prescription drug–monitoring program of the state where they practice. Activities that simply involve registration are not sufficient. MIPS-eligible clinicians and groups must participate for a minimum of 6 months.
Subcategory name: Patient Safety and Practice Assessment
Activity weighting: Medium
As you can see, there are a variety of improvement activities that you can report on for 2020. This article has outlined several of them that you may already be doing in your practice, but many more can be found by visiting https://qpp.cms.gov/mips/improvement-activities?py=2020 along with information on how to report and the necessary forms for submission.
Dr. Shah is associate professor, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, member of the AGA Quality Leadership Council. He has no disclosures.
2020 has begun and therefore so has a new year of quality reporting requirements. Quality reporting under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) may seem like a burden, but it doesn’t need to be. You can likely get credit for the things you are already doing in your practice with little to no augmentation needed.
First, there are a few pieces of information to keep in mind when tracking your data and preparing your staff for their 2020 strategy.
1. Group Participation – For 2020 there is an increase in the MIPS participation threshold for those participating as part of a group. At least 50% of the MIPS eligible clinicians in the reporting group must participate in the same continuous 90-day period to receive credit for a quality improvement activity. That’s a significant increase from 2019 when only one (1) MIPS eligible clinician in a group was required to participate. Connect with your staff now to make sure your group meets the new 50% participation requirement.
2. Improvement Activities for Group Participation – Improvement Activities that are approved for credit by CMS are given a weight based on their requirements. Approved activities are weighted as either medium or high, and this impacts how many activities a practitioner must report on. In 2020, CMS increased the participation threshold for group reporting from a single clinician to 50% of the clinicians in the practice for the Improvement Activities category along with other changes such as modifying the definition of rural area to mean a ZIP code designated as rural by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy using the most recent file available, updating the improvement activities and removing some criteria for Patient-Centered Medical Home designation. Work with your staff now to make sure at least 50% of the MIPS-eligible clinicians in your group are participating in the same Improvement Activities.
3. Quantity of Improvement Activities Required – CMS requires most individuals or groups report on any of the following options during any continuous 90-day period (or as specified in the activity description) in the same performance year, provided that all participating clinicians are reporting on the same activities:
a. 2 high-weighted activities, or
b. 1 high-weighted and 2 medium-weighted activities, or
c. 4 medium-weighted activities
Be sure to pay attention to the weight of the activity you (if you’re reporting as an individual) or your group is reporting so you don’t have any surprises at the end of the reporting period.
There are a variety of options for activities you can report on and some may be a lower lift than you expect.
Does your practice treat Medicaid patients? If so, do you know their average wait time for an initial visit? If that number is 10 days or less, you can report on this activity. If you aren’t quite hitting this benchmark, then consider implementing a scheduling protocol for this population of your patients in the new year.
Engagement of new Medicaid patients and follow-up
Seeing new and follow-up Medicaid patients in a timely manner, including individuals dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. A timely manner is defined as within 10 business days for this activity.
Subcategory name: Achieving Health Equity
Activity weighting: High
Are you responsible for onboarding and training new clinicians to your rural practice? If so, you could report on the next activity. Eligible clinicians would be responsible for training of new clinicians including physicians, advanced practice providers and clinical nursing specialists. These clinicians must practice in small, underserved, or rural areas. What is considered a small, rural, or underserved practice for the purpose of MIPS?
Small practice
- Defined as a practice with 15 or fewer eligible clinicians-based billing under the same TIN
Rural/underserved practice
- Defined as a practice in a zip code included in the most recent set of Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs), as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
- HPSAs are designations that indicate health care provider shortages in primary care, dental health or mental health can be geographic population based or facility based.
Provide education opportunities for new clinicians
MIPS-eligible clinicians acting as a preceptor for clinicians-in-training (such as medical residents/fellows, medical students, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or clinical nurse specialists) and accepting such clinicians for clinical rotations in community practices in small, underserved, or rural areas.
Subcategory name: Achieving Health Equity
Activity weighting: High
There are also activities you can report on under the beneficiary engagement category that you may already be doing in your practice. First, the collection of patient experience and satisfaction data and the development of an improvement plan as necessary counts as one activity. Second, the engagement of the patient’s support team in the development of a plan of care, which needs to include goals and be documented in the electronic health record.
Collection and follow-up on patient experience and satisfaction data on beneficiary engagement
Collection and follow-up on patient experience and satisfaction data on beneficiary engagement, including development of improvement plan.
Subcategory name: Beneficiary Engagement
Activity weighting: High
Engagement of Patients, Family, and Caregivers in Developing a Plan of Care
Engage patients, family, and caregivers in developing a plan of care and prioritizing their goals for action, documented in the electronic health record (EHR) technology.
Subcategory name: Beneficiary Engagement
Activity weighting: Medium
Another data collection category is patient access to care. If you collect and use patient data on their satisfaction and experience related to access to care and commit to developing an improvement plan as necessary, you can receive credit for this reporting category.
Collection and use of patient experience and satisfaction data on access
Collection of patient experience and satisfaction data on access to care and development of an improvement plan, such as outlining steps for improving communications with patients to help understanding of urgent access needs.
Subcategory name: Expanded Practice Access
Activity weighting: Medium
One of the hallmarks of a medical practice in any specialty is improvement. We are always striving to improve something, whether it be the patient experience, patient outcomes, the bottom line, or the education of clinical staff. You can leverage the practice improvement plans you have put into place for credit.
Leadership engagement in regular guidance and demonstrated commitment for implementing practice improvement changes
Ensure full engagement of clinical and administrative leadership in practice improvement that could include one or more of the following: Make responsibility for guidance of practice change a component of clinical and administrative leadership roles; Allocate time for clinical and administrative leadership for practice improvement efforts, including participation in regular team meetings; and/or Incorporate population health, quality and patient experience metrics in regular reviews of practice performance.
Subcategory name: Patient Safety and Practice Assessment
Activity weighting: Medium
Prescription drug use is a topic on every providers’ radar right now. Proper prescribing and monitoring of patients are crucial to their safety and quality of care. In the field of gastroenterology, step-therapy adds a new level of complication to the use of prescription drugs. Ensuring the proper medication protocols allows you to provide appropriate and timely treatment for your patients.
Annual registration in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
Annual registration by eligible clinician or group in the prescription drug–monitoring program of the state where they practice. Activities that simply involve registration are not sufficient. MIPS-eligible clinicians and groups must participate for a minimum of 6 months.
Subcategory name: Patient Safety and Practice Assessment
Activity weighting: Medium
As you can see, there are a variety of improvement activities that you can report on for 2020. This article has outlined several of them that you may already be doing in your practice, but many more can be found by visiting https://qpp.cms.gov/mips/improvement-activities?py=2020 along with information on how to report and the necessary forms for submission.
Dr. Shah is associate professor, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, member of the AGA Quality Leadership Council. He has no disclosures.
2020 has begun and therefore so has a new year of quality reporting requirements. Quality reporting under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) may seem like a burden, but it doesn’t need to be. You can likely get credit for the things you are already doing in your practice with little to no augmentation needed.
First, there are a few pieces of information to keep in mind when tracking your data and preparing your staff for their 2020 strategy.
1. Group Participation – For 2020 there is an increase in the MIPS participation threshold for those participating as part of a group. At least 50% of the MIPS eligible clinicians in the reporting group must participate in the same continuous 90-day period to receive credit for a quality improvement activity. That’s a significant increase from 2019 when only one (1) MIPS eligible clinician in a group was required to participate. Connect with your staff now to make sure your group meets the new 50% participation requirement.
2. Improvement Activities for Group Participation – Improvement Activities that are approved for credit by CMS are given a weight based on their requirements. Approved activities are weighted as either medium or high, and this impacts how many activities a practitioner must report on. In 2020, CMS increased the participation threshold for group reporting from a single clinician to 50% of the clinicians in the practice for the Improvement Activities category along with other changes such as modifying the definition of rural area to mean a ZIP code designated as rural by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy using the most recent file available, updating the improvement activities and removing some criteria for Patient-Centered Medical Home designation. Work with your staff now to make sure at least 50% of the MIPS-eligible clinicians in your group are participating in the same Improvement Activities.
3. Quantity of Improvement Activities Required – CMS requires most individuals or groups report on any of the following options during any continuous 90-day period (or as specified in the activity description) in the same performance year, provided that all participating clinicians are reporting on the same activities:
a. 2 high-weighted activities, or
b. 1 high-weighted and 2 medium-weighted activities, or
c. 4 medium-weighted activities
Be sure to pay attention to the weight of the activity you (if you’re reporting as an individual) or your group is reporting so you don’t have any surprises at the end of the reporting period.
There are a variety of options for activities you can report on and some may be a lower lift than you expect.
Does your practice treat Medicaid patients? If so, do you know their average wait time for an initial visit? If that number is 10 days or less, you can report on this activity. If you aren’t quite hitting this benchmark, then consider implementing a scheduling protocol for this population of your patients in the new year.
Engagement of new Medicaid patients and follow-up
Seeing new and follow-up Medicaid patients in a timely manner, including individuals dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. A timely manner is defined as within 10 business days for this activity.
Subcategory name: Achieving Health Equity
Activity weighting: High
Are you responsible for onboarding and training new clinicians to your rural practice? If so, you could report on the next activity. Eligible clinicians would be responsible for training of new clinicians including physicians, advanced practice providers and clinical nursing specialists. These clinicians must practice in small, underserved, or rural areas. What is considered a small, rural, or underserved practice for the purpose of MIPS?
Small practice
- Defined as a practice with 15 or fewer eligible clinicians-based billing under the same TIN
Rural/underserved practice
- Defined as a practice in a zip code included in the most recent set of Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs), as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
- HPSAs are designations that indicate health care provider shortages in primary care, dental health or mental health can be geographic population based or facility based.
Provide education opportunities for new clinicians
MIPS-eligible clinicians acting as a preceptor for clinicians-in-training (such as medical residents/fellows, medical students, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or clinical nurse specialists) and accepting such clinicians for clinical rotations in community practices in small, underserved, or rural areas.
Subcategory name: Achieving Health Equity
Activity weighting: High
There are also activities you can report on under the beneficiary engagement category that you may already be doing in your practice. First, the collection of patient experience and satisfaction data and the development of an improvement plan as necessary counts as one activity. Second, the engagement of the patient’s support team in the development of a plan of care, which needs to include goals and be documented in the electronic health record.
Collection and follow-up on patient experience and satisfaction data on beneficiary engagement
Collection and follow-up on patient experience and satisfaction data on beneficiary engagement, including development of improvement plan.
