Society News

Cardiovascular Medicine & Surgery Section

Emerging role of cardiopulmonary obstetric critical care

Despite being a developed country, maternal morbidity and mortality rates in some counties in the United States mirror that of third world countries, with 23.8 women dying per 100,000 live births (Hoyert DL, Miniño AM. Maternal mortality in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 69 no 2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2020). The care of this vulnerable population testifies to the quality of care provided across the country. Some of these poor outcomes are directly attributed to in-hospital deaths due to preexisting or newly discovered heart or lung diseases, such as valvular heart diseases, cardiomyopathies, pulmonary arterial hypertension, eclampsia, or other etiologies. With the development of advanced heart and lung programs across the nation capable of providing mechanical circulatory support and extracorporeal life support, we believe that incorporating a heart-lung-OB team approach to high-risk cases can identify knowledge gaps early and predict and prevent maternal complications.

In this proposed model, patients funnel to the hub facility to be cared for by a team of intensive care physicians, advanced heart failure physicians, cardiovascular and obstetric anesthesiologists, and maternal/fetal medicine physicians, with the potential addition of an adult ECMO team member.

A team huddle, using a virtual platform, would be organized by a designated OB coordinator at the patient’s admission with follow-up huddles every 2 to 3 days, to ensure the team stays engaged through delivery into the postpartum period. Value could be added with subsequent cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation. With an emphasis on shared decision making, we can make it a national priority to save every woman during the birthing process.

Bindu Akkanti, MD, FCCP, Member-at-Large

Mark Warner, MD, FCCP, Member-at-Large

Cardiovascular Medicine & Surgery Section

Emerging role of cardiopulmonary obstetric critical care

Despite being a developed country, maternal morbidity and mortality rates in some counties in the United States mirror that of third world countries, with 23.8 women dying per 100,000 live births (Hoyert DL, Miniño AM. Maternal mortality in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 69 no 2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2020). The care of this vulnerable population testifies to the quality of care provided across the country. Some of these poor outcomes are directly attributed to in-hospital deaths due to preexisting or newly discovered heart or lung diseases, such as valvular heart diseases, cardiomyopathies, pulmonary arterial hypertension, eclampsia, or other etiologies. With the development of advanced heart and lung programs across the nation capable of providing mechanical circulatory support and extracorporeal life support, we believe that incorporating a heart-lung-OB team approach to high-risk cases can identify knowledge gaps early and predict and prevent maternal complications.

In this proposed model, patients funnel to the hub facility to be cared for by a team of intensive care physicians, advanced heart failure physicians, cardiovascular and obstetric anesthesiologists, and maternal/fetal medicine physicians, with the potential addition of an adult ECMO team member.

A team huddle, using a virtual platform, would be organized by a designated OB coordinator at the patient’s admission with follow-up huddles every 2 to 3 days, to ensure the team stays engaged through delivery into the postpartum period. Value could be added with subsequent cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation. With an emphasis on shared decision making, we can make it a national priority to save every woman during the birthing process.

Bindu Akkanti, MD, FCCP, Member-at-Large

Mark Warner, MD, FCCP, Member-at-Large

Cardiovascular Medicine & Surgery Section

Emerging role of cardiopulmonary obstetric critical care

Despite being a developed country, maternal morbidity and mortality rates in some counties in the United States mirror that of third world countries, with 23.8 women dying per 100,000 live births (Hoyert DL, Miniño AM. Maternal mortality in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 69 no 2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2020). The care of this vulnerable population testifies to the quality of care provided across the country. Some of these poor outcomes are directly attributed to in-hospital deaths due to preexisting or newly discovered heart or lung diseases, such as valvular heart diseases, cardiomyopathies, pulmonary arterial hypertension, eclampsia, or other etiologies. With the development of advanced heart and lung programs across the nation capable of providing mechanical circulatory support and extracorporeal life support, we believe that incorporating a heart-lung-OB team approach to high-risk cases can identify knowledge gaps early and predict and prevent maternal complications.

In this proposed model, patients funnel to the hub facility to be cared for by a team of intensive care physicians, advanced heart failure physicians, cardiovascular and obstetric anesthesiologists, and maternal/fetal medicine physicians, with the potential addition of an adult ECMO team member.

A team huddle, using a virtual platform, would be organized by a designated OB coordinator at the patient’s admission with follow-up huddles every 2 to 3 days, to ensure the team stays engaged through delivery into the postpartum period. Value could be added with subsequent cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation. With an emphasis on shared decision making, we can make it a national priority to save every woman during the birthing process.

Bindu Akkanti, MD, FCCP, Member-at-Large

Mark Warner, MD, FCCP, Member-at-Large

Lung Transplant Section

Strengthening lung transplant education

The number of lung transplants (LT) performed reached an all-time high in 2019 with a 52.3% increase over the previous decade. Transplants are being performed in older and sicker patients with 35% of recipients being over 65 years of age and 25% with lung allocation scores (LAS) over 60. (Valapour, et al. Am J Transplant. 2021;21[Suppl 2]:441). This growth has led to an increased demand for transplant pulmonologists. Lung transplant education has not kept pace with this growth, and, currently, there are limited avenues and variable models of training. There are about 15 dedicated LT fellowship programs located at 68 transplant centers with widely variable curricula. The vast majority of the 160 general pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship programs do not have access to hands-on clinical transplant training and are guided by vague ACGME guidelines. A U.S. national survey (Town JA, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13[4]:568) of PCCM programs found that about 41% of centers did not have a transplant curriculum, and training was very variable. Another report found that a structured educational LT curriculum at a transplant center was associated with improved performance of PCCM fellows (Hayes, et al. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25[1]:59). The lack of a structured curriculum and wide variability coupled with lack of information about the training pathways impedes effective training.

Recognizing these issues, the lung transplant steering committee developed two webinars for the online CHEST learning portal (tinyurl.com/53pnne2k). These provide resources and information for fellows and junior faculty interested in a transplant pulmonology career as well as discuss needs and opportunities to develop a program for specialized training in LT. There is need for a multipronged approach addressing:

–Increase access to specialized transplant education for PCCM fellows.

–Develop a uniform structured curriculum for lung transplant education engaging the PCCM and transplant fellowship program directors as stakeholders.

–Increase collaboration between the transplant fellowship programs to address gaps in training.

Hakim Azhfar Ali, MBBS, FCCP
Member-at-Large

Lung Transplant Section

Strengthening lung transplant education

The number of lung transplants (LT) performed reached an all-time high in 2019 with a 52.3% increase over the previous decade. Transplants are being performed in older and sicker patients with 35% of recipients being over 65 years of age and 25% with lung allocation scores (LAS) over 60. (Valapour, et al. Am J Transplant. 2021;21[Suppl 2]:441). This growth has led to an increased demand for transplant pulmonologists. Lung transplant education has not kept pace with this growth, and, currently, there are limited avenues and variable models of training. There are about 15 dedicated LT fellowship programs located at 68 transplant centers with widely variable curricula. The vast majority of the 160 general pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship programs do not have access to hands-on clinical transplant training and are guided by vague ACGME guidelines. A U.S. national survey (Town JA, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13[4]:568) of PCCM programs found that about 41% of centers did not have a transplant curriculum, and training was very variable. Another report found that a structured educational LT curriculum at a transplant center was associated with improved performance of PCCM fellows (Hayes, et al. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25[1]:59). The lack of a structured curriculum and wide variability coupled with lack of information about the training pathways impedes effective training.

Recognizing these issues, the lung transplant steering committee developed two webinars for the online CHEST learning portal (tinyurl.com/53pnne2k). These provide resources and information for fellows and junior faculty interested in a transplant pulmonology career as well as discuss needs and opportunities to develop a program for specialized training in LT. There is need for a multipronged approach addressing:

–Increase access to specialized transplant education for PCCM fellows.

–Develop a uniform structured curriculum for lung transplant education engaging the PCCM and transplant fellowship program directors as stakeholders.

–Increase collaboration between the transplant fellowship programs to address gaps in training.

Hakim Azhfar Ali, MBBS, FCCP
Member-at-Large

Lung Transplant Section

Strengthening lung transplant education

The number of lung transplants (LT) performed reached an all-time high in 2019 with a 52.3% increase over the previous decade. Transplants are being performed in older and sicker patients with 35% of recipients being over 65 years of age and 25% with lung allocation scores (LAS) over 60. (Valapour, et al. Am J Transplant. 2021;21[Suppl 2]:441). This growth has led to an increased demand for transplant pulmonologists. Lung transplant education has not kept pace with this growth, and, currently, there are limited avenues and variable models of training. There are about 15 dedicated LT fellowship programs located at 68 transplant centers with widely variable curricula. The vast majority of the 160 general pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship programs do not have access to hands-on clinical transplant training and are guided by vague ACGME guidelines. A U.S. national survey (Town JA, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13[4]:568) of PCCM programs found that about 41% of centers did not have a transplant curriculum, and training was very variable. Another report found that a structured educational LT curriculum at a transplant center was associated with improved performance of PCCM fellows (Hayes, et al. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25[1]:59). The lack of a structured curriculum and wide variability coupled with lack of information about the training pathways impedes effective training.

