Clinical Neurology News

According to a scientific statement by the AHA on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, the benefits of statins highly offset the associated risks in appropriate patients. Also today, acute stroke thrombolysis worked safely despite GI bleed or malignancy, legal advice on what to do if a patient sues you, and the link between childhood asthma and obesity.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

According to a scientific statement by the AHA on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, the benefits of statins highly offset the associated risks in appropriate patients. Also today, acute stroke thrombolysis worked safely despite GI bleed or malignancy, legal advice on what to do if a patient sues you, and the link between childhood asthma and obesity.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

According to a scientific statement by the AHA on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, the benefits of statins highly offset the associated risks in appropriate patients. Also today, acute stroke thrombolysis worked safely despite GI bleed or malignancy, legal advice on what to do if a patient sues you, and the link between childhood asthma and obesity.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Just 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care, with use of the technology varying widely by specialty.

Carol Kane, director of economic and health policy research, and Kurt Gillis, principal economist, both of the American Medical Association, evaluated the responses of 3,500 physicians about their telemedicine usage through data from the AMA’s 2016 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. They took into account physicians’ specialty, age, sex, practice setting, and region, as well as the type of telemedicine services employed, if any.

In a research article published in Health Affairs, they found that in 2016, 15% of medical practices used telemedicine for patient interactions – including e-visits and store and forward services – while 11% used the technology to communicate with other health professionals.

Of the primary three telemedicine modalities, physicians used videoconferencing most often (13%), followed by store and forward of data (9%), and remote patient monitoring (7%).

Of specialists, 40% of radiologists, 28% of psychiatrists, and 24% of cardiologists used telemedicine for patient interactions, Ms. Kane and Mr. Gillis found. Emergency physicians were most likely to use telemedicine for interactions with other health professionals (39%), followed by pathologists (30%), and radiologists 26%). On the lower end of the spectrum, 6% of immunologists, 9% of ob.gyns., and 10% of general surgeons used telemedicine for patient care.

Remote patient monitoring was the least used telemedicine modality, with less than 10% of physicians in every broad specialty group using the service, with the exception of internal medicine subspecialties. Cardiologists reported the highest use of remote patient monitoring, followed by nephrologists.

Practice size and setting markedly influenced the practice of telemedicine. Use for patient interactions ranged from 8% among physicians