Subcategory name: Beneficiary Engagement
Activity weighting: High
Engagement of Patients, Family, and Caregivers in Developing a Plan of Care
Engage patients, family, and caregivers in developing a plan of care and prioritizing their goals for action, documented in the electronic health record (EHR) technology.
Subcategory name: Beneficiary Engagement
Activity weighting: Medium
Another data collection category is patient access to care. If you collect and use patient data on their satisfaction and experience related to access to care and commit to developing an improvement plan as necessary, you can receive credit for this reporting category.
Collection and use of patient experience and satisfaction data on access
Collection of patient experience and satisfaction data on access to care and development of an improvement plan, such as outlining steps for improving communications with patients to help understanding of urgent access needs.
Subcategory name: Expanded Practice Access
Activity weighting: Medium
One of the hallmarks of a medical practice in any specialty is improvement. We are always striving to improve something, whether it be the patient experience, patient outcomes, the bottom line, or the education of clinical staff. You can leverage the practice improvement plans you have put into place for credit.
Leadership engagement in regular guidance and demonstrated commitment for implementing practice improvement changes
Ensure full engagement of clinical and administrative leadership in practice improvement that could include one or more of the following: Make responsibility for guidance of practice change a component of clinical and administrative leadership roles; Allocate time for clinical and administrative leadership for practice improvement efforts, including participation in regular team meetings; and/or Incorporate population health, quality and patient experience metrics in regular reviews of practice performance.
Subcategory name: Patient Safety and Practice Assessment
Activity weighting: Medium
Prescription drug use is a topic on every providers’ radar right now. Proper prescribing and monitoring of patients are crucial to their safety and quality of care. In the field of gastroenterology, step-therapy adds a new level of complication to the use of prescription drugs. Ensuring the proper medication protocols allows you to provide appropriate and timely treatment for your patients.
Annual registration in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
Annual registration by eligible clinician or group in the prescription drug–monitoring program of the state where they practice. Activities that simply involve registration are not sufficient. MIPS-eligible clinicians and groups must participate for a minimum of 6 months.
Subcategory name: Patient Safety and Practice Assessment
Activity weighting: Medium
As you can see, there are a variety of improvement activities that you can report on for 2020. This article has outlined several of them that you may already be doing in your practice, but many more can be found by visiting https://qpp.cms.gov/mips/improvement-activities?py=2020 along with information on how to report and the necessary forms for submission.
Dr. Shah is associate professor, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, member of the AGA Quality Leadership Council. He has no disclosures.
Suicide rate higher than average for female clinicians
The suicide rate for women who provide health care is higher than that of all women of working age, while male health care practitioners are less likely to end their lives than working-age men as a whole, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2016, the suicide rate for women classified as “healthcare practitioners and technical” – a category that includes physicians and surgeons, as well as chiropractors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners – was 8.5 per 100,000 population, compared with 7.7 per 100,000 for all working women aged 16-64 years. That difference, however, was not statistically significant, Cora Peterson, PhD, and associates at the CDC said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
For females classified as “healthcare support” – medical assistants and transcriptionists, phlebotomists, and pharmacy aides – the suicide rate of 10.6 per 100,000 was significantly higher than that of all working women, the investigators noted.
The suicide rate for males in each of the two occupation categories was 23.6 per 100,000 population in 2016, lower than the rate of 27.4 per 100,000 for males of all occupations, they said, based on data from 32 states that participated in the 2016 National Violent Death Reporting System.
For males, the highest suicide rates in occupations meeting criteria for sample size were “construction and extraction” (49.4 per 100,000); “installation, maintenance, and repair” (36.9); and “arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media” (32.0). Among females, the highest rates were seen in “construction and extraction” (25.5 per 100,000), “protective service” (14.0), and “transportation and material moving” (12.5), with healthcare support next, Dr. Peterson and associates reported.
“Although relative comparisons of suicide rates in this manner are useful for prevention purposes, Therefore, all industry sectors and occupational groups can contribute to reducing suicide incidence,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Peterson C et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):57-62.
The suicide rate for women who provide health care is higher than that of all women of working age, while male health care practitioners are less likely to end their lives than working-age men as a whole, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2016, the suicide rate for women classified as “healthcare practitioners and technical” – a category that includes physicians and surgeons, as well as chiropractors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners – was 8.5 per 100,000 population, compared with 7.7 per 100,000 for all working women aged 16-64 years. That difference, however, was not statistically significant, Cora Peterson, PhD, and associates at the CDC said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
For females classified as “healthcare support” – medical assistants and transcriptionists, phlebotomists, and pharmacy aides – the suicide rate of 10.6 per 100,000 was significantly higher than that of all working women, the investigators noted.
The suicide rate for males in each of the two occupation categories was 23.6 per 100,000 population in 2016, lower than the rate of 27.4 per 100,000 for males of all occupations, they said, based on data from 32 states that participated in the 2016 National Violent Death Reporting System.
For males, the highest suicide rates in occupations meeting criteria for sample size were “construction and extraction” (49.4 per 100,000); “installation, maintenance, and repair” (36.9); and “arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media” (32.0). Among females, the highest rates were seen in “construction and extraction” (25.5 per 100,000), “protective service” (14.0), and “transportation and material moving” (12.5), with healthcare support next, Dr. Peterson and associates reported.
“Although relative comparisons of suicide rates in this manner are useful for prevention purposes, Therefore, all industry sectors and occupational groups can contribute to reducing suicide incidence,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Peterson C et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):57-62.
The suicide rate for women who provide health care is higher than that of all women of working age, while male health care practitioners are less likely to end their lives than working-age men as a whole, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2016, the suicide rate for women classified as “healthcare practitioners and technical” – a category that includes physicians and surgeons, as well as chiropractors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners – was 8.5 per 100,000 population, compared with 7.7 per 100,000 for all working women aged 16-64 years. That difference, however, was not statistically significant, Cora Peterson, PhD, and associates at the CDC said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
For females classified as “healthcare support” – medical assistants and transcriptionists, phlebotomists, and pharmacy aides – the suicide rate of 10.6 per 100,000 was significantly higher than that of all working women, the investigators noted.
The suicide rate for males in each of the two occupation categories was 23.6 per 100,000 population in 2016, lower than the rate of 27.4 per 100,000 for males of all occupations, they said, based on data from 32 states that participated in the 2016 National Violent Death Reporting System.
For males, the highest suicide rates in occupations meeting criteria for sample size were “construction and extraction” (49.4 per 100,000); “installation, maintenance, and repair” (36.9); and “arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media” (32.0). Among females, the highest rates were seen in “construction and extraction” (25.5 per 100,000), “protective service” (14.0), and “transportation and material moving” (12.5), with healthcare support next, Dr. Peterson and associates reported.
“Although relative comparisons of suicide rates in this manner are useful for prevention purposes, Therefore, all industry sectors and occupational groups can contribute to reducing suicide incidence,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Peterson C et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):57-62.
FROM MMWR
Actor Alan Alda discusses using empathy as an antidote to burnout
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
Celebrating 50 years of Dermatology News
The first issue of Skin & Allergy News, now Dermatology News, was published in January 1970. One front-page story highlighted the "continued improvement and more widespread use of steroids" as the most important development of the 1960s in dermatology. Another covered the launch of a national program for dermatology "to design a pattern for its future instead of simply drifting and letting its fate be determined by others."
Throughout 2020, look for articles and features marking the publication's golden anniversary. And read the first ever issue in the PDF above.
The first issue of Skin & Allergy News, now Dermatology News, was published in January 1970. One front-page story highlighted the "continued improvement and more widespread use of steroids" as the most important development of the 1960s in dermatology. Another covered the launch of a national program for dermatology "to design a pattern for its future instead of simply drifting and letting its fate be determined by others."
Throughout 2020, look for articles and features marking the publication's golden anniversary. And read the first ever issue in the PDF above.
The first issue of Skin & Allergy News, now Dermatology News, was published in January 1970. One front-page story highlighted the "continued improvement and more widespread use of steroids" as the most important development of the 1960s in dermatology. Another covered the launch of a national program for dermatology "to design a pattern for its future instead of simply drifting and letting its fate be determined by others."
Throughout 2020, look for articles and features marking the publication's golden anniversary. And read the first ever issue in the PDF above.
ACP maps two potential paths to universal health care
The American College of Physicians is recommending either a single-payer system or a public option within a regulated private insurance system to help deliver universal and affordable access to health care for all Americans.
“We came to the conclusion that two directions or approaches could get us to where we need to be,” ACP President Robert McLean, MD, said in an interview. “We need ... a system that provides universal, affordable access to care.”
After examining the evidence, ACP discarded one option: a direct market-based approach.
“Direct market-based approaches won’t work,” Dr. McLean explained. “If you look at where direct marketplace approaches ... have been implemented, they just will not get you to a place where you are going to get universal coverage, portability, essential benefits, and preexisting condition protection and administrative simplification.”
Dr. McLean highlighted two paths that could achieve universal coverage and better access to health care: a single-payer–financed system, or a publicly financed coverage option within a system of regulated private insurance.
It’s the first time ACP has endorsed a single-payer approach. The college supported the public option that wasn’t included as part of the Affordable Care Act. But ACP’s latest publicly financed proposal offers a deeper level of detail on how to make that option work in the context of a private insurance system.
While the health reform conversation may be a political, ACP doesn’t want to make it a partisan one. ACP’s policy recommendations represent a carefully researched series of ideas backed by evidence-based research, Dr. McLean said.
“There is a lot of nuance behind” the two recommendations, he noted, and those nuances are explored in a series of articles and editorials published Jan. 21 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Sizing up single payer
The ACP acknowledges that for its single-payer system, the transition could be “politically difficult and strain the federal budget,” according to Ryan A. Crowley, senior analyst at ACP, and colleagues in an article outlining the organization’s vision. “Taxes would probably replace premiums, and private insurance would have a reduced role or be eliminated altogether.”
However, the authors note that a single-payer system could be designed to address concerns from a generally skeptical public, such as providing bulk funding or setting minimum standards to guide state operations. It also could include private insurance to provide supplemental coverage.
Even so, “adopting a single-payer system would be highly disruptive and could lead to price controls that would perpetuate flaws in the current Medicare payment system, including the undervaluation of primary care,” Mr. Crowley and colleagues wrote. “If prices are set too low, it could lead to shortages and longer wait times for services. Without sufficient cost controls, however, the cost of a single-payer system could be too high to be feasible.”
Pondering the public option
Given a single-payer plan’s potential challenges, ACP also is endorsing a public option model, which provides the choice of a government-sponsored health insurance plan to compete with existing private insurance options.
“Depending on its structure and implementation, a public choice (or public option) model available to all could help to achieve universal coverage, better access, and improved outcomes without the disruption of a single-payer approach,” the ACP authors noted.