Recognizing these issues, the lung transplant steering committee developed two webinars for the online CHEST learning portal (tinyurl.com/53pnne2k). These provide resources and information for fellows and junior faculty interested in a transplant pulmonology career as well as discuss needs and opportunities to develop a program for specialized training in LT. There is need for a multipronged approach addressing:

–Increase access to specialized transplant education for PCCM fellows.

–Develop a uniform structured curriculum for lung transplant education engaging the PCCM and transplant fellowship program directors as stakeholders.

–Increase collaboration between the transplant fellowship programs to address gaps in training.

Hakim Azhfar Ali, MBBS, FCCP
Member-at-Large

Occupational & Environmental Health Section

Quaternary ammonium compounds: exposure and lung disease

Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACS) are a common ingredient in many major commercial disinfectant products. During the COVID pandemic, the use of QACS increased due to their efficacy in inactivating enveloped viruses such as SARS-COV-2 (Hora, et al. Environ Sci & Technol Letters. 2020;7[9]:622).

While these products reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, the increase in use has had unintended consequences. Increasing data suggest a link between QAC exposure and occupational lung disease (Migueres, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9[9]:3387). Historically, exposure to QACs has been highest in health care workers. This is reflected in the increased risk of obstructive lung disease seen among nursing and operating room staff (Xie, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[9] :e2125749). In the setting of enhanced COVID-19 cleaning protocols, QACS are increasingly utilized outside of the health care setting. Custodians and janitorial staff may face increased and potentially underrecognized exposure to these compounds. In addition to the direct harms of COVID-19, we may see an increase in occupational obstructive lung disease as a result of cleaning product exposure. Early diagnosis and exposure removal is crucial to prevent a new epidemic of occupational asthma.

Maeve MacMurdo, MBChB
Member-at-Large

Abirami Subramanian, MD, MPH
Member-at-Large

Occupational & Environmental Health Section

Quaternary ammonium compounds: exposure and lung disease

Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACS) are a common ingredient in many major commercial disinfectant products. During the COVID pandemic, the use of QACS increased due to their efficacy in inactivating enveloped viruses such as SARS-COV-2 (Hora, et al. Environ Sci & Technol Letters. 2020;7[9]:622).

While these products reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, the increase in use has had unintended consequences. Increasing data suggest a link between QAC exposure and occupational lung disease (Migueres, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9[9]:3387). Historically, exposure to QACs has been highest in health care workers. This is reflected in the increased risk of obstructive lung disease seen among nursing and operating room staff (Xie, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[9] :e2125749). In the setting of enhanced COVID-19 cleaning protocols, QACS are increasingly utilized outside of the health care setting. Custodians and janitorial staff may face increased and potentially underrecognized exposure to these compounds. In addition to the direct harms of COVID-19, we may see an increase in occupational obstructive lung disease as a result of cleaning product exposure. Early diagnosis and exposure removal is crucial to prevent a new epidemic of occupational asthma.

Maeve MacMurdo, MBChB
Member-at-Large

Abirami Subramanian, MD, MPH
Member-at-Large

Occupational & Environmental Health Section

Quaternary ammonium compounds: exposure and lung disease

Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACS) are a common ingredient in many major commercial disinfectant products. During the COVID pandemic, the use of QACS increased due to their efficacy in inactivating enveloped viruses such as SARS-COV-2 (Hora, et al. Environ Sci & Technol Letters. 2020;7[9]:622).

While these products reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, the increase in use has had unintended consequences. Increasing data suggest a link between QAC exposure and occupational lung disease (Migueres, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9[9]:3387). Historically, exposure to QACs has been highest in health care workers. This is reflected in the increased risk of obstructive lung disease seen among nursing and operating room staff (Xie, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[9] :e2125749). In the setting of enhanced COVID-19 cleaning protocols, QACS are increasingly utilized outside of the health care setting. Custodians and janitorial staff may face increased and potentially underrecognized exposure to these compounds. In addition to the direct harms of COVID-19, we may see an increase in occupational obstructive lung disease as a result of cleaning product exposure. Early diagnosis and exposure removal is crucial to prevent a new epidemic of occupational asthma.

Maeve MacMurdo, MBChB
Member-at-Large

Abirami Subramanian, MD, MPH
Member-at-Large

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Section

Time-limited trials of critical care

Many patients die in the ICU, often after long courses of aggressive interventions, with potentially nonbeneficial treatments. Surrogate decision makers are tasked with decisions to initiate or forgo treatments based on recommendations from clinicians in the face of prognostic uncertainty and emotional duress. A strategy that has been adopted by ICU clinicians to address this has been proposing a “time-limited trial” (TLT) of ICU-specific interventions. A TLT involves clinicians partnering with patients and their surrogate decision makers in a shared decision-making model, proposing initiation of treatments for a set time, evaluating for specific measures of what is considered beneficial, and deciding to continue treatment or stop if without benefit. Core elements of TLT include utilizing the multidisciplinary team caring for the patient, evaluating for any prior advanced care planning, using clear and concise communication, acknowledging uncertainty, and collaborating with palliative care teams (Vink EE, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:1369). Recent research about TLT in the ICU has found that when executed well, TLTs can improve quality of care and provide patients with the care they desire and can benefit from (Vink, et al). Additionally, the use of an education intervention for ICU clinicians regarding protocolled TLT interventions was associated with improved quality of family meetings, and, importantly, a reduced intensity and duration of ICU treatments (Chang DW, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181[6]:786).

Bradley Hayward, MD
Member-at-Large

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Section

Time-limited trials of critical care

Many patients die in the ICU, often after long courses of aggressive interventions, with potentially nonbeneficial treatments. Surrogate decision makers are tasked with decisions to initiate or forgo treatments based on recommendations from clinicians in the face of prognostic uncertainty and emotional duress. A strategy that has been adopted by ICU clinicians to address this has been proposing a “time-limited trial” (TLT) of ICU-specific interventions. A TLT involves clinicians partnering with patients and their surrogate decision makers in a shared decision-making model, proposing initiation of treatments for a set time, evaluating for specific measures of what is considered beneficial, and deciding to continue treatment or stop if without benefit. Core elements of TLT include utilizing the multidisciplinary team caring for the patient, evaluating for any prior advanced care planning, using clear and concise communication, acknowledging uncertainty, and collaborating with palliative care teams (Vink EE, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:1369). Recent research about TLT in the ICU has found that when executed well, TLTs can improve quality of care and provide patients with the care they desire and can benefit from (Vink, et al). Additionally, the use of an education intervention for ICU clinicians regarding protocolled TLT interventions was associated with improved quality of family meetings, and, importantly, a reduced intensity and duration of ICU treatments (Chang DW, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181[6]:786).

Bradley Hayward, MD
Member-at-Large

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Section

Time-limited trials of critical care

Many patients die in the ICU, often after long courses of aggressive interventions, with potentially nonbeneficial treatments. Surrogate decision makers are tasked with decisions to initiate or forgo treatments based on recommendations from clinicians in the face of prognostic uncertainty and emotional duress. A strategy that has been adopted by ICU clinicians to address this has been proposing a “time-limited trial” (TLT) of ICU-specific interventions. A TLT involves clinicians partnering with patients and their surrogate decision makers in a shared decision-making model, proposing initiation of treatments for a set time, evaluating for specific measures of what is considered beneficial, and deciding to continue treatment or stop if without benefit. Core elements of TLT include utilizing the multidisciplinary team caring for the patient, evaluating for any prior advanced care planning, using clear and concise communication, acknowledging uncertainty, and collaborating with palliative care teams (Vink EE, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:1369). Recent research about TLT in the ICU has found that when executed well, TLTs can improve quality of care and provide patients with the care they desire and can benefit from (Vink, et al). Additionally, the use of an education intervention for ICU clinicians regarding protocolled TLT interventions was associated with improved quality of family meetings, and, importantly, a reduced intensity and duration of ICU treatments (Chang DW, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181[6]:786).

Bradley Hayward, MD
Member-at-Large

In February, The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), the American Thoracic Society, and the American Lung Association announced a partnership with the prestigious Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program (AMFDP), a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation initiative, to sponsor a scholar in pulmonary and critical care medicine. The recipient of the grant was announced recently, and CHEST spoke with him about his background and the project that earned him the award.

George Alba, MD, is a pulmonary and critical care physician investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Alba studied English Literature and Biology as an undergraduate at Washington University in St. Louis, where he worked in a developmental biology laboratory; earned his MD at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, where he graduated AOA with Distinction in Medical Education; and then completed both Internal Medicine and Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine training at Massachusetts General Hospital.

CHEST

During his fellowship, Dr. Alba specialized in pulmonary and critical care medicine because he appreciated the variety that comes with working in the intensive care unit.

“I love the medical complexity, the physiology, and the decision-making,” said Dr. Alba. “I’ve always enjoyed all aspects of clinical medicine, so it was hard to choose a path, but the benefit of the ICU is that it allows me to take care of a spectrum of medical illness across all subspecialties.”

He continued, “What I loved about pulmonary, specifically, was that I could see patients in the hospital and in the ICU, perform procedures, and still have a longitudinal relationship with patients in the clinic, which gave me a very flexible, wide grasp of medicine.”

Growing up in a close-knit Cuban family and community, Dr. Alba was raised speaking Spanish at home and learned English primarily in school. Being bilingual helped him in medicine greatly: in clinic, in the hospital, and in the ICU, he is able to communicate directly with Spanish-speaking patients and their families. This became critically important during the COVID-19 pandemic when Chelsea, a primarily Hispanic community in Boston, was disproportionately impacted. The patients greatly benefited from Spanish-speaking clinicians to communicate with their family members who were unable to visit due to the infection control policies in place.

As an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and pulmonary and critical care physician at Massachusetts General, Dr. Alba is actively engaged in clinical care, teaching, and research focusing primarily on mechanisms of pulmonary vascular dysfunction in lung disease.

Dr. Alba’s AMFDP award project is titled “Pulmonary Endothelial NEDD9 and Acute Lung Injury,” and through the proposed scientific aims, he looks to advance NEDD9 antagonism as a potential therapeutic target in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS.) He is being co-mentored by Bradley Maron, MD, a pulmonary vascular disease researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Eric Schmidt, MD, an endothelial biologist and expert in animal models of acute lung injury at Massachusetts General Hospital.

This is especially relevant research during the COVID-19 pandemic, as patients with severe lung injury frequently develop clotting in the lung blood vessels. Dr. Alba’s prior work demonstrated that NEDD9 is a pulmonary endothelial protein that is upregulated by hypoxia, that it binds to activated platelets to promote platelet adhesion and clotting, and that inhibition of NEDD9-platelet interactions with a custom antibody can decrease clotting in the lungs of animals. He recently showed that pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 is increased in patients with ARDS who demonstrate blood vessel clotting.

Now, Dr. Alba seeks to use a custom-made anti-NEDD9 antibody to block platelet adhesion in animal models of ARDS to decrease the extent of lung injury. While aspirin and anticoagulants have been unhelpful in treating ARDS in prior trials, Dr. Alba believes that circulating pulmonary endothelial protein NEDD9 can serve as a biomarker to identify subgroups of ARDS who may benefit from earlier targeted antithrombotic therapy.

Dr. Alba hopes that one day the anti-NEDD9 antibody may become one such therapeutic option for patients. The AMFDP will help support his ongoing work.

“Growing up, I saw through my father’s example how education unlocks opportunities. Our community came together to help him on this path. Now a retired doctor of osteopathy in neonatology, he inspired me to pursue a career in medicine,” said Dr. Alba. “This award comes at a critical time in my junior faculty career: It allows me to continue pursuing my research in a meaningful way while also gaining new skills that will be critical for my ongoing career development.”

Dr. Alba continued, “Programs like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation initiative that specifically try to increase the number of individuals traditionally underrepresented in academia are key and would not be possible without the support of groups like CHEST, the American Lung Association, and the American Thoracic Society.

These programs help folks who may have other external barriers to being in academia, including socioeconomic pressures, lack of resources – financial or otherwise – or simply not knowing what opportunities are available to them. Programs [like AMFDP] that can alleviate some of these additional pressures go a long way to improve the diversity of the medical workforce.”

Dr. Alba is also committed to paying it forward: “I want to ensure that the type of invested mentorship I experienced to help get me this far is not a matter of serendipity for the fortunate few, but rather a standard for all students and trainees, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds.”

In February, The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), the American Thoracic Society, and the American Lung Association announced a partnership with the prestigious Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program (AMFDP), a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation initiative, to sponsor a scholar in pulmonary and critical care medicine. The recipient of the grant was announced recently, and CHEST spoke with him about his background and the project that earned him the award.

George Alba, MD, is a pulmonary and critical care physician investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Alba studied English Literature and Biology as an undergraduate at Washington University in St. Louis, where he worked in a developmental biology laboratory; earned his MD at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, where he graduated AOA with Distinction in Medical Education; and then completed both Internal Medicine and Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine training at Massachusetts General Hospital.

CHEST

During his fellowship, Dr. Alba specialized in pulmonary and critical care medicine because he appreciated the variety that comes with working in the intensive care unit.

“I love the medical complexity, the physiology, and the decision-making,” said Dr. Alba. “I’ve always enjoyed all aspects of clinical medicine, so it was hard to choose a path, but the benefit of the ICU is that it allows me to take care of a spectrum of medical illness across all subspecialties.”

He continued, “What I loved about pulmonary, specifically, was that I could see patients in the hospital and in the ICU, perform procedures, and still have a longitudinal relationship with patients in the clinic, which gave me a very flexible, wide grasp of medicine.”

Growing up in a close-knit Cuban family and community, Dr. Alba was raised speaking Spanish at home and learned English primarily in school. Being bilingual helped him in medicine greatly: in clinic, in the hospital, and in the ICU, he is able to communicate directly with Spanish-speaking patients and their families. This became critically important during the COVID-19 pandemic when Chelsea, a primarily Hispanic community in Boston, was disproportionately impacted. The patients greatly benefited from Spanish-speaking clinicians to communicate with their family members who were unable to visit due to the infection control policies in place.

As an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and pulmonary and critical care physician at Massachusetts General, Dr. Alba is actively engaged in clinical care, teaching, and research focusing primarily on mechanisms of pulmonary vascular dysfunction in lung disease.

Dr. Alba’s AMFDP award project is titled “Pulmonary Endothelial NEDD9 and Acute Lung Injury,” and through the proposed scientific aims, he looks to advance NEDD9 antagonism as a potential therapeutic target in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS.) He is being co-mentored by Bradley Maron, MD, a pulmonary vascular disease researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Eric Schmidt, MD, an endothelial biologist and expert in animal models of acute lung injury at Massachusetts General Hospital.

This is especially relevant research during the COVID-19 pandemic, as patients with severe lung injury frequently develop clotting in the lung blood vessels. Dr. Alba’s prior work demonstrated that NEDD9 is a pulmonary endothelial protein that is upregulated by hypoxia, that it binds to activated platelets to promote platelet adhesion and clotting, and that inhibition of NEDD9-platelet interactions with a custom antibody can decrease clotting in the lungs of animals. He recently showed that pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 is increased in patients with ARDS who demonstrate blood vessel clotting.

Now, Dr. Alba seeks to use a custom-made anti-NEDD9 antibody to block platelet adhesion in animal models of ARDS to decrease the extent of lung injury. While aspirin and anticoagulants have been unhelpful in treating ARDS in prior trials, Dr. Alba believes that circulating pulmonary endothelial protein NEDD9 can serve as a biomarker to identify subgroups of ARDS who may benefit from earlier targeted antithrombotic therapy.

Dr. Alba hopes that one day the anti-NEDD9 antibody may become one such therapeutic option for patients. The AMFDP will help support his ongoing work.

“Growing up, I saw through my father’s example how education unlocks opportunities. Our community came together to help him on this path. Now a retired doctor of osteopathy in neonatology, he inspired me to pursue a career in medicine,” said Dr. Alba. “This award comes at a critical time in my junior faculty career: It allows me to continue pursuing my research in a meaningful way while also gaining new skills that will be critical for my ongoing career development.”

Dr. Alba continued, “Programs like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation initiative that specifically try to increase the number of individuals traditionally underrepresented in academia are key and would not be possible without the support of groups like CHEST, the American Lung Association, and the American Thoracic Society.

These programs help folks who may have other external barriers to being in academia, including socioeconomic pressures, lack of resources – financial or otherwise – or simply not knowing what opportunities are available to them. Programs [like AMFDP] that can alleviate some of these additional pressures go a long way to improve the diversity of the medical workforce.”

Dr. Alba is also committed to paying it forward: “I want to ensure that the type of invested mentorship I experienced to help get me this far is not a matter of serendipity for the fortunate few, but rather a standard for all students and trainees, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds.”

In February, The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), the American Thoracic Society, and the American Lung Association announced a partnership with the prestigious Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program (AMFDP), a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation initiative, to sponsor a scholar in pulmonary and critical care medicine. The recipient of the grant was announced recently, and CHEST spoke with him about his background and the project that earned him the award.

George Alba, MD, is a pulmonary and critical care physician investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Alba studied English Literature and Biology as an undergraduate at Washington University in St. Louis, where he worked in a developmental biology laboratory; earned his MD at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, where he graduated AOA with Distinction in Medical Education; and then completed both Internal Medicine and Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine training at Massachusetts General Hospital.

CHEST

During his fellowship, Dr. Alba specialized in pulmonary and critical care medicine because he appreciated the variety that comes with working in the intensive care unit.

“I love the medical complexity, the physiology, and the decision-making,” said Dr. Alba. “I’ve always enjoyed all aspects of clinical medicine, so it was hard to choose a path, but the benefit of the ICU is that it allows me to take care of a spectrum of medical illness across all subspecialties.”

He continued, “What I loved about pulmonary, specifically, was that I could see patients in the hospital and in the ICU, perform procedures, and still have a longitudinal relationship with patients in the clinic, which gave me a very flexible, wide grasp of medicine.”

Growing up in a close-knit Cuban family and community, Dr. Alba was raised speaking Spanish at home and learned English primarily in school. Being bilingual helped him in medicine greatly: in clinic, in the hospital, and in the ICU, he is able to communicate directly with Spanish-speaking patients and their families. This became critically important during the COVID-19 pandemic when Chelsea, a primarily Hispanic community in Boston, was disproportionately impacted. The patients greatly benefited from Spanish-speaking clinicians to communicate with their family members who were unable to visit due to the infection control policies in place.

As an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and pulmonary and critical care physician at Massachusetts General, Dr. Alba is actively engaged in clinical care, teaching, and research focusing primarily on mechanisms of pulmonary vascular dysfunction in lung disease.