The public option has its own drawbacks, they acknowledge. Those include an inability to achieve better savings on prescription drugs, compared with a single-payer system. The public option approach also doesn’t do away with the current administrative burden, and access issues related to narrow provider networks would persist.
Dr. McLean noted that a more highly regulated insurance market would be needed to help make the public option model work.
“Insurance companies don’t have regulation in a lot of things that they do,” Dr. McLean said. “We see that as quite problematic. They are kind of running amok at this point.”
Expanding the role of primary care
In either reform scenario, primary care would play a much greater role.
“We need to promote primary care,” Dr. McLean said. That includes better incentives to draw physicians to it. “We have to pay them enough,” he added.
The health care models will need to move away from higher pay to specialties for high-cost, high-volume procedural reimbursement. And they’ll need to recognize the need for placing a higher value on the cognitive services provided at the primary care level.
Also in need of change: physicians’ administrative burdens. Reforms need to address the burden created by value-based care and the poor application and misapplication of quality measures.
Migration to a single-payer environment could would make reducing the administrative burden a lot easier, Dr. McLean said. But it also could be done with a public option approach.
That’s where regulators can play a big role in working with insurers to help address administrative burden – streamlining prior authorization of procedures, the types of forms used, and other policies, Dr. McLean explained.
“The number of insurers and their ability to have their own rules and regulations [make it] incredibly complex for patients as well as physicians trying to figure out how to deliver the care that they need,” he noted.
Dr. McLean hopes that the ACP’s papers will spark conversation, particularly among legislators and regulators.
“The bottom line is we cannot afford to not do something bold,” he cautioned. “It is just not working. Our patients deserve better, and we can do better.”
The American College of Physicians is recommending either a single-payer system or a public option within a regulated private insurance system to help deliver universal and affordable access to health care for all Americans.
“We came to the conclusion that two directions or approaches could get us to where we need to be,” ACP President Robert McLean, MD, said in an interview. “We need ... a system that provides universal, affordable access to care.”
After examining the evidence, ACP discarded one option: a direct market-based approach.
“Direct market-based approaches won’t work,” Dr. McLean explained. “If you look at where direct marketplace approaches ... have been implemented, they just will not get you to a place where you are going to get universal coverage, portability, essential benefits, and preexisting condition protection and administrative simplification.”
Dr. McLean highlighted two paths that could achieve universal coverage and better access to health care: a single-payer–financed system, or a publicly financed coverage option within a system of regulated private insurance.
It’s the first time ACP has endorsed a single-payer approach. The college supported the public option that wasn’t included as part of the Affordable Care Act. But ACP’s latest publicly financed proposal offers a deeper level of detail on how to make that option work in the context of a private insurance system.
While the health reform conversation may be a political, ACP doesn’t want to make it a partisan one. ACP’s policy recommendations represent a carefully researched series of ideas backed by evidence-based research, Dr. McLean said.
“There is a lot of nuance behind” the two recommendations, he noted, and those nuances are explored in a series of articles and editorials published Jan. 21 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Sizing up single payer
The ACP acknowledges that for its single-payer system, the transition could be “politically difficult and strain the federal budget,” according to Ryan A. Crowley, senior analyst at ACP, and colleagues in an article outlining the organization’s vision. “Taxes would probably replace premiums, and private insurance would have a reduced role or be eliminated altogether.”
However, the authors note that a single-payer system could be designed to address concerns from a generally skeptical public, such as providing bulk funding or setting minimum standards to guide state operations. It also could include private insurance to provide supplemental coverage.
Even so, “adopting a single-payer system would be highly disruptive and could lead to price controls that would perpetuate flaws in the current Medicare payment system, including the undervaluation of primary care,” Mr. Crowley and colleagues wrote. “If prices are set too low, it could lead to shortages and longer wait times for services. Without sufficient cost controls, however, the cost of a single-payer system could be too high to be feasible.”
Pondering the public option
Given a single-payer plan’s potential challenges, ACP also is endorsing a public option model, which provides the choice of a government-sponsored health insurance plan to compete with existing private insurance options.
“Depending on its structure and implementation, a public choice (or public option) model available to all could help to achieve universal coverage, better access, and improved outcomes without the disruption of a single-payer approach,” the ACP authors noted.
The public option has its own drawbacks, they acknowledge. Those include an inability to achieve better savings on prescription drugs, compared with a single-payer system. The public option approach also doesn’t do away with the current administrative burden, and access issues related to narrow provider networks would persist.
Dr. McLean noted that a more highly regulated insurance market would be needed to help make the public option model work.
“Insurance companies don’t have regulation in a lot of things that they do,” Dr. McLean said. “We see that as quite problematic. They are kind of running amok at this point.”
Expanding the role of primary care
In either reform scenario, primary care would play a much greater role.
“We need to promote primary care,” Dr. McLean said. That includes better incentives to draw physicians to it. “We have to pay them enough,” he added.
The health care models will need to move away from higher pay to specialties for high-cost, high-volume procedural reimbursement. And they’ll need to recognize the need for placing a higher value on the cognitive services provided at the primary care level.
Also in need of change: physicians’ administrative burdens. Reforms need to address the burden created by value-based care and the poor application and misapplication of quality measures.
Migration to a single-payer environment could would make reducing the administrative burden a lot easier, Dr. McLean said. But it also could be done with a public option approach.
That’s where regulators can play a big role in working with insurers to help address administrative burden – streamlining prior authorization of procedures, the types of forms used, and other policies, Dr. McLean explained.
“The number of insurers and their ability to have their own rules and regulations [make it] incredibly complex for patients as well as physicians trying to figure out how to deliver the care that they need,” he noted.
Dr. McLean hopes that the ACP’s papers will spark conversation, particularly among legislators and regulators.
“The bottom line is we cannot afford to not do something bold,” he cautioned. “It is just not working. Our patients deserve better, and we can do better.”
The American College of Physicians is recommending either a single-payer system or a public option within a regulated private insurance system to help deliver universal and affordable access to health care for all Americans.
“We came to the conclusion that two directions or approaches could get us to where we need to be,” ACP President Robert McLean, MD, said in an interview. “We need ... a system that provides universal, affordable access to care.”
After examining the evidence, ACP discarded one option: a direct market-based approach.
“Direct market-based approaches won’t work,” Dr. McLean explained. “If you look at where direct marketplace approaches ... have been implemented, they just will not get you to a place where you are going to get universal coverage, portability, essential benefits, and preexisting condition protection and administrative simplification.”
Dr. McLean highlighted two paths that could achieve universal coverage and better access to health care: a single-payer–financed system, or a publicly financed coverage option within a system of regulated private insurance.
It’s the first time ACP has endorsed a single-payer approach. The college supported the public option that wasn’t included as part of the Affordable Care Act. But ACP’s latest publicly financed proposal offers a deeper level of detail on how to make that option work in the context of a private insurance system.
While the health reform conversation may be a political, ACP doesn’t want to make it a partisan one. ACP’s policy recommendations represent a carefully researched series of ideas backed by evidence-based research, Dr. McLean said.
“There is a lot of nuance behind” the two recommendations, he noted, and those nuances are explored in a series of articles and editorials published Jan. 21 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Sizing up single payer
The ACP acknowledges that for its single-payer system, the transition could be “politically difficult and strain the federal budget,” according to Ryan A. Crowley, senior analyst at ACP, and colleagues in an article outlining the organization’s vision. “Taxes would probably replace premiums, and private insurance would have a reduced role or be eliminated altogether.”
However, the authors note that a single-payer system could be designed to address concerns from a generally skeptical public, such as providing bulk funding or setting minimum standards to guide state operations. It also could include private insurance to provide supplemental coverage.
Even so, “adopting a single-payer system would be highly disruptive and could lead to price controls that would perpetuate flaws in the current Medicare payment system, including the undervaluation of primary care,” Mr. Crowley and colleagues wrote. “If prices are set too low, it could lead to shortages and longer wait times for services. Without sufficient cost controls, however, the cost of a single-payer system could be too high to be feasible.”
Pondering the public option
Given a single-payer plan’s potential challenges, ACP also is endorsing a public option model, which provides the choice of a government-sponsored health insurance plan to compete with existing private insurance options.
“Depending on its structure and implementation, a public choice (or public option) model available to all could help to achieve universal coverage, better access, and improved outcomes without the disruption of a single-payer approach,” the ACP authors noted.
The public option has its own drawbacks, they acknowledge. Those include an inability to achieve better savings on prescription drugs, compared with a single-payer system. The public option approach also doesn’t do away with the current administrative burden, and access issues related to narrow provider networks would persist.
Dr. McLean noted that a more highly regulated insurance market would be needed to help make the public option model work.
“Insurance companies don’t have regulation in a lot of things that they do,” Dr. McLean said. “We see that as quite problematic. They are kind of running amok at this point.”
Expanding the role of primary care
In either reform scenario, primary care would play a much greater role.
“We need to promote primary care,” Dr. McLean said. That includes better incentives to draw physicians to it. “We have to pay them enough,” he added.
The health care models will need to move away from higher pay to specialties for high-cost, high-volume procedural reimbursement. And they’ll need to recognize the need for placing a higher value on the cognitive services provided at the primary care level.
Also in need of change: physicians’ administrative burdens. Reforms need to address the burden created by value-based care and the poor application and misapplication of quality measures.
Migration to a single-payer environment could would make reducing the administrative burden a lot easier, Dr. McLean said. But it also could be done with a public option approach.
That’s where regulators can play a big role in working with insurers to help address administrative burden – streamlining prior authorization of procedures, the types of forms used, and other policies, Dr. McLean explained.
“The number of insurers and their ability to have their own rules and regulations [make it] incredibly complex for patients as well as physicians trying to figure out how to deliver the care that they need,” he noted.
Dr. McLean hopes that the ACP’s papers will spark conversation, particularly among legislators and regulators.
“The bottom line is we cannot afford to not do something bold,” he cautioned. “It is just not working. Our patients deserve better, and we can do better.”
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Medscape survey points to generational differences in physician burnout
Burnout among physicians appears to have decreased slightly in the past few years, but remains a significant problem for the medical profession, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide.
A survey of more than 15,000 physicians revealed that 42% reported being burned out, down from 46% who responded to the survey 5 years ago. However, there are variations in the rates based on certain demographic factors such as specialty, age, and gender.
Urology sits at the top of the list as the specialty that is experiencing the highest rate of burnout, with 54% of urologists responding to the survey reporting burnout. Neurology and nephrology followed with rates of burnout at 50% and 49%, respectively. The next five specialties on the list all reported burnout rates of 46%: diabetes and endocrinology, family medicine, radiology, ob.gyn., and rheumatology. Pulmonology specialists reported a burnout rate of 41%. Gastroenterologists reported burnout rates of 37%.