Dr. Alba’s AMFDP award project is titled “Pulmonary Endothelial NEDD9 and Acute Lung Injury,” and through the proposed scientific aims, he looks to advance NEDD9 antagonism as a potential therapeutic target in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS.) He is being co-mentored by Bradley Maron, MD, a pulmonary vascular disease researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Eric Schmidt, MD, an endothelial biologist and expert in animal models of acute lung injury at Massachusetts General Hospital.

This is especially relevant research during the COVID-19 pandemic, as patients with severe lung injury frequently develop clotting in the lung blood vessels. Dr. Alba’s prior work demonstrated that NEDD9 is a pulmonary endothelial protein that is upregulated by hypoxia, that it binds to activated platelets to promote platelet adhesion and clotting, and that inhibition of NEDD9-platelet interactions with a custom antibody can decrease clotting in the lungs of animals. He recently showed that pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 is increased in patients with ARDS who demonstrate blood vessel clotting.

Now, Dr. Alba seeks to use a custom-made anti-NEDD9 antibody to block platelet adhesion in animal models of ARDS to decrease the extent of lung injury. While aspirin and anticoagulants have been unhelpful in treating ARDS in prior trials, Dr. Alba believes that circulating pulmonary endothelial protein NEDD9 can serve as a biomarker to identify subgroups of ARDS who may benefit from earlier targeted antithrombotic therapy.

Dr. Alba hopes that one day the anti-NEDD9 antibody may become one such therapeutic option for patients. The AMFDP will help support his ongoing work.

“Growing up, I saw through my father’s example how education unlocks opportunities. Our community came together to help him on this path. Now a retired doctor of osteopathy in neonatology, he inspired me to pursue a career in medicine,” said Dr. Alba. “This award comes at a critical time in my junior faculty career: It allows me to continue pursuing my research in a meaningful way while also gaining new skills that will be critical for my ongoing career development.”

Dr. Alba continued, “Programs like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation initiative that specifically try to increase the number of individuals traditionally underrepresented in academia are key and would not be possible without the support of groups like CHEST, the American Lung Association, and the American Thoracic Society.

These programs help folks who may have other external barriers to being in academia, including socioeconomic pressures, lack of resources – financial or otherwise – or simply not knowing what opportunities are available to them. Programs [like AMFDP] that can alleviate some of these additional pressures go a long way to improve the diversity of the medical workforce.”

Dr. Alba is also committed to paying it forward: “I want to ensure that the type of invested mentorship I experienced to help get me this far is not a matter of serendipity for the fortunate few, but rather a standard for all students and trainees, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds.”

Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section

Sleep health and fatigue mitigation during medical training

Medical trainees may experience acute or chronic sleep deprivation due to extended work hours and shift-work sleep schedules. Extended work hours may lead to serious medical errors, percutaneous injuries, prolonged task completion, and car crashes or near misses while driving (Landrigan, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1838; Ayas, et al. JAMA. 2006;296[9]:1055; Taffinder, et al. Lancet. 1998;352[9135]:1191; Barger, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 13;352[2]:125).

Chronic sleep restriction also results in neurobehavioral and cognitive dysfunction without a proportionate increase in self-perceived sleepiness [Belenky, et al. J Sleep Res. 2003;12[1]:1; Van Dongen, et al. Sleep. 2003;26[2]:117). In 1987, when sleep deprivation was cited as a major cause of 18-year-old Libby Zion’s death, the ACGME restricted residents from working more than 80 hours per week. ACGME mandates that training programs provide yearly fatigue mitigation education.

A “Sleep Alertness and Fatigue Education in Residency” module may be purchased through the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. While one-time education opportunities are available, there remains a need for access to longitudinal, individualized tools during varying rotations and circumstances, as education alone has not been shown to improve sleep quality (Mazar D, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17[6]:1211). The American Thoracic Society Early Career Professional Working Group offers individualized lectures to training programs. Wake Up and Learn is a sleep education program for children and teens that is currently being expanded for medical trainees.

Further data are needed to see if longitudinal and individualized support can promote better sleep quality among trainees.

Aesha Jobanputra, MD
Section Member

Sreelatha Naik, MD
Member-at-Large

Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section

Sleep health and fatigue mitigation during medical training

Medical trainees may experience acute or chronic sleep deprivation due to extended work hours and shift-work sleep schedules. Extended work hours may lead to serious medical errors, percutaneous injuries, prolonged task completion, and car crashes or near misses while driving (Landrigan, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1838; Ayas, et al. JAMA. 2006;296[9]:1055; Taffinder, et al. Lancet. 1998;352[9135]:1191; Barger, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 13;352[2]:125).

Chronic sleep restriction also results in neurobehavioral and cognitive dysfunction without a proportionate increase in self-perceived sleepiness [Belenky, et al. J Sleep Res. 2003;12[1]:1; Van Dongen, et al. Sleep. 2003;26[2]:117). In 1987, when sleep deprivation was cited as a major cause of 18-year-old Libby Zion’s death, the ACGME restricted residents from working more than 80 hours per week. ACGME mandates that training programs provide yearly fatigue mitigation education.

A “Sleep Alertness and Fatigue Education in Residency” module may be purchased through the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. While one-time education opportunities are available, there remains a need for access to longitudinal, individualized tools during varying rotations and circumstances, as education alone has not been shown to improve sleep quality (Mazar D, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17[6]:1211). The American Thoracic Society Early Career Professional Working Group offers individualized lectures to training programs. Wake Up and Learn is a sleep education program for children and teens that is currently being expanded for medical trainees.

Further data are needed to see if longitudinal and individualized support can promote better sleep quality among trainees.

Aesha Jobanputra, MD
Section Member

Sreelatha Naik, MD
Member-at-Large

Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section

Sleep health and fatigue mitigation during medical training

Medical trainees may experience acute or chronic sleep deprivation due to extended work hours and shift-work sleep schedules. Extended work hours may lead to serious medical errors, percutaneous injuries, prolonged task completion, and car crashes or near misses while driving (Landrigan, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1838; Ayas, et al. JAMA. 2006;296[9]:1055; Taffinder, et al. Lancet. 1998;352[9135]:1191; Barger, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 13;352[2]:125).

Chronic sleep restriction also results in neurobehavioral and cognitive dysfunction without a proportionate increase in self-perceived sleepiness [Belenky, et al. J Sleep Res. 2003;12[1]:1; Van Dongen, et al. Sleep. 2003;26[2]:117). In 1987, when sleep deprivation was cited as a major cause of 18-year-old Libby Zion’s death, the ACGME restricted residents from working more than 80 hours per week. ACGME mandates that training programs provide yearly fatigue mitigation education.

A “Sleep Alertness and Fatigue Education in Residency” module may be purchased through the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. While one-time education opportunities are available, there remains a need for access to longitudinal, individualized tools during varying rotations and circumstances, as education alone has not been shown to improve sleep quality (Mazar D, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17[6]:1211). The American Thoracic Society Early Career Professional Working Group offers individualized lectures to training programs. Wake Up and Learn is a sleep education program for children and teens that is currently being expanded for medical trainees.

Further data are needed to see if longitudinal and individualized support can promote better sleep quality among trainees.

Aesha Jobanputra, MD
Section Member

Sreelatha Naik, MD
Member-at-Large

Pleural Disease Section

Aspirate or wait: changing the paradigm for PSP care

There is considerable heterogeneity in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). Although observation for small asymptomatic PSP is supported by current guidelines, management recommendations for larger PSP remains unclear (MacDuff, et al. Thorax. 2010;65[Suppl 2]:ii18-ii31; Tschopp JM, et al. Eur Respir J. 2015;46[2]:321). Two recent RCTs explore conservative vs intervention-based management in those with larger or symptomatic PSP. In the PSP trial, Brown and colleagues prospectively randomized 316 patients with moderate to large PSP to either conservative management (≥ 4 hour observation) or small-bore chest tube without suction (Brown, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382[5]:405). Although noninferiority criteria were met, the primary outcome of radiographic resolution of pneumothorax within 8 weeks of randomization was not statistically robust to conservative assumptions about missing data. They concluded that conservative management was noninferior to intervention, and it resulted in a lower risk of serious adverse events or PSP recurrence than interventional management. The multicenter randomized Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax (RAMPP) trial compared ambulatory management of PSP using an 8F drainage device to a guideline-driven approach (drainage, aspiration, or both) amongst 236 patients with symptomatic PSP. Intervention shortened length of hospital stay (median 0 vs 4 days, P<.0001), but the intervention arm experienced more adverse events (including enlargement of pneumothorax, as well as device malfunction) (Hallifax RJ, et al. Lancet. 2020;396[10243]:39). These two trials challenge the current guidelines for management for patients with PSP, but both had limitations. Though more data are needed to establish a clear consensus, these studies suggest that a conservative pathway for PSP warrants further consideration.

Tejaswi R. Nadig, MBBS
Member-at-Large

Yaron Gesthalter, MD
Member-at-Large

Priya P. Nath, MD
Member-at-Large

Pleural Disease Section

Aspirate or wait: changing the paradigm for PSP care

There is considerable heterogeneity in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). Although observation for small asymptomatic PSP is supported by current guidelines, management recommendations for larger PSP remains unclear (MacDuff, et al. Thorax. 2010;65[Suppl 2]:ii18-ii31; Tschopp JM, et al. Eur Respir J. 2015;46[2]:321). Two recent RCTs explore conservative vs intervention-based management in those with larger or symptomatic PSP. In the PSP trial, Brown and colleagues prospectively randomized 316 patients with moderate to large PSP to either conservative management (≥ 4 hour observation) or small-bore chest tube without suction (Brown, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382[5]:405). Although noninferiority criteria were met, the primary outcome of radiographic resolution of pneumothorax within 8 weeks of randomization was not statistically robust to conservative assumptions about missing data. They concluded that conservative management was noninferior to intervention, and it resulted in a lower risk of serious adverse events or PSP recurrence than interventional management. The multicenter randomized Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax (RAMPP) trial compared ambulatory management of PSP using an 8F drainage device to a guideline-driven approach (drainage, aspiration, or both) amongst 236 patients with symptomatic PSP. Intervention shortened length of hospital stay (median 0 vs 4 days, P<.0001), but the intervention arm experienced more adverse events (including enlargement of pneumothorax, as well as device malfunction) (Hallifax RJ, et al. Lancet. 2020;396[10243]:39). These two trials challenge the current guidelines for management for patients with PSP, but both had limitations. Though more data are needed to establish a clear consensus, these studies suggest that a conservative pathway for PSP warrants further consideration.

Tejaswi R. Nadig, MBBS
Member-at-Large

Yaron Gesthalter, MD
Member-at-Large

Priya P. Nath, MD
Member-at-Large

Pleural Disease Section

Aspirate or wait: changing the paradigm for PSP care

There is considerable heterogeneity in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). Although observation for small asymptomatic PSP is supported by current guidelines, management recommendations for larger PSP remains unclear (MacDuff, et al. Thorax. 2010;65[Suppl 2]:ii18-ii31; Tschopp JM, et al. Eur Respir J. 2015;46[2]:321). Two recent RCTs explore conservative vs intervention-based management in those with larger or symptomatic PSP. In the PSP trial, Brown and colleagues prospectively randomized 316 patients with moderate to large PSP to either conservative management (≥ 4 hour observation) or small-bore chest tube without suction (Brown, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382[5]:405). Although noninferiority criteria were met, the primary outcome of radiographic resolution of pneumothorax within 8 weeks of randomization was not statistically robust to conservative assumptions about missing data. They concluded that conservative management was noninferior to intervention, and it resulted in a lower risk of serious adverse events or PSP recurrence than interventional management. The multicenter randomized Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax (RAMPP) trial compared ambulatory management of PSP using an 8F drainage device to a guideline-driven approach (drainage, aspiration, or both) amongst 236 patients with symptomatic PSP. Intervention shortened length of hospital stay (median 0 vs 4 days, P<.0001), but the intervention arm experienced more adverse events (including enlargement of pneumothorax, as well as device malfunction) (Hallifax RJ, et al. Lancet. 2020;396[10243]:39). These two trials challenge the current guidelines for management for patients with PSP, but both had limitations. Though more data are needed to establish a clear consensus, these studies suggest that a conservative pathway for PSP warrants further consideration.

Tejaswi R. Nadig, MBBS
Member-at-Large

Yaron Gesthalter, MD
Member-at-Large

Priya P. Nath, MD
Member-at-Large

In my previous article in June, 2022, we plowed through the billing and coding updates regarding critical care services, and, I hope that it helped our readers get more acquainted with the nuances of billing and coding in the ICU. In this piece, I would like to briefly elucidate three other areas of practice, which will be relevant to all physicians across various specialties.

Telehealth services

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) graciously added telehealth services temporarily to its list of services due to the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). Initially, the plan was to remove these from the list of covered services by the latter end of the COVID-19 PHE, which, created some uncertainty, or by December 31, 2021. Fortunately, CMS finalized that they will extend it through the end of the calendar year (CY) 2023. So, now all the telehealth services will remain on the CMS list until December 31, 2023. The general principle behind this ruling is to allow for more time for CMS and stakeholders to gather data and to submit support for requesting these services to be permanently added to the Medicare telehealth services list.

Not only has CMS extended the deadline for telehealth services but also they have gone far and beyond to extend some of the codes for cardiac and intensive cardiac rehabilitation until December 31, 2023, as well.

There has been a lot of debate regarding the geographic restrictions when it comes to telehealth visits for diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a mental health disorder. As per the latest Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Section 123), the home of the patient is a permissible site. But, the caveat is that there must be an in-person service with the practitioner/physician within 6 months prior to the initial telehealth visit. Additionally, there has to be a set frequency for subsequent in-person visits. And, usually the subsequent visits will need to be provided at least every 12 months. These requirements are not set in stone and can be changed on a case-by-case basis provided there is appropriate documentation in the chart.

Lastly, it is important to understand and use the appropriate telecommunication systems for the telehealth visits and the modifiers that are associated with them. By definition, it has to be audio and video equipment that allows two-way, real-time interactive communication between the patient and the provider when used for telehealth services for the diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of mental health disorders. But, CMS is in the process of amending it to include audio-only communications technology. At this time, the use of audio-only interactive telecommunications system is limited to practitioners who have the capability to provide two-way audio/video communications but, where the patient is not capable, or does not consent to, the use of two-way audio/video technology. Modifier FQ should be attached to all the mental health services that were furnished using audio-only communications. And, mental health services can include services for treatment of substance use disorders (SUD). Please do not confuse modifier FQ with modifier 93 as FQ is only for behavioral health services. And, remember that the totality of the communication of information exchanged between the provider and the patient during the course of the synchronous telemedicine service (rendered via telephone or other real-time interactive audio only telecommunication system) must be of an amount and nature that is sufficient to meet the key components and/or requirements of the same service when rendered via a face-to-face interaction.

Teaching physician services

As a general rule, a teaching physician can bill for the resident services only if they are present for the critical (key) portion of the service. But, there is one exception called the “primary care exception” under which in certain teaching hospital primary care centers, the teaching physician can bill for certain services as furnished independently by the resident without the teaching physician being physically present, but with the teaching physician’s review.

The current model to bill for office/outpatient E/M visit level is either based on either total time spent (personally) or medical-decision-making (MDM). When time is used to select the visit level only the time spent by the teaching physician in qualifying activities can be included for the purposes of the visit level selection. And, this includes the time the teaching physician was present with the resident performing those qualifying activities. Also, under the primary care exception, time cannot be used to select the visit level. This is to guard against the possibility of inappropriate coding that reflects residents’ inefficiencies rather than a measure of the total medically necessary time required to furnish the E/M services.

ICD-10 updates

Usually, the ICD-10 codes are updated annually and take effect every October 1. Some of the most relevant updates are as follows:

1. U09.9 Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified: This should be used to document sequelae of COVID-19 or “long COVID” conditions, after the acute illness has resolved. But, remember to code the conditions related to COVID-19 first and do not use this code with an active or current COVID-19 infection.

2. U07.0 Vaping-related disorder: This should be used for all vaping-related illnesses. However, additional codes for other diagnoses such as acute respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or pneumonitis can also be used with this code. Other respiratory signs and symptoms such as cough and shortness of breath should not be coded separately.

3. Cough is one of the most common reasons for referral to a pulmonologist. The CDC has expanded these codes so please remember to code the most specific diagnosis as deemed appropriate.

R05.1 Acute cough

R05.2 Subacute cough

R05.3 Chronic cough

R05.4 Cough, syncope

R05.8 Other specified cough

R05.9 Cough, unspecified

We will be back with some more exciting and intriguing billing and coding updates in our next article and hope to see everyone at CHEST 2022 in Nashville., TN.

In my previous article in June, 2022, we plowed through the billing and coding updates regarding critical care services, and, I hope that it helped our readers get more acquainted with the nuances of billing and coding in the ICU. In this piece, I would like to briefly elucidate three other areas of practice, which will be relevant to all physicians across various specialties.

Telehealth services

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) graciously added telehealth services temporarily to its list of services due to the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). Initially, the plan was to remove these from the list of covered services by the latter end of the COVID-19 PHE, which, created some uncertainty, or by December 31, 2021. Fortunately, CMS finalized that they will extend it through the end of the calendar year (CY) 2023. So, now all the telehealth services will remain on the CMS list until December 31, 2023. The general principle behind this ruling is to allow for more time for CMS and stakeholders to gather data and to submit support for requesting these services to be permanently added to the Medicare telehealth services list.

Not only has CMS extended the deadline for telehealth services but also they have gone far and beyond to extend some of the codes for cardiac and intensive cardiac rehabilitation until December 31, 2023, as well.

There has been a lot of debate regarding the geographic restrictions when it comes to telehealth visits for diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a mental health disorder. As per the latest Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Section 123), the home of the patient is a permissible site. But, the caveat is that there must be an in-person service with the practitioner/physician within 6 months prior to the initial telehealth visit. Additionally, there has to be a set frequency for subsequent in-person visits. And, usually the subsequent visits will need to be provided at least every 12 months. These requirements are not set in stone and can be changed on a case-by-case basis provided there is appropriate documentation in the chart.