The survey divided participants into three age categories – Millennial (ages 25-39 years), Generation X (ages 40-54 years), and Baby Boomer (ages 55-73 years). Both Millennials and Baby Boomers reported similar rates of burnout (38% and 39%, respectively) and those in Generation X reported a higher rate of burnout (48%).
This higher rate is not unexpected. The survey results cite Carol Bernstein, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, as noting that midcareer “is typically the time of highest burnout, which is where Gen Xers are in their career trajectory, suggesting a number of factors outside of work such as caring for children and elderly parents, planning for retirement, can play a role in contributing to burnout.”
Women also reported a higher rate of burnout, although the rate has dropped from the survey conducted 5 years ago. The rate of burnout among women reported for the 2020 survey was 48%, down from 51% reported 5 years ago. By comparison, the rate of burnout for men was 37% in 2020, down from 43% in 2015.
In terms of what is causing burnout, the biggest contributor is the bureaucratic tasks (charting and paperwork, for example) that physicians must complete, which 55% of respondents to the survey said was the leading cause of burnout. Next was spending too many hours at work (33%); lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (32%); and the increased computerization of the practice, including the use of electronic health records (30%).
When broken down by age category, the bureaucratic tasks was tops in all three groups (57% for Millennials, 56% for Generation X, and 54% for Baby Boomers), but what ranks next differs slightly by age group. For Millennials, the next two factors were too many hours at work (38%) and lack of respect (35%). Generation X respondents cited the same two factors, both at 33%. Baby Boomers cited computerization as their second-highest factor (41%) and spending too many hours at work as the third-highest factor (31%).
The generations had different approaches to coping with burnout. Millennials (56%) reported sleep as their top-ranked coping strategy, while Gen Xers and Baby Boomers ranked exercise and personal isolation as their top choice. For these two older groups, sleep was ranked last, after other activities such as talking with family and friends.
The survey also asked about depression, and respondents reported a similar rate across all age groups (15%, 18%, and 16%, respectively). Among those who said they were depressed, the three age groups had similar rates of suicidal thoughts (21%, 24%, and 22%).
Perhaps the most striking finding of the survey is the number of physicians who would take a pay cut to achieve a better work-life balance. Among Millennials, 52% would accept a pay cut, compared with 48% of Generation X and 49% of Baby Boomers. A surprising number (36%, 34%, and 31%, respectively, reported that they would accept a $10,000-$20,000 pay cut to have a 20% reduction in work hours. [email protected]
*This story was updated on 1/22/2020.
SOURCE: Kane L et al. Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide. Medscape. 2020 Jan 15.
Burnout among physicians appears to have decreased slightly in the past few years, but remains a significant problem for the medical profession, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide.
A survey of more than 15,000 physicians revealed that 42% reported being burned out, down from 46% who responded to the survey 5 years ago. However, there are variations in the rates based on certain demographic factors such as specialty, age, and gender.
Urology sits at the top of the list as the specialty that is experiencing the highest rate of burnout, with 54% of urologists responding to the survey reporting burnout. Neurology and nephrology followed with rates of burnout at 50% and 49%, respectively. The next five specialties on the list all reported burnout rates of 46%: diabetes and endocrinology, family medicine, radiology, ob.gyn., and rheumatology. Pulmonology specialists reported a burnout rate of 41%. Gastroenterologists reported burnout rates of 37%.
The survey divided participants into three age categories – Millennial (ages 25-39 years), Generation X (ages 40-54 years), and Baby Boomer (ages 55-73 years). Both Millennials and Baby Boomers reported similar rates of burnout (38% and 39%, respectively) and those in Generation X reported a higher rate of burnout (48%).
This higher rate is not unexpected. The survey results cite Carol Bernstein, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, as noting that midcareer “is typically the time of highest burnout, which is where Gen Xers are in their career trajectory, suggesting a number of factors outside of work such as caring for children and elderly parents, planning for retirement, can play a role in contributing to burnout.”
Women also reported a higher rate of burnout, although the rate has dropped from the survey conducted 5 years ago. The rate of burnout among women reported for the 2020 survey was 48%, down from 51% reported 5 years ago. By comparison, the rate of burnout for men was 37% in 2020, down from 43% in 2015.
In terms of what is causing burnout, the biggest contributor is the bureaucratic tasks (charting and paperwork, for example) that physicians must complete, which 55% of respondents to the survey said was the leading cause of burnout. Next was spending too many hours at work (33%); lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (32%); and the increased computerization of the practice, including the use of electronic health records (30%).
When broken down by age category, the bureaucratic tasks was tops in all three groups (57% for Millennials, 56% for Generation X, and 54% for Baby Boomers), but what ranks next differs slightly by age group. For Millennials, the next two factors were too many hours at work (38%) and lack of respect (35%). Generation X respondents cited the same two factors, both at 33%. Baby Boomers cited computerization as their second-highest factor (41%) and spending too many hours at work as the third-highest factor (31%).
The generations had different approaches to coping with burnout. Millennials (56%) reported sleep as their top-ranked coping strategy, while Gen Xers and Baby Boomers ranked exercise and personal isolation as their top choice. For these two older groups, sleep was ranked last, after other activities such as talking with family and friends.
The survey also asked about depression, and respondents reported a similar rate across all age groups (15%, 18%, and 16%, respectively). Among those who said they were depressed, the three age groups had similar rates of suicidal thoughts (21%, 24%, and 22%).
Perhaps the most striking finding of the survey is the number of physicians who would take a pay cut to achieve a better work-life balance. Among Millennials, 52% would accept a pay cut, compared with 48% of Generation X and 49% of Baby Boomers. A surprising number (36%, 34%, and 31%, respectively, reported that they would accept a $10,000-$20,000 pay cut to have a 20% reduction in work hours. [email protected]
*This story was updated on 1/22/2020.
SOURCE: Kane L et al. Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide. Medscape. 2020 Jan 15.
Burnout among physicians appears to have decreased slightly in the past few years, but remains a significant problem for the medical profession, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide.
A survey of more than 15,000 physicians revealed that 42% reported being burned out, down from 46% who responded to the survey 5 years ago. However, there are variations in the rates based on certain demographic factors such as specialty, age, and gender.
Urology sits at the top of the list as the specialty that is experiencing the highest rate of burnout, with 54% of urologists responding to the survey reporting burnout. Neurology and nephrology followed with rates of burnout at 50% and 49%, respectively. The next five specialties on the list all reported burnout rates of 46%: diabetes and endocrinology, family medicine, radiology, ob.gyn., and rheumatology. Pulmonology specialists reported a burnout rate of 41%. Gastroenterologists reported burnout rates of 37%.
The survey divided participants into three age categories – Millennial (ages 25-39 years), Generation X (ages 40-54 years), and Baby Boomer (ages 55-73 years). Both Millennials and Baby Boomers reported similar rates of burnout (38% and 39%, respectively) and those in Generation X reported a higher rate of burnout (48%).
This higher rate is not unexpected. The survey results cite Carol Bernstein, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, as noting that midcareer “is typically the time of highest burnout, which is where Gen Xers are in their career trajectory, suggesting a number of factors outside of work such as caring for children and elderly parents, planning for retirement, can play a role in contributing to burnout.”
Women also reported a higher rate of burnout, although the rate has dropped from the survey conducted 5 years ago. The rate of burnout among women reported for the 2020 survey was 48%, down from 51% reported 5 years ago. By comparison, the rate of burnout for men was 37% in 2020, down from 43% in 2015.
In terms of what is causing burnout, the biggest contributor is the bureaucratic tasks (charting and paperwork, for example) that physicians must complete, which 55% of respondents to the survey said was the leading cause of burnout. Next was spending too many hours at work (33%); lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (32%); and the increased computerization of the practice, including the use of electronic health records (30%).
When broken down by age category, the bureaucratic tasks was tops in all three groups (57% for Millennials, 56% for Generation X, and 54% for Baby Boomers), but what ranks next differs slightly by age group. For Millennials, the next two factors were too many hours at work (38%) and lack of respect (35%). Generation X respondents cited the same two factors, both at 33%. Baby Boomers cited computerization as their second-highest factor (41%) and spending too many hours at work as the third-highest factor (31%).
The generations had different approaches to coping with burnout. Millennials (56%) reported sleep as their top-ranked coping strategy, while Gen Xers and Baby Boomers ranked exercise and personal isolation as their top choice. For these two older groups, sleep was ranked last, after other activities such as talking with family and friends.
The survey also asked about depression, and respondents reported a similar rate across all age groups (15%, 18%, and 16%, respectively). Among those who said they were depressed, the three age groups had similar rates of suicidal thoughts (21%, 24%, and 22%).
Perhaps the most striking finding of the survey is the number of physicians who would take a pay cut to achieve a better work-life balance. Among Millennials, 52% would accept a pay cut, compared with 48% of Generation X and 49% of Baby Boomers. A surprising number (36%, 34%, and 31%, respectively, reported that they would accept a $10,000-$20,000 pay cut to have a 20% reduction in work hours. [email protected]
*This story was updated on 1/22/2020.
SOURCE: Kane L et al. Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide. Medscape. 2020 Jan 15.
Alan Alda, Scripps Research join forces to improve science communication
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The first time that legendary actor Alan Alda conducted an interview for “Scientific American Frontiers” on PBS, an award-winning series that ran for more than a decade, he remembers learning a lesson in humility.
“I wasn’t as smart as I thought I was,” he told a crowd of largely scientists and medical professionals who gathered in a small auditorium on the campus of Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020. “I didn’t realize the value of ignorance. I have a natural supply of it. I began to use it and say [to interviewees]: ‘I don’t understand what that means.’ Sometimes it would be basic physics and they’d look at me like I was a school child. I am a very curious person. What I discovered was, I was bringing out their humanity by my own curiosity, by the way I related to them, which I developed through studying improvisation as an actor, and relating as an actor to other actors.”
Mr. Alda, 83, appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research is the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
Immersive training experience
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” said Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards. “It’s an experiential kind of training. We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
To date, the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science has trained more than 15,000 scientific leaders in the United States and other countries. The location at Scripps Research makes it more convenient for West Coast–based researchers and industry leaders to participate. “One of the things we wished, for years, we had was a place where we could train scientists and researchers and medical professionals all up and down the West Coast,” he said.
Recently, more than 30 of Scripps Research scientists participated in Mr. Alda’s training program, an immersive and engaging experience that helps participants learn to empathize with an audience and present their work in a way that connects with different stakeholders. The skills and strategies can help participants relate to prospective investors and philanthropists, government officials, members of the media, peers across scientific disciplines, and the general public.
Earlier in the day that he spoke on the Scripps campus, Mr. Alda encountered some of the Scripps researchers who had participated in that training. “One group of scientists came in and we shook hands,” he said. “They introduced themselves and said: ‘We’re working on infectious diseases.’ I said: ‘Oh my God; I just shook hands with you!’ No matter what I asked them, they had a clear way to express what they did. Then I realized they had studied with Alda Communications.”
Why communication matters
During the early stages of forming what became the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, one Nobel Prize winner at a major university dismissed the importance of improving the communication skills of young scientists. “He said to me: ‘We don’t have time for that; we have too much science to teach,’ ” said Mr. Alda, who played Army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H”. “But communication is the essence of science. How can you do science unless you communicate with other scientists? There’s a stereotype that scientists are not as good at communicating as other people are. It’s true that they often speak a language that a lot of us don’t understand, but we all speak a language that is hard for other people to understand if we know something in great depth. We want to tell all the details; we want to speak in our special language because it makes us feel good.”
He underscored the importance of scientists being able to effectively communicate with the general public, “because the public needs to understand how important science is to their lives. It matters because at a place like [Scripps Research], understanding how nature works is put to work to keep our health secure.” Members of the public, he continued, “are busy living their lives; they’re busy working and bringing up their children. They haven’t spent 20, 30, 40 years devoted to a single aspect of nature the way scientists have. We can’t expect them to know as much as professional scientists, so we have to help them understand it. I hope we find ways to increase curiosity. I don’t know how to do that. I wish somebody would do a study on it, how you can take someone with a modicum of curiosity and help them enlarge it so it gives them the pleasure of discovering things about nature or understanding things about nature that other people don’t discover. Curiosity is the key to staying alive. That would bring us to a point of more people understanding science.”
Cultivating a sense of responsibility is another key to effective communication. “It’s the job of the person leading the discussion to make clear to the person listening,” Mr. Alda said. “You get the impression that ‘this person is my responsibility. I have to take care of them, so they understand what’s going on.’ ”
Parkinson’s disease diagnosis
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016. “Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues. There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
He added: “I’ve gone 5 years and I’m almost busier than I’ve ever been. I’m getting a lot accomplished and I look forward to I don’t know how many years. As long as I have them, I’m going to be grateful. It’s amazing how great it feels not to keep the diagnosis a secret.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The first time that legendary actor Alan Alda conducted an interview for “Scientific American Frontiers” on PBS, an award-winning series that ran for more than a decade, he remembers learning a lesson in humility.
“I wasn’t as smart as I thought I was,” he told a crowd of largely scientists and medical professionals who gathered in a small auditorium on the campus of Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020. “I didn’t realize the value of ignorance. I have a natural supply of it. I began to use it and say [to interviewees]: ‘I don’t understand what that means.’ Sometimes it would be basic physics and they’d look at me like I was a school child. I am a very curious person. What I discovered was, I was bringing out their humanity by my own curiosity, by the way I related to them, which I developed through studying improvisation as an actor, and relating as an actor to other actors.”
Mr. Alda, 83, appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research is the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
Immersive training experience
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” said Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards. “It’s an experiential kind of training. We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
To date, the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science has trained more than 15,000 scientific leaders in the United States and other countries. The location at Scripps Research makes it more convenient for West Coast–based researchers and industry leaders to participate. “One of the things we wished, for years, we had was a place where we could train scientists and researchers and medical professionals all up and down the West Coast,” he said.
Recently, more than 30 of Scripps Research scientists participated in Mr. Alda’s training program, an immersive and engaging experience that helps participants learn to empathize with an audience and present their work in a way that connects with different stakeholders. The skills and strategies can help participants relate to prospective investors and philanthropists, government officials, members of the media, peers across scientific disciplines, and the general public.
Earlier in the day that he spoke on the Scripps campus, Mr. Alda encountered some of the Scripps researchers who had participated in that training. “One group of scientists came in and we shook hands,” he said. “They introduced themselves and said: ‘We’re working on infectious diseases.’ I said: ‘Oh my God; I just shook hands with you!’ No matter what I asked them, they had a clear way to express what they did. Then I realized they had studied with Alda Communications.”
Why communication matters
During the early stages of forming what became the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, one Nobel Prize winner at a major university dismissed the importance of improving the communication skills of young scientists. “He said to me: ‘We don’t have time for that; we have too much science to teach,’ ” said Mr. Alda, who played Army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H”. “But communication is the essence of science. How can you do science unless you communicate with other scientists? There’s a stereotype that scientists are not as good at communicating as other people are. It’s true that they often speak a language that a lot of us don’t understand, but we all speak a language that is hard for other people to understand if we know something in great depth. We want to tell all the details; we want to speak in our special language because it makes us feel good.”
He underscored the importance of scientists being able to effectively communicate with the general public, “because the public needs to understand how important science is to their lives. It matters because at a place like [Scripps Research], understanding how nature works is put to work to keep our health secure.” Members of the public, he continued, “are busy living their lives; they’re busy working and bringing up their children. They haven’t spent 20, 30, 40 years devoted to a single aspect of nature the way scientists have. We can’t expect them to know as much as professional scientists, so we have to help them understand it. I hope we find ways to increase curiosity. I don’t know how to do that. I wish somebody would do a study on it, how you can take someone with a modicum of curiosity and help them enlarge it so it gives them the pleasure of discovering things about nature or understanding things about nature that other people don’t discover. Curiosity is the key to staying alive. That would bring us to a point of more people understanding science.”
Cultivating a sense of responsibility is another key to effective communication. “It’s the job of the person leading the discussion to make clear to the person listening,” Mr. Alda said. “You get the impression that ‘this person is my responsibility. I have to take care of them, so they understand what’s going on.’ ”
Parkinson’s disease diagnosis
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016. “Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues. There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
He added: “I’ve gone 5 years and I’m almost busier than I’ve ever been. I’m getting a lot accomplished and I look forward to I don’t know how many years. As long as I have them, I’m going to be grateful. It’s amazing how great it feels not to keep the diagnosis a secret.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The first time that legendary actor Alan Alda conducted an interview for “Scientific American Frontiers” on PBS, an award-winning series that ran for more than a decade, he remembers learning a lesson in humility.
“I wasn’t as smart as I thought I was,” he told a crowd of largely scientists and medical professionals who gathered in a small auditorium on the campus of Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020. “I didn’t realize the value of ignorance. I have a natural supply of it. I began to use it and say [to interviewees]: ‘I don’t understand what that means.’ Sometimes it would be basic physics and they’d look at me like I was a school child. I am a very curious person. What I discovered was, I was bringing out their humanity by my own curiosity, by the way I related to them, which I developed through studying improvisation as an actor, and relating as an actor to other actors.”
Mr. Alda, 83, appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research is the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
Immersive training experience
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” said Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards. “It’s an experiential kind of training. We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
To date, the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science has trained more than 15,000 scientific leaders in the United States and other countries. The location at Scripps Research makes it more convenient for West Coast–based researchers and industry leaders to participate. “One of the things we wished, for years, we had was a place where we could train scientists and researchers and medical professionals all up and down the West Coast,” he said.
Recently, more than 30 of Scripps Research scientists participated in Mr. Alda’s training program, an immersive and engaging experience that helps participants learn to empathize with an audience and present their work in a way that connects with different stakeholders. The skills and strategies can help participants relate to prospective investors and philanthropists, government officials, members of the media, peers across scientific disciplines, and the general public.
Earlier in the day that he spoke on the Scripps campus, Mr. Alda encountered some of the Scripps researchers who had participated in that training. “One group of scientists came in and we shook hands,” he said. “They introduced themselves and said: ‘We’re working on infectious diseases.’ I said: ‘Oh my God; I just shook hands with you!’ No matter what I asked them, they had a clear way to express what they did. Then I realized they had studied with Alda Communications.”
Why communication matters
During the early stages of forming what became the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, one Nobel Prize winner at a major university dismissed the importance of improving the communication skills of young scientists. “He said to me: ‘We don’t have time for that; we have too much science to teach,’ ” said Mr. Alda, who played Army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H”. “But communication is the essence of science. How can you do science unless you communicate with other scientists? There’s a stereotype that scientists are not as good at communicating as other people are. It’s true that they often speak a language that a lot of us don’t understand, but we all speak a language that is hard for other people to understand if we know something in great depth. We want to tell all the details; we want to speak in our special language because it makes us feel good.”
He underscored the importance of scientists being able to effectively communicate with the general public, “because the public needs to understand how important science is to their lives. It matters because at a place like [Scripps Research], understanding how nature works is put to work to keep our health secure.” Members of the public, he continued, “are busy living their lives; they’re busy working and bringing up their children. They haven’t spent 20, 30, 40 years devoted to a single aspect of nature the way scientists have. We can’t expect them to know as much as professional scientists, so we have to help them understand it. I hope we find ways to increase curiosity. I don’t know how to do that. I wish somebody would do a study on it, how you can take someone with a modicum of curiosity and help them enlarge it so it gives them the pleasure of discovering things about nature or understanding things about nature that other people don’t discover. Curiosity is the key to staying alive. That would bring us to a point of more people understanding science.”
Cultivating a sense of responsibility is another key to effective communication. “It’s the job of the person leading the discussion to make clear to the person listening,” Mr. Alda said. “You get the impression that ‘this person is my responsibility. I have to take care of them, so they understand what’s going on.’ ”
Parkinson’s disease diagnosis
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016. “Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues. There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
He added: “I’ve gone 5 years and I’m almost busier than I’ve ever been. I’m getting a lot accomplished and I look forward to I don’t know how many years. As long as I have them, I’m going to be grateful. It’s amazing how great it feels not to keep the diagnosis a secret.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
Cognitive screening of older physicians: What’s fair?
Cognitive screening of 141 clinicians 70 years or older at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital identified 18 with cognitive deficits likely to impair their ability to practice medicine. Six retired and 12 agreed to limit their practice to closely proctored environments, according to a report in JAMA.
It was part of a program to screen all practitioners 70 years or older who apply for reappointment to the medical staff, and every 2 years thereafter, due to “concerns about the potentially compromised ability of older clinicians,” said the authors, Yale rheumatologist and geriatrician Leo M. Cooney Jr., MD, and Thomas Balcezak, MD, Yale New Haven’s chief medical officer.
Yale is not alone. Intermountain Healthcare, Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Scripps Health Care, Penn Medicine, and the University of California, San Diego, are among the institutions with similar programs.
The move is being driven by the aging of the medical community. About 15% of U.S. physicians are over 65 years old, a tripling from 23,000 in 1980 to 73,000 in 2012-2016, and the number is growing, according to an editorial by Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, professor of neurology and senior associate vice president of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Given the trend, “it is not surprising that the issue of screening aging physicians for cognitive deficits has gained attention over the last decade,” Katrina Armstrong, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Eileen E. Reynolds, MD, associate professor of medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, noted in a second editorial.
“Cognitive decline often accompanies aging, and the prevalence of dementia increases rapidly after age 70 years,” they said.
The data on whether older clinicians pose a risk to patients is limited and somewhat mixed. An analysis of 736,537 Medicare hospitalizations found no association between physician age and 30-day patient mortality among physicians 60 years or older with more than 201 admissions per year, but higher mortality among older physicians with lower volumes.
A meta-analysis of 62 studies showed that “older physicians have less factual knowledge, are less likely to adhere to appropriate standards of care, and may also have poorer patient outcomes.”
The new Yale data, meanwhile, suggests that “approximately 13% [18 of 141] of physicians and other clinicians older than 70 years should not be practicing independently,” Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Reynolds said in their editorial.
There is support for screening efforts. “As a profession that deals with human life, medical practitioners must obviously have the cognitive capacity to safely practice medicine. I applaud the approach taken by Yale New Haven Hospital in that cognitive abilities themselves, and not simply funds of knowledge, are assessed,” said Richard J. Caselli, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, and a leader of the Alzheimer’s disease program there.
However, it’s not hard to imagine highly competent but older physicians taking umbrage at cognitive screening, and there’s been pushback. Stanford was considering a Yale-like approach but opted instead for peer review after opposition. Objections from the Utah Medical Association led Utah to enact a law banning age-based physician screening. In 2015, the American Medical Association issued a report calling for the development of guidelines and standards for assessing competency in aging physicians, but the AMA House of Delegates shelved it pending further study.
There are concerns about age discrimination, discounting the accumulated wisdom of long-practicing physicians, and misclassifying competent physicians, particularly those who provide quality care in rural and other underserved areas. Indeed, 8 of 14 clinicians who screened positive at Yale and underwent more extensive testing were allowed to recredential, “suggesting that the false-positive screening rate could be as high as 57%,” Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Reynolds noted.
The consensus seems to be that there probably is a need for some sort of screening, but it must be both sound and fair. Rather than a piecemeal institutional approach, perhaps there is “an important opportunity for other groups, including specialty boards and state licensing boards” to standardize the process, they said.
Among other things, assessments could focus less on test scores and more on the practice of medicine. For instance, fine motor skill/motor planning assessments for surgeons, and intermediate results could trigger a more extensive assessment of actual clinical performance, perhaps even direct observation, Dr. Saver said in his editorial.
As far as clinical performance goes, none of the 18 clinicians at Yale had previous performance problems. “Was this a failure of the system to report impaired physicians or were these physicians compensating sufficiently to avoid detection?” In either case, “cognitive testing should be a red flag that triggers other clinical assessments,” said Carl I. Cohen, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry at the State University of New York, Brooklyn.
The original plan at Yale was for neurologic and ophthalmologic examinations beginning at age 70, but ultimately it was decided to go with a battery of 16 tests to assess visual scanning and psychomotor efficiency, processing speed under pressure, concentration, and working memory, among other things. Testing takes about 50-90 minutes, and is graded by single neuropsychologist to ensure consistency. Results were compared with normative scores from both older and younger clinicians.
To prevent clinicians from preparing for it, Yale isn’t releasing its test battery.
Suboptimal performance triggered additional evaluations, including in-depth assessment of intellectual, memory, and executive function. Final reviews and recommendations were made by a committee that included a geriatrician, the clinician’s section or department chair, and current and past chief medical officers.
Among the 18 providers who demonstrated deficits impairing their ability to practice medicine, 5 were 70-74 years old; 4 were 75-79; and 9 were 80 years or older. Minor abnormalities were found in 34 other candidates (24.1%); they were allowed to recredential but were scheduled for rescreening at 1-year intervals, instead of every 2 years.
The mean age among the 141 screened clinicians was 74.3 years and ranged from 69 to 92 years; 86% were men. Applicants included 125 physicians (88.7%) as well as 5 advanced practice registered nurses; 4 dentists; 3 psychologists; 2 podiatrists; 1 physician associate; and 1 midwife.
The authors had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Cooney L et al. JAMA. 2020 Jan 14;323(2):179-80.
Cognitive screening of 141 clinicians 70 years or older at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital identified 18 with cognitive deficits likely to impair their ability to practice medicine. Six retired and 12 agreed to limit their practice to closely proctored environments, according to a report in JAMA.
It was part of a program to screen all practitioners 70 years or older who apply for reappointment to the medical staff, and every 2 years thereafter, due to “concerns about the potentially compromised ability of older clinicians,” said the authors, Yale rheumatologist and geriatrician Leo M. Cooney Jr., MD, and Thomas Balcezak, MD, Yale New Haven’s chief medical officer.
Yale is not alone. Intermountain Healthcare, Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Scripps Health Care, Penn Medicine, and the University of California, San Diego, are among the institutions with similar programs.
The move is being driven by the aging of the medical community. About 15% of U.S. physicians are over 65 years old, a tripling from 23,000 in 1980 to 73,000 in 2012-2016, and the number is growing, according to an editorial by Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, professor of neurology and senior associate vice president of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Given the trend, “it is not surprising that the issue of screening aging physicians for cognitive deficits has gained attention over the last decade,” Katrina Armstrong, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Eileen E. Reynolds, MD, associate professor of medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, noted in a second editorial.
“Cognitive decline often accompanies aging, and the prevalence of dementia increases rapidly after age 70 years,” they said.
The data on whether older clinicians pose a risk to patients is limited and somewhat mixed. An analysis of 736,537 Medicare hospitalizations found no association between physician age and 30-day patient mortality among physicians 60 years or older with more than 201 admissions per year, but higher mortality among older physicians with lower volumes.
A meta-analysis of 62 studies showed that “older physicians have less factual knowledge, are less likely to adhere to appropriate standards of care, and may also have poorer patient outcomes.”
The new Yale data, meanwhile, suggests that “approximately 13% [18 of 141] of physicians and other clinicians older than 70 years should not be practicing independently,” Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Reynolds said in their editorial.
There is support for screening efforts. “As a profession that deals with human life, medical practitioners must obviously have the cognitive capacity to safely practice medicine. I applaud the approach taken by Yale New Haven Hospital in that cognitive abilities themselves, and not simply funds of knowledge, are assessed,” said Richard J. Caselli, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, and a leader of the Alzheimer’s disease program there.
However, it’s not hard to imagine highly competent but older physicians taking umbrage at cognitive screening, and there’s been pushback. Stanford was considering a Yale-like approach but opted instead for peer review after opposition. Objections from the Utah Medical Association led Utah to enact a law banning age-based physician screening. In 2015, the American Medical Association issued a report calling for the development of guidelines and standards for assessing competency in aging physicians, but the AMA House of Delegates shelved it pending further study.
There are concerns about age discrimination, discounting the accumulated wisdom of long-practicing physicians, and misclassifying competent physicians, particularly those who provide quality care in rural and other underserved areas. Indeed, 8 of 14 clinicians who screened positive at Yale and underwent more extensive testing were allowed to recredential, “suggesting that the false-positive screening rate could be as high as 57%,” Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Reynolds noted.
The consensus seems to be that there probably is a need for some sort of screening, but it must be both sound and fair. Rather than a piecemeal institutional approach, perhaps there is “an important opportunity for other groups, including specialty boards and state licensing boards” to standardize the process, they said.
Among other things, assessments could focus less on test scores and more on the practice of medicine. For instance, fine motor skill/motor planning assessments for surgeons, and intermediate results could trigger a more extensive assessment of actual clinical performance, perhaps even direct observation, Dr. Saver said in his editorial.
As far as clinical performance goes, none of the 18 clinicians at Yale had previous performance problems. “Was this a failure of the system to report impaired physicians or were these physicians compensating sufficiently to avoid detection?” In either case, “cognitive testing should be a red flag that triggers other clinical assessments,” said Carl I. Cohen, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry at the State University of New York, Brooklyn.
The original plan at Yale was for neurologic and ophthalmologic examinations beginning at age 70, but ultimately it was decided to go with a battery of 16 tests to assess visual scanning and psychomotor efficiency, processing speed under pressure, concentration, and working memory, among other things. Testing takes about 50-90 minutes, and is graded by single neuropsychologist to ensure consistency. Results were compared with normative scores from both older and younger clinicians.
To prevent clinicians from preparing for it, Yale isn’t releasing its test battery.
Suboptimal performance triggered additional evaluations, including in-depth assessment of intellectual, memory, and executive function. Final reviews and recommendations were made by a committee that included a geriatrician, the clinician’s section or department chair, and current and past chief medical officers.
Among the 18 providers who demonstrated deficits impairing their ability to practice medicine, 5 were 70-74 years old; 4 were 75-79; and 9 were 80 years or older. Minor abnormalities were found in 34 other candidates (24.1%); they were allowed to recredential but were scheduled for rescreening at 1-year intervals, instead of every 2 years.
The mean age among the 141 screened clinicians was 74.3 years and ranged from 69 to 92 years; 86% were men. Applicants included 125 physicians (88.7%) as well as 5 advanced practice registered nurses; 4 dentists; 3 psychologists; 2 podiatrists; 1 physician associate; and 1 midwife.
The authors had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Cooney L et al. JAMA. 2020 Jan 14;323(2):179-80.
Cognitive screening of 141 clinicians 70 years or older at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital identified 18 with cognitive deficits likely to impair their ability to practice medicine. Six retired and 12 agreed to limit their practice to closely proctored environments, according to a report in JAMA.
It was part of a program to screen all practitioners 70 years or older who apply for reappointment to the medical staff, and every 2 years thereafter, due to “concerns about the potentially compromised ability of older clinicians,” said the authors, Yale rheumatologist and geriatrician Leo M. Cooney Jr., MD, and Thomas Balcezak, MD, Yale New Haven’s chief medical officer.
Yale is not alone. Intermountain Healthcare, Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Scripps Health Care, Penn Medicine, and the University of California, San Diego, are among the institutions with similar programs.
The move is being driven by the aging of the medical community. About 15% of U.S. physicians are over 65 years old, a tripling from 23,000 in 1980 to 73,000 in 2012-2016, and the number is growing, according to an editorial by Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, professor of neurology and senior associate vice president of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Given the trend, “it is not surprising that the issue of screening aging physicians for cognitive deficits has gained attention over the last decade,” Katrina Armstrong, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Eileen E. Reynolds, MD, associate professor of medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, noted in a second editorial.
“Cognitive decline often accompanies aging, and the prevalence of dementia increases rapidly after age 70 years,” they said.
The data on whether older clinicians pose a risk to patients is limited and somewhat mixed. An analysis of 736,537 Medicare hospitalizations found no association between physician age and 30-day patient mortality among physicians 60 years or older with more than 201 admissions per year, but higher mortality among older physicians with lower volumes.
A meta-analysis of 62 studies showed that “older physicians have less factual knowledge, are less likely to adhere to appropriate standards of care, and may also have poorer patient outcomes.”
The new Yale data, meanwhile, suggests that “approximately 13% [18 of 141] of physicians and other clinicians older than 70 years should not be practicing independently,” Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Reynolds said in their editorial.
There is support for screening efforts. “As a profession that deals with human life, medical practitioners must obviously have the cognitive capacity to safely practice medicine. I applaud the approach taken by Yale New Haven Hospital in that cognitive abilities themselves, and not simply funds of knowledge, are assessed,” said Richard J. Caselli, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, and a leader of the Alzheimer’s disease program there.
However, it’s not hard to imagine highly competent but older physicians taking umbrage at cognitive screening, and there’s been pushback. Stanford was considering a Yale-like approach but opted instead for peer review after opposition. Objections from the Utah Medical Association led Utah to enact a law banning age-based physician screening. In 2015, the American Medical Association issued a report calling for the development of guidelines and standards for assessing competency in aging physicians, but the AMA House of Delegates shelved it pending further study.
There are concerns about age discrimination, discounting the accumulated wisdom of long-practicing physicians, and misclassifying competent physicians, particularly those who provide quality care in rural and other underserved areas. Indeed, 8 of 14 clinicians who screened positive at Yale and underwent more extensive testing were allowed to recredential, “suggesting that the false-positive screening rate could be as high as 57%,” Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Reynolds noted.
The consensus seems to be that there probably is a need for some sort of screening, but it must be both sound and fair. Rather than a piecemeal institutional approach, perhaps there is “an important opportunity for other groups, including specialty boards and state licensing boards” to standardize the process, they said.
Among other things, assessments could focus less on test scores and more on the practice of medicine. For instance, fine motor skill/motor planning assessments for surgeons, and intermediate results could trigger a more extensive assessment of actual clinical performance, perhaps even direct observation, Dr. Saver said in his editorial.
As far as clinical performance goes, none of the 18 clinicians at Yale had previous performance problems. “Was this a failure of the system to report impaired physicians or were these physicians compensating sufficiently to avoid detection?” In either case, “cognitive testing should be a red flag that triggers other clinical assessments,” said Carl I. Cohen, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry at the State University of New York, Brooklyn.
The original plan at Yale was for neurologic and ophthalmologic examinations beginning at age 70, but ultimately it was decided to go with a battery of 16 tests to assess visual scanning and psychomotor efficiency, processing speed under pressure, concentration, and working memory, among other things. Testing takes about 50-90 minutes, and is graded by single neuropsychologist to ensure consistency. Results were compared with normative scores from both older and younger clinicians.
To prevent clinicians from preparing for it, Yale isn’t releasing its test battery.
Suboptimal performance triggered additional evaluations, including in-depth assessment of intellectual, memory, and executive function. Final reviews and recommendations were made by a committee that included a geriatrician, the clinician’s section or department chair, and current and past chief medical officers.
Among the 18 providers who demonstrated deficits impairing their ability to practice medicine, 5 were 70-74 years old; 4 were 75-79; and 9 were 80 years or older. Minor abnormalities were found in 34 other candidates (24.1%); they were allowed to recredential but were scheduled for rescreening at 1-year intervals, instead of every 2 years.
The mean age among the 141 screened clinicians was 74.3 years and ranged from 69 to 92 years; 86% were men. Applicants included 125 physicians (88.7%) as well as 5 advanced practice registered nurses; 4 dentists; 3 psychologists; 2 podiatrists; 1 physician associate; and 1 midwife.
The authors had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Cooney L et al. JAMA. 2020 Jan 14;323(2):179-80.
FROM JAMA
The power and promise of person-generated health data – part 1
The time shared during clinical encounters provides small peeks into patients’ lives that get documented as episodic snapshots in electronic health records. But there is little information about how patients are doing outside of the office. With increasing emphasis on filling out mandatory parts of the EHR, there is less time available for in-depth, in-office conversations and phone follow-ups.
At the same time, it has become clear that it is not just the medicines we prescribe that affect our patients’ lives. Their behaviors outside of the office – being physically active, eating well, getting a good night’s rest, and adhering to medications – also impact their health outcomes.
The explosion of technology and personal data in our increasingly connected world provides powerful new sources of health and behavior information that generate new understanding of patients’ lives in their everyday settings.
The ubiquity and remarkable technological progress of personal computing devices – including wearables, smartphones, and tablets – along with the multitude of sensor modalities embedded within these devices, has enabled us to establish a continuous connection with people who want to share information about their behavior and daily life.
Such rich, longitudinal information, known as person-generated health data (PGHD), can be searched for physiological and behavioral signatures that can be used in combination with traditional clinical information to predict, diagnose, and treat disease. It can also be used to understand the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions.
PGHD is defined as wellness and/or health-related data created, recorded, or gathered by individuals. It reflects events and interactions that occur during an person’s everyday life. Systematically gathering this information and organizing it to better understand patients’ approach to their health or their unique experience living with disease provides meaningful insights that complement the data traditionally collected as part of clinical trials or periodic office visits.
PGHD can produce a rich picture of a person’s health or symptom burden with disease. It allows the opportunity to measure the real human burden of a patient’s disease and how it changes over time, with an opportunity to detect changes in symptoms in real time.
PGHD can also enable participation in health research.
An example would be the work of Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Evidation provides a platform to run research studies utilizing technology and systems to measure health in everyday life. Its app, Achievement, collects continuous behavior-related data from smartphones, wearables, connected devices, and apps. That provides opportunities for participants to join research studies that develop novel measures designed to quantify health outcomes in a way that more accurately reflects an individual’s day-to-day activities and experience. All data collected are at the direction of and with the permission of the individual.
“Achievers” are given points for taking health-related actions such as tracking steps or their sleep, which convert to cash that can be kept or donated to their favorite charities. Achievement’s 3.5 million diverse participants also receive offers to join research studies. This paradigm shift dramatically expands access to research to increase diversity, shortens the time to first data through rapid recruitment, and enhances retention rates by making it easier to engage. To date, more than 1 million users have chosen to participate in research studies. The technology is bringing new data and insights to health research; it supports important questions about quality of life, medical products’ real-world effectiveness, and the development of hyperpersonalized health care services.
This new type of data is transforming medical research by creating real-world studies of unprecedented size, such as the Apple Heart Study – a virtual study with more than 400,000 enrolled participants – which was designed to test the accuracy of Apple Watches in safely identifying atrial fibrillation. The FDA has cleared two features on the Apple Watch: the device’s ability to detect and notify the user of an irregular heart rhythm, and the ability to take a single-lead EKG feature that can provide a rhythm strip for a clinician to review.
The FDA clearance letters specify that the apps are “not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment.” They provide extra information, and that information might be helpful – but the apps won’t replace a doctor’s visit. It remains to be seen how these data will be used, but they have the potential to identify atrial fibrillation early, leading to treatment that may prevent devastating strokes.
Another example of home-generated health data is a tool that has obtained FDA clearance as a diagnostic device with insurance reimbursement: WatchPAT, a portable sleep apnea diagnostic device. WatchPAT is worn like a simple wristwatch, with no need for belts, wires, or nasal cannulas.
Over time, in-home tests like these that are of minimal inconvenience to the patient and reflect a real-world experience may eclipse traditional sleep studies that require patients to spend the night in a clinic while attached to wires and monitors.
Health data generated by connected populations will yield novel insights that may help us better predict, diagnose, and treat disease. These are examples of innovations that can extend clinicians’ abilities to remotely monitor or diagnose health conditions, and we can expect that more will continue to be integrated into the clinical and research settings in the near future.
In part 2 of this series, we will discuss novel digital measures and studies utilizing PGHD to impact population health.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, family medicine residency program, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Foschini is cofounder and chief data scientist at Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Bray Patrick-Lake is a patient thought leader and director, strategic partnerships, at Evidation Health.
References
Determining real-world data’s fitness for use and the role of reliability, September 2019. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381(20):1909-17.
The time shared during clinical encounters provides small peeks into patients’ lives that get documented as episodic snapshots in electronic health records. But there is little information about how patients are doing outside of the office. With increasing emphasis on filling out mandatory parts of the EHR, there is less time available for in-depth, in-office conversations and phone follow-ups.
At the same time, it has become clear that it is not just the medicines we prescribe that affect our patients’ lives. Their behaviors outside of the office – being physically active, eating well, getting a good night’s rest, and adhering to medications – also impact their health outcomes.
The explosion of technology and personal data in our increasingly connected world provides powerful new sources of health and behavior information that generate new understanding of patients’ lives in their everyday settings.
The ubiquity and remarkable technological progress of personal computing devices – including wearables, smartphones, and tablets – along with the multitude of sensor modalities embedded within these devices, has enabled us to establish a continuous connection with people who want to share information about their behavior and daily life.
Such rich, longitudinal information, known as person-generated health data (PGHD), can be searched for physiological and behavioral signatures that can be used in combination with traditional clinical information to predict, diagnose, and treat disease. It can also be used to understand the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions.
PGHD is defined as wellness and/or health-related data created, recorded, or gathered by individuals. It reflects events and interactions that occur during an person’s everyday life. Systematically gathering this information and organizing it to better understand patients’ approach to their health or their unique experience living with disease provides meaningful insights that complement the data traditionally collected as part of clinical trials or periodic office visits.
PGHD can produce a rich picture of a person’s health or symptom burden with disease. It allows the opportunity to measure the real human burden of a patient’s disease and how it changes over time, with an opportunity to detect changes in symptoms in real time.
PGHD can also enable participation in health research.
An example would be the work of Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Evidation provides a platform to run research studies utilizing technology and systems to measure health in everyday life. Its app, Achievement, collects continuous behavior-related data from smartphones, wearables, connected devices, and apps. That provides opportunities for participants to join research studies that develop novel measures designed to quantify health outcomes in a way that more accurately reflects an individual’s day-to-day activities and experience. All data collected are at the direction of and with the permission of the individual.
“Achievers” are given points for taking health-related actions such as tracking steps or their sleep, which convert to cash that can be kept or donated to their favorite charities. Achievement’s 3.5 million diverse participants also receive offers to join research studies. This paradigm shift dramatically expands access to research to increase diversity, shortens the time to first data through rapid recruitment, and enhances retention rates by making it easier to engage. To date, more than 1 million users have chosen to participate in research studies. The technology is bringing new data and insights to health research; it supports important questions about quality of life, medical products’ real-world effectiveness, and the development of hyperpersonalized health care services.