Lastly, it is important to understand and use the appropriate telecommunication systems for the telehealth visits and the modifiers that are associated with them. By definition, it has to be audio and video equipment that allows two-way, real-time interactive communication between the patient and the provider when used for telehealth services for the diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of mental health disorders. But, CMS is in the process of amending it to include audio-only communications technology. At this time, the use of audio-only interactive telecommunications system is limited to practitioners who have the capability to provide two-way audio/video communications but, where the patient is not capable, or does not consent to, the use of two-way audio/video technology. Modifier FQ should be attached to all the mental health services that were furnished using audio-only communications. And, mental health services can include services for treatment of substance use disorders (SUD). Please do not confuse modifier FQ with modifier 93 as FQ is only for behavioral health services. And, remember that the totality of the communication of information exchanged between the provider and the patient during the course of the synchronous telemedicine service (rendered via telephone or other real-time interactive audio only telecommunication system) must be of an amount and nature that is sufficient to meet the key components and/or requirements of the same service when rendered via a face-to-face interaction.

Teaching physician services

As a general rule, a teaching physician can bill for the resident services only if they are present for the critical (key) portion of the service. But, there is one exception called the “primary care exception” under which in certain teaching hospital primary care centers, the teaching physician can bill for certain services as furnished independently by the resident without the teaching physician being physically present, but with the teaching physician’s review.

The current model to bill for office/outpatient E/M visit level is either based on either total time spent (personally) or medical-decision-making (MDM). When time is used to select the visit level only the time spent by the teaching physician in qualifying activities can be included for the purposes of the visit level selection. And, this includes the time the teaching physician was present with the resident performing those qualifying activities. Also, under the primary care exception, time cannot be used to select the visit level. This is to guard against the possibility of inappropriate coding that reflects residents’ inefficiencies rather than a measure of the total medically necessary time required to furnish the E/M services.

ICD-10 updates

Usually, the ICD-10 codes are updated annually and take effect every October 1. Some of the most relevant updates are as follows:

1. U09.9 Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified: This should be used to document sequelae of COVID-19 or “long COVID” conditions, after the acute illness has resolved. But, remember to code the conditions related to COVID-19 first and do not use this code with an active or current COVID-19 infection.

2. U07.0 Vaping-related disorder: This should be used for all vaping-related illnesses. However, additional codes for other diagnoses such as acute respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or pneumonitis can also be used with this code. Other respiratory signs and symptoms such as cough and shortness of breath should not be coded separately.

3. Cough is one of the most common reasons for referral to a pulmonologist. The CDC has expanded these codes so please remember to code the most specific diagnosis as deemed appropriate.

R05.1 Acute cough

R05.2 Subacute cough

R05.3 Chronic cough

R05.4 Cough, syncope

R05.8 Other specified cough

R05.9 Cough, unspecified

We will be back with some more exciting and intriguing billing and coding updates in our next article and hope to see everyone at CHEST 2022 in Nashville., TN.

In my previous article in June, 2022, we plowed through the billing and coding updates regarding critical care services, and, I hope that it helped our readers get more acquainted with the nuances of billing and coding in the ICU. In this piece, I would like to briefly elucidate three other areas of practice, which will be relevant to all physicians across various specialties.

Telehealth services

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) graciously added telehealth services temporarily to its list of services due to the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). Initially, the plan was to remove these from the list of covered services by the latter end of the COVID-19 PHE, which, created some uncertainty, or by December 31, 2021. Fortunately, CMS finalized that they will extend it through the end of the calendar year (CY) 2023. So, now all the telehealth services will remain on the CMS list until December 31, 2023. The general principle behind this ruling is to allow for more time for CMS and stakeholders to gather data and to submit support for requesting these services to be permanently added to the Medicare telehealth services list.

Not only has CMS extended the deadline for telehealth services but also they have gone far and beyond to extend some of the codes for cardiac and intensive cardiac rehabilitation until December 31, 2023, as well.

There has been a lot of debate regarding the geographic restrictions when it comes to telehealth visits for diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a mental health disorder. As per the latest Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Section 123), the home of the patient is a permissible site. But, the caveat is that there must be an in-person service with the practitioner/physician within 6 months prior to the initial telehealth visit. Additionally, there has to be a set frequency for subsequent in-person visits. And, usually the subsequent visits will need to be provided at least every 12 months. These requirements are not set in stone and can be changed on a case-by-case basis provided there is appropriate documentation in the chart.

Lastly, it is important to understand and use the appropriate telecommunication systems for the telehealth visits and the modifiers that are associated with them. By definition, it has to be audio and video equipment that allows two-way, real-time interactive communication between the patient and the provider when used for telehealth services for the diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of mental health disorders. But, CMS is in the process of amending it to include audio-only communications technology. At this time, the use of audio-only interactive telecommunications system is limited to practitioners who have the capability to provide two-way audio/video communications but, where the patient is not capable, or does not consent to, the use of two-way audio/video technology. Modifier FQ should be attached to all the mental health services that were furnished using audio-only communications. And, mental health services can include services for treatment of substance use disorders (SUD). Please do not confuse modifier FQ with modifier 93 as FQ is only for behavioral health services. And, remember that the totality of the communication of information exchanged between the provider and the patient during the course of the synchronous telemedicine service (rendered via telephone or other real-time interactive audio only telecommunication system) must be of an amount and nature that is sufficient to meet the key components and/or requirements of the same service when rendered via a face-to-face interaction.

Teaching physician services

As a general rule, a teaching physician can bill for the resident services only if they are present for the critical (key) portion of the service. But, there is one exception called the “primary care exception” under which in certain teaching hospital primary care centers, the teaching physician can bill for certain services as furnished independently by the resident without the teaching physician being physically present, but with the teaching physician’s review.

The current model to bill for office/outpatient E/M visit level is either based on either total time spent (personally) or medical-decision-making (MDM). When time is used to select the visit level only the time spent by the teaching physician in qualifying activities can be included for the purposes of the visit level selection. And, this includes the time the teaching physician was present with the resident performing those qualifying activities. Also, under the primary care exception, time cannot be used to select the visit level. This is to guard against the possibility of inappropriate coding that reflects residents’ inefficiencies rather than a measure of the total medically necessary time required to furnish the E/M services.

ICD-10 updates

Usually, the ICD-10 codes are updated annually and take effect every October 1. Some of the most relevant updates are as follows:

1. U09.9 Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified: This should be used to document sequelae of COVID-19 or “long COVID” conditions, after the acute illness has resolved. But, remember to code the conditions related to COVID-19 first and do not use this code with an active or current COVID-19 infection.

2. U07.0 Vaping-related disorder: This should be used for all vaping-related illnesses. However, additional codes for other diagnoses such as acute respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or pneumonitis can also be used with this code. Other respiratory signs and symptoms such as cough and shortness of breath should not be coded separately.

3. Cough is one of the most common reasons for referral to a pulmonologist. The CDC has expanded these codes so please remember to code the most specific diagnosis as deemed appropriate.

R05.1 Acute cough

R05.2 Subacute cough

R05.3 Chronic cough

R05.4 Cough, syncope

R05.8 Other specified cough

R05.9 Cough, unspecified

We will be back with some more exciting and intriguing billing and coding updates in our next article and hope to see everyone at CHEST 2022 in Nashville., TN.

CHEST is proud to announce the launch of the newest addition to our e-learning options: the CHEST Asthma Curriculum Pathway.

This unique offering combines a variety of bite-sized educational resources from among CHEST’s most popular and effective products, including case-based CHEST SEEK™ questions, podcasts and videos from asthma experts, the latest research from the journal CHEST®, and more.

The pathway comprises several different “paths,” or tracks, that enable clinicians to target their education based on their knowledge gaps and career level. Users can opt to follow the curriculum from start to finish to gain a comprehensive overview of asthma management. Or, they can select individual paths to focus their learning on topics including asthma pathophysiology, diagnosis and classification, exacerbations, phenotypes, and more.

According to early learners of the pathway: “The multiple ways of looking at different therapies in the management of asthma was helpful in remembering the information. It helped a lot with the knowledge check-in.” Another commented: “It is very comprehensive on all aspects of asthma. I enjoyed the higher-level learning on the choice of biologics and asthma mimickers.” The education modalities were highlighted, as well, with this feedback: “I really enjoyed the variety of media (lectures, discussions, papers, games).”

Exploring the education

The Asthma Curriculum Pathway offers targeted education options to fit the career level and clinical interest of clinicians, ranging from trainees and early career physicians to experienced asthma specialists and advanced practice providers.

Paths include:

• Path 1: Pathophysiology

• Path 2: Diagnosis & Classification

• Path 3: Management

• Path 4: Mimickers

• Path 5: Comorbidities

• Path 6: Phenotypes

• Path 7: Exacerbations

• Path 8: Special Situations



Plus, each path offers claiming credit, including CME, for completion—all while driving clinicians to consistently advance best outcomes for their patients with asthma.

Visit (https://bit.ly/asthma-pathway) to access the best of CHEST’s asthma education with the new Asthma Curriculum Pathway, accessible via web or mobile device.

CHEST is proud to announce the launch of the newest addition to our e-learning options: the CHEST Asthma Curriculum Pathway.

This unique offering combines a variety of bite-sized educational resources from among CHEST’s most popular and effective products, including case-based CHEST SEEK™ questions, podcasts and videos from asthma experts, the latest research from the journal CHEST®, and more.