This new type of data is transforming medical research by creating real-world studies of unprecedented size, such as the Apple Heart Study – a virtual study with more than 400,000 enrolled participants – which was designed to test the accuracy of Apple Watches in safely identifying atrial fibrillation. The FDA has cleared two features on the Apple Watch: the device’s ability to detect and notify the user of an irregular heart rhythm, and the ability to take a single-lead EKG feature that can provide a rhythm strip for a clinician to review.
The FDA clearance letters specify that the apps are “not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment.” They provide extra information, and that information might be helpful – but the apps won’t replace a doctor’s visit. It remains to be seen how these data will be used, but they have the potential to identify atrial fibrillation early, leading to treatment that may prevent devastating strokes.
Another example of home-generated health data is a tool that has obtained FDA clearance as a diagnostic device with insurance reimbursement: WatchPAT, a portable sleep apnea diagnostic device. WatchPAT is worn like a simple wristwatch, with no need for belts, wires, or nasal cannulas.
Over time, in-home tests like these that are of minimal inconvenience to the patient and reflect a real-world experience may eclipse traditional sleep studies that require patients to spend the night in a clinic while attached to wires and monitors.
Health data generated by connected populations will yield novel insights that may help us better predict, diagnose, and treat disease. These are examples of innovations that can extend clinicians’ abilities to remotely monitor or diagnose health conditions, and we can expect that more will continue to be integrated into the clinical and research settings in the near future.
In part 2 of this series, we will discuss novel digital measures and studies utilizing PGHD to impact population health.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, family medicine residency program, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Foschini is cofounder and chief data scientist at Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Bray Patrick-Lake is a patient thought leader and director, strategic partnerships, at Evidation Health.
References
Determining real-world data’s fitness for use and the role of reliability, September 2019. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381(20):1909-17.
The time shared during clinical encounters provides small peeks into patients’ lives that get documented as episodic snapshots in electronic health records. But there is little information about how patients are doing outside of the office. With increasing emphasis on filling out mandatory parts of the EHR, there is less time available for in-depth, in-office conversations and phone follow-ups.
At the same time, it has become clear that it is not just the medicines we prescribe that affect our patients’ lives. Their behaviors outside of the office – being physically active, eating well, getting a good night’s rest, and adhering to medications – also impact their health outcomes.
The explosion of technology and personal data in our increasingly connected world provides powerful new sources of health and behavior information that generate new understanding of patients’ lives in their everyday settings.
The ubiquity and remarkable technological progress of personal computing devices – including wearables, smartphones, and tablets – along with the multitude of sensor modalities embedded within these devices, has enabled us to establish a continuous connection with people who want to share information about their behavior and daily life.
Such rich, longitudinal information, known as person-generated health data (PGHD), can be searched for physiological and behavioral signatures that can be used in combination with traditional clinical information to predict, diagnose, and treat disease. It can also be used to understand the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions.
PGHD is defined as wellness and/or health-related data created, recorded, or gathered by individuals. It reflects events and interactions that occur during an person’s everyday life. Systematically gathering this information and organizing it to better understand patients’ approach to their health or their unique experience living with disease provides meaningful insights that complement the data traditionally collected as part of clinical trials or periodic office visits.
PGHD can produce a rich picture of a person’s health or symptom burden with disease. It allows the opportunity to measure the real human burden of a patient’s disease and how it changes over time, with an opportunity to detect changes in symptoms in real time.
PGHD can also enable participation in health research.
An example would be the work of Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Evidation provides a platform to run research studies utilizing technology and systems to measure health in everyday life. Its app, Achievement, collects continuous behavior-related data from smartphones, wearables, connected devices, and apps. That provides opportunities for participants to join research studies that develop novel measures designed to quantify health outcomes in a way that more accurately reflects an individual’s day-to-day activities and experience. All data collected are at the direction of and with the permission of the individual.
“Achievers” are given points for taking health-related actions such as tracking steps or their sleep, which convert to cash that can be kept or donated to their favorite charities. Achievement’s 3.5 million diverse participants also receive offers to join research studies. This paradigm shift dramatically expands access to research to increase diversity, shortens the time to first data through rapid recruitment, and enhances retention rates by making it easier to engage. To date, more than 1 million users have chosen to participate in research studies. The technology is bringing new data and insights to health research; it supports important questions about quality of life, medical products’ real-world effectiveness, and the development of hyperpersonalized health care services.
This new type of data is transforming medical research by creating real-world studies of unprecedented size, such as the Apple Heart Study – a virtual study with more than 400,000 enrolled participants – which was designed to test the accuracy of Apple Watches in safely identifying atrial fibrillation. The FDA has cleared two features on the Apple Watch: the device’s ability to detect and notify the user of an irregular heart rhythm, and the ability to take a single-lead EKG feature that can provide a rhythm strip for a clinician to review.
The FDA clearance letters specify that the apps are “not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment.” They provide extra information, and that information might be helpful – but the apps won’t replace a doctor’s visit. It remains to be seen how these data will be used, but they have the potential to identify atrial fibrillation early, leading to treatment that may prevent devastating strokes.
Another example of home-generated health data is a tool that has obtained FDA clearance as a diagnostic device with insurance reimbursement: WatchPAT, a portable sleep apnea diagnostic device. WatchPAT is worn like a simple wristwatch, with no need for belts, wires, or nasal cannulas.
Over time, in-home tests like these that are of minimal inconvenience to the patient and reflect a real-world experience may eclipse traditional sleep studies that require patients to spend the night in a clinic while attached to wires and monitors.
Health data generated by connected populations will yield novel insights that may help us better predict, diagnose, and treat disease. These are examples of innovations that can extend clinicians’ abilities to remotely monitor or diagnose health conditions, and we can expect that more will continue to be integrated into the clinical and research settings in the near future.
In part 2 of this series, we will discuss novel digital measures and studies utilizing PGHD to impact population health.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, family medicine residency program, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Foschini is cofounder and chief data scientist at Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Bray Patrick-Lake is a patient thought leader and director, strategic partnerships, at Evidation Health.
References
Determining real-world data’s fitness for use and the role of reliability, September 2019. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381(20):1909-17.
Your colleague appears depressed. Now what?
Encountering a colleague who appears depressed or suicidal can be challenging, but experts say the worst thing you can do is turn away.
, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn. “Don’t leave it to ‘the other guy.’ ”
Below, Dr. Myers and other experts offer advice on how to approach a fellow physician who seems depressed or might be in need of professional help.
1. Reach out to the colleague, and find a private, quiet space to talk.
2. Let them know you’re there for them, and do not pass judgment.
3. Share a short list of reasons for your concerns. For example, “It seems you have lost some weight,” or “You seem sad a lot of the time.”
4. Encourage them to accept help. Refrain from giving them a list of names for professional help. Instead, make the phone call for them or set up the appointment, if necessary.
5. Ask specifically about suicidal ideation. For instance, “Are you having thoughts of hurting yourself?” or “Are you having thoughts of ending your life?” People who are suicidal often want someone to ask and help.
6. Stay with the colleague until he or she has worked out a plan of safety – for example, returned to family/loved ones, visited a physician or mental health professional, gone to an emergency department, or called for an ambulance or other assistance.
7. Accompany the colleague to the emergency department or call 911.
8. Remember these two goals: Inquire about safety/danger. Ensure safety of the individual.
Sources: Dr. Myers, Dr. Zisook, and Dr. Yellowlees.
For more information, contact the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (www.afsp.org), and the 24-hour crisis line: 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Late last year, the Federal Communications Commission approved plans to designate 988 as a suicide prevention hotline number. Implementation of the proposal is expected to take several months.
Encountering a colleague who appears depressed or suicidal can be challenging, but experts say the worst thing you can do is turn away.
, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn. “Don’t leave it to ‘the other guy.’ ”
Below, Dr. Myers and other experts offer advice on how to approach a fellow physician who seems depressed or might be in need of professional help.
1. Reach out to the colleague, and find a private, quiet space to talk.
2. Let them know you’re there for them, and do not pass judgment.
3. Share a short list of reasons for your concerns. For example, “It seems you have lost some weight,” or “You seem sad a lot of the time.”
4. Encourage them to accept help. Refrain from giving them a list of names for professional help. Instead, make the phone call for them or set up the appointment, if necessary.
5. Ask specifically about suicidal ideation. For instance, “Are you having thoughts of hurting yourself?” or “Are you having thoughts of ending your life?” People who are suicidal often want someone to ask and help.
6. Stay with the colleague until he or she has worked out a plan of safety – for example, returned to family/loved ones, visited a physician or mental health professional, gone to an emergency department, or called for an ambulance or other assistance.
7. Accompany the colleague to the emergency department or call 911.
8. Remember these two goals: Inquire about safety/danger. Ensure safety of the individual.
Sources: Dr. Myers, Dr. Zisook, and Dr. Yellowlees.
For more information, contact the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (www.afsp.org), and the 24-hour crisis line: 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Late last year, the Federal Communications Commission approved plans to designate 988 as a suicide prevention hotline number. Implementation of the proposal is expected to take several months.
Encountering a colleague who appears depressed or suicidal can be challenging, but experts say the worst thing you can do is turn away.
, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn. “Don’t leave it to ‘the other guy.’ ”
Below, Dr. Myers and other experts offer advice on how to approach a fellow physician who seems depressed or might be in need of professional help.
1. Reach out to the colleague, and find a private, quiet space to talk.
2. Let them know you’re there for them, and do not pass judgment.
3. Share a short list of reasons for your concerns. For example, “It seems you have lost some weight,” or “You seem sad a lot of the time.”
4. Encourage them to accept help. Refrain from giving them a list of names for professional help. Instead, make the phone call for them or set up the appointment, if necessary.
5. Ask specifically about suicidal ideation. For instance, “Are you having thoughts of hurting yourself?” or “Are you having thoughts of ending your life?” People who are suicidal often want someone to ask and help.
6. Stay with the colleague until he or she has worked out a plan of safety – for example, returned to family/loved ones, visited a physician or mental health professional, gone to an emergency department, or called for an ambulance or other assistance.
7. Accompany the colleague to the emergency department or call 911.
8. Remember these two goals: Inquire about safety/danger. Ensure safety of the individual.
Sources: Dr. Myers, Dr. Zisook, and Dr. Yellowlees.
For more information, contact the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (www.afsp.org), and the 24-hour crisis line: 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Late last year, the Federal Communications Commission approved plans to designate 988 as a suicide prevention hotline number. Implementation of the proposal is expected to take several months.