The pathway comprises several different “paths,” or tracks, that enable clinicians to target their education based on their knowledge gaps and career level. Users can opt to follow the curriculum from start to finish to gain a comprehensive overview of asthma management. Or, they can select individual paths to focus their learning on topics including asthma pathophysiology, diagnosis and classification, exacerbations, phenotypes, and more.

According to early learners of the pathway: “The multiple ways of looking at different therapies in the management of asthma was helpful in remembering the information. It helped a lot with the knowledge check-in.” Another commented: “It is very comprehensive on all aspects of asthma. I enjoyed the higher-level learning on the choice of biologics and asthma mimickers.” The education modalities were highlighted, as well, with this feedback: “I really enjoyed the variety of media (lectures, discussions, papers, games).”

Exploring the education

The Asthma Curriculum Pathway offers targeted education options to fit the career level and clinical interest of clinicians, ranging from trainees and early career physicians to experienced asthma specialists and advanced practice providers.

Paths include:

• Path 1: Pathophysiology

• Path 2: Diagnosis & Classification

• Path 3: Management

• Path 4: Mimickers

• Path 5: Comorbidities

• Path 6: Phenotypes

• Path 7: Exacerbations

• Path 8: Special Situations



Plus, each path offers claiming credit, including CME, for completion—all while driving clinicians to consistently advance best outcomes for their patients with asthma.

Visit (https://bit.ly/asthma-pathway) to access the best of CHEST’s asthma education with the new Asthma Curriculum Pathway, accessible via web or mobile device.

CHEST is proud to announce the launch of the newest addition to our e-learning options: the CHEST Asthma Curriculum Pathway.

This unique offering combines a variety of bite-sized educational resources from among CHEST’s most popular and effective products, including case-based CHEST SEEK™ questions, podcasts and videos from asthma experts, the latest research from the journal CHEST®, and more.

The pathway comprises several different “paths,” or tracks, that enable clinicians to target their education based on their knowledge gaps and career level. Users can opt to follow the curriculum from start to finish to gain a comprehensive overview of asthma management. Or, they can select individual paths to focus their learning on topics including asthma pathophysiology, diagnosis and classification, exacerbations, phenotypes, and more.

According to early learners of the pathway: “The multiple ways of looking at different therapies in the management of asthma was helpful in remembering the information. It helped a lot with the knowledge check-in.” Another commented: “It is very comprehensive on all aspects of asthma. I enjoyed the higher-level learning on the choice of biologics and asthma mimickers.” The education modalities were highlighted, as well, with this feedback: “I really enjoyed the variety of media (lectures, discussions, papers, games).”

Exploring the education

The Asthma Curriculum Pathway offers targeted education options to fit the career level and clinical interest of clinicians, ranging from trainees and early career physicians to experienced asthma specialists and advanced practice providers.

Paths include:

• Path 1: Pathophysiology

• Path 2: Diagnosis & Classification

• Path 3: Management

• Path 4: Mimickers

• Path 5: Comorbidities

• Path 6: Phenotypes

• Path 7: Exacerbations

• Path 8: Special Situations



Plus, each path offers claiming credit, including CME, for completion—all while driving clinicians to consistently advance best outcomes for their patients with asthma.

Visit (https://bit.ly/asthma-pathway) to access the best of CHEST’s asthma education with the new Asthma Curriculum Pathway, accessible via web or mobile device.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful, practice-changing bedside tool that spans all medical and surgical specialties. While the definition of POCUS varies, most would agree it is an abbreviated exam that helps to answer a specific clinical question. With the expansion of POCUS training, the clinical questions being asked and answered have increased in scope and volume. The types of exams being utilized in “point of care ultrasound” have also increased and include transthoracic echocardiography; trans-esophageal echocardiography; and lung, gastric, abdominal, and ocular ultrasound. POCUS is used across multiple specialties, including critical care, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and primary care.

CHEST

Not only has POCUS become increasingly important clinically, but specialties now test these skills on their respective board examinations. Anesthesia is one of many such examples. The content outline for the American Board of Anesthesiology includes POCUS as a tested item on both the written and applied components of the exam. POCUS training must be directed toward both optimizing patient management and preparing learners for their board examination. A method for teaching this has yet to be defined (Naji A, et al. Cureus. 2021;13[5]:e15217).

One question – how should different specialties approach this educational challenge and should specialties train together? The answer is complicated. Many POCUS courses and certifications exist, and all vary in their content, didactics, and length. No true gold standard exists for POCUS certification for radiology or noncardiology providers. Additionally, there are no defined expectations or testing processes that certify a provider is “certified” to perform POCUS. While waiting for medical society guidelines to address these issues, many in graduate medical education (GME) are coming up with their own ways to incorporate POCUS into their respective training programs (Atkinson P, et al. CJEM. 2015 Mar;17[2]:161).

Who’s training whom?

Over the past decade, several expert committees, including those in critical care, have developed recommendations and consensus statements urging training facilities to independently create POCUS curriculums. The threshold for many programs to enter this realm of expertise is high and oftentimes unobtainable. We’ve seen emergency medicine and anesthesia raise the bar for ultrasound education in their residencies, but it’s unclear whether all fellowship-trained physicians can and should be tasked with obtaining official POCUS certification.

While specific specialties may require tailored certifications, there’s a considerable overlap in POCUS exam content across specialties. One approach to POCUS training could be developing and implementing a multidisciplinary curriculum. This would allow for pooling of resources (equipment, staff) and harnessing knowledge from providers familiar with different phases of patient care (ICU, perioperative, ED, outpatient clinics). By approaching POCUS from a multidisciplinary perspective, the quality of education may be enhanced (Mayo PH, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40[5]:654). Is it then prudent for providers and trainees alike to share in didactics across all areas of the hospital and clinic? Would this close the knowledge gap between specialties who are facile with ultrasound and those not?

Determining the role of transesophageal echocardiography in a POCUS curriculum

This modality of imaging has been, until recently, reserved for cardiologists and anesthesiologists. More recently transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has been utilized by emergency and critical care medicine physicians. TEE is part of recommended training for these specialties as a tool for diagnostic and rescue measures, including ventilator management, emergency procedures, and medication titration. Rescue TEE can also be utilized perioperatively where the transthoracic exam is limited by poor windows or the operative procedure precludes access to the chest. While transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is often used in a point of care fashion, TEE is utilized less often. This may stem from the invasive nature of the procedure but likely also results from lack of equipment and training. Like POCUS overall, TEE POCUS will require incorporation into training programs to achieve widespread use and acceptance.

A deluge of research on TEE for the noncardiologist shows this modality is minimally invasive, safe, and effective. As it becomes more readily available and technology improves, there is no reason why an esophageal probe can’t be used in a patient with a secured airway (Wray TC, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36[1]:123).

Ultrasound for hemodynamic monitoring

There are many methods employed for hemodynamic monitoring in the ICU. Although echocardiographic and vascular parameters have been validated in the cardiac and perioperative fields, their application in the ICU setting for resuscitation and volume management remain somewhat controversial. The use of TEE and more advanced understanding of spectral doppler and pulmonary ultrasonography using TEE has revolutionized the way providers are managing critically ill patients. (Garcia YA, et al. Chest. 2017;152[4]:736).

In our opinion, physiology and imaging training for residents and fellows should be required for critical care medicine trainees. Delving into the nuances of frank-starling curves, stroke work, and diastolic function will enrich their understanding and highlight the applicability of ultrasonography. Furthermore, all clinicians caring for patients with critical illness should be privy to the nuances of physiologic derangement, and to that end, advanced echocardiographic principles and image acquisition. The heart-lung interactions are demonstrated in real time using POCUS and can clearly delineate treatment goals (Vieillard-Baron A, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45[6]:770).

Documentation and billing

If clinicians are making medical decisions based off imaging gathered at the bedside and interpreted in real-time, documentation should reflect that. That documentation will invariably lead to billing and possibly audit or quality review by colleagues or other healthcare staff. Radiology and cardiology have perfected the billing process for image interpretation, but their form of documentation and interpretation may not easily be implemented in the perioperative or critical care settings. An abbreviated document with focused information should take the place of the formal study. With that, the credentialing and board certification process will allow providers to feel empowered to make clinical decisions based off these focused examinations.

Dr. Goertzen is Chief Fellow, Pulmonary/Critical Care; Dr. Knuf is Program Director, Department of Anesthesia; and Dr. Villalobos is Director of Medical ICU, Department of Internal Medicine, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful, practice-changing bedside tool that spans all medical and surgical specialties. While the definition of POCUS varies, most would agree it is an abbreviated exam that helps to answer a specific clinical question. With the expansion of POCUS training, the clinical questions being asked and answered have increased in scope and volume. The types of exams being utilized in “point of care ultrasound” have also increased and include transthoracic echocardiography; trans-esophageal echocardiography; and lung, gastric, abdominal, and ocular ultrasound. POCUS is used across multiple specialties, including critical care, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and primary care.

CHEST

Not only has POCUS become increasingly important clinically, but specialties now test these skills on their respective board examinations. Anesthesia is one of many such examples. The content outline for the American Board of Anesthesiology includes POCUS as a tested item on both the written and applied components of the exam. POCUS training must be directed toward both optimizing patient management and preparing learners for their board examination. A method for teaching this has yet to be defined (Naji A, et al. Cureus. 2021;13[5]:e15217).

One question – how should different specialties approach this educational challenge and should specialties train together? The answer is complicated. Many POCUS courses and certifications exist, and all vary in their content, didactics, and length. No true gold standard exists for POCUS certification for radiology or noncardiology providers. Additionally, there are no defined expectations or testing processes that certify a provider is “certified” to perform POCUS. While waiting for medical society guidelines to address these issues, many in graduate medical education (GME) are coming up with their own ways to incorporate POCUS into their respective training programs (Atkinson P, et al. CJEM. 2015 Mar;17[2]:161).

Who’s training whom?

Over the past decade, several expert committees, including those in critical care, have developed recommendations and consensus statements urging training facilities to independently create POCUS curriculums. The threshold for many programs to enter this realm of expertise is high and oftentimes unobtainable. We’ve seen emergency medicine and anesthesia raise the bar for ultrasound education in their residencies, but it’s unclear whether all fellowship-trained physicians can and should be tasked with obtaining official POCUS certification.

While specific specialties may require tailored certifications, there’s a considerable overlap in POCUS exam content across specialties. One approach to POCUS training could be developing and implementing a multidisciplinary curriculum. This would allow for pooling of resources (equipment, staff) and harnessing knowledge from providers familiar with different phases of patient care (ICU, perioperative, ED, outpatient clinics). By approaching POCUS from a multidisciplinary perspective, the quality of education may be enhanced (Mayo PH, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40[5]:654). Is it then prudent for providers and trainees alike to share in didactics across all areas of the hospital and clinic? Would this close the knowledge gap between specialties who are facile with ultrasound and those not?

Determining the role of transesophageal echocardiography in a POCUS curriculum

This modality of imaging has been, until recently, reserved for cardiologists and anesthesiologists. More recently transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has been utilized by emergency and critical care medicine physicians. TEE is part of recommended training for these specialties as a tool for diagnostic and rescue measures, including ventilator management, emergency procedures, and medication titration. Rescue TEE can also be utilized perioperatively where the transthoracic exam is limited by poor windows or the operative procedure precludes access to the chest. While transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is often used in a point of care fashion, TEE is utilized less often. This may stem from the invasive nature of the procedure but likely also results from lack of equipment and training. Like POCUS overall, TEE POCUS will require incorporation into training programs to achieve widespread use and acceptance.

A deluge of research on TEE for the noncardiologist shows this modality is minimally invasive, safe, and effective. As it becomes more readily available and technology improves, there is no reason why an esophageal probe can’t be used in a patient with a secured airway (Wray TC, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36[1]:123).

Ultrasound for hemodynamic monitoring

There are many methods employed for hemodynamic monitoring in the ICU. Although echocardiographic and vascular parameters have been validated in the cardiac and perioperative fields, their application in the ICU setting for resuscitation and volume management remain somewhat controversial. The use of TEE and more advanced understanding of spectral doppler and pulmonary ultrasonography using TEE has revolutionized the way providers are managing critically ill patients. (Garcia YA, et al. Chest. 2017;152[4]:736).

In our opinion, physiology and imaging training for residents and fellows should be required for critical care medicine trainees. Delving into the nuances of frank-starling curves, stroke work, and diastolic function will enrich their understanding and highlight the applicability of ultrasonography. Furthermore, all clinicians caring for patients with critical illness should be privy to the nuances of physiologic derangement, and to that end, advanced echocardiographic principles and image acquisition. The heart-lung interactions are demonstrated in real time using POCUS and can clearly delineate treatment goals (Vieillard-Baron A, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45[6]:770).

Documentation and billing

If clinicians are making medical decisions based off imaging gathered at the bedside and interpreted in real-time, documentation should reflect that. That documentation will invariably lead to billing and possibly audit or quality review by colleagues or other healthcare staff. Radiology and cardiology have perfected the billing process for image interpretation, but their form of documentation and interpretation may not easily be implemented in the perioperative or critical care settings. An abbreviated document with focused information should take the place of the formal study. With that, the credentialing and board certification process will allow providers to feel empowered to make clinical decisions based off these focused examinations.

Dr. Goertzen is Chief Fellow, Pulmonary/Critical Care; Dr. Knuf is Program Director, Department of Anesthesia; and Dr. Villalobos is Director of Medical ICU, Department of Internal Medicine, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful, practice-changing bedside tool that spans all medical and surgical specialties. While the definition of POCUS varies, most would agree it is an abbreviated exam that helps to answer a specific clinical question. With the expansion of POCUS training, the clinical questions being asked and answered have increased in scope and volume. The types of exams being utilized in “point of care ultrasound” have also increased and include transthoracic echocardiography; trans-esophageal echocardiography; and lung, gastric, abdominal, and ocular ultrasound. POCUS is used across multiple specialties, including critical care, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and primary care.

CHEST

Not only has POCUS become increasingly important clinically, but specialties now test these skills on their respective board examinations. Anesthesia is one of many such examples. The content outline for the American Board of Anesthesiology includes POCUS as a tested item on both the written and applied components of the exam. POCUS training must be directed toward both optimizing patient management and preparing learners for their board examination. A method for teaching this has yet to be defined (Naji A, et al. Cureus. 2021;13[5]:e15217).

One question – how should different specialties approach this educational challenge and should specialties train together? The answer is complicated. Many POCUS courses and certifications exist, and all vary in their content, didactics, and length. No true gold standard exists for POCUS certification for radiology or noncardiology providers. Additionally, there are no defined expectations or testing processes that certify a provider is “certified” to perform POCUS. While waiting for medical society guidelines to address these issues, many in graduate medical education (GME) are coming up with their own ways to incorporate POCUS into their respective training programs (Atkinson P, et al. CJEM. 2015 Mar;17[2]:161).

Who’s training whom?

Over the past decade, several expert committees, including those in critical care, have developed recommendations and consensus statements urging training facilities to independently create POCUS curriculums. The threshold for many programs to enter this realm of expertise is high and oftentimes unobtainable. We’ve seen emergency medicine and anesthesia raise the bar for ultrasound education in their residencies, but it’s unclear whether all fellowship-trained physicians can and should be tasked with obtaining official POCUS certification.

While specific specialties may require tailored certifications, there’s a considerable overlap in POCUS exam content across specialties. One approach to POCUS training could be developing and implementing a multidisciplinary curriculum. This would allow for pooling of resources (equipment, staff) and harnessing knowledge from providers familiar with different phases of patient care (ICU, perioperative, ED, outpatient clinics). By approaching POCUS from a multidisciplinary perspective, the quality of education may be enhanced (Mayo PH, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40[5]:654). Is it then prudent for providers and trainees alike to share in didactics across all areas of the hospital and clinic? Would this close the knowledge gap between specialties who are facile with ultrasound and those not?

Determining the role of transesophageal echocardiography in a POCUS curriculum

This modality of imaging has been, until recently, reserved for cardiologists and anesthesiologists. More recently transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has been utilized by emergency and critical care medicine physicians. TEE is part of recommended training for these specialties as a tool for diagnostic and rescue measures, including ventilator management, emergency procedures, and medication titration. Rescue TEE can also be utilized perioperatively where the transthoracic exam is limited by poor windows or the operative procedure precludes access to the chest. While transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is often used in a point of care fashion, TEE is utilized less often. This may stem from the invasive nature of the procedure but likely also results from lack of equipment and training. Like POCUS overall, TEE POCUS will require incorporation into training programs to achieve widespread use and acceptance.

A deluge of research on TEE for the noncardiologist shows this modality is minimally invasive, safe, and effective. As it becomes more readily available and technology improves, there is no reason why an esophageal probe can’t be used in a patient with a secured airway (Wray TC, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36[1]:123).

Ultrasound for hemodynamic monitoring

There are many methods employed for hemodynamic monitoring in the ICU. Although echocardiographic and vascular parameters have been validated in the cardiac and perioperative fields, their application in the ICU setting for resuscitation and volume management remain somewhat controversial. The use of TEE and more advanced understanding of spectral doppler and pulmonary ultrasonography using TEE has revolutionized the way providers are managing critically ill patients. (Garcia YA, et al. Chest. 2017;152[4]:736).

In our opinion, physiology and imaging training for residents and fellows should be required for critical care medicine trainees. Delving into the nuances of frank-starling curves, stroke work, and diastolic function will enrich their understanding and highlight the applicability of ultrasonography. Furthermore, all clinicians caring for patients with critical illness should be privy to the nuances of physiologic derangement, and to that end, advanced echocardiographic principles and image acquisition. The heart-lung interactions are demonstrated in real time using POCUS and can clearly delineate treatment goals (Vieillard-Baron A, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45[6]:770).

Documentation and billing

If clinicians are making medical decisions based off imaging gathered at the bedside and interpreted in real-time, documentation should reflect that. That documentation will invariably lead to billing and possibly audit or quality review by colleagues or other healthcare staff. Radiology and cardiology have perfected the billing process for image interpretation, but their form of documentation and interpretation may not easily be implemented in the perioperative or critical care settings. An abbreviated document with focused information should take the place of the formal study. With that, the credentialing and board certification process will allow providers to feel empowered to make clinical decisions based off these focused examinations.

Dr. Goertzen is Chief Fellow, Pulmonary/Critical Care; Dr. Knuf is Program Director, Department of Anesthesia; and Dr. Villalobos is Director of Medical ICU, Department of Internal Medicine, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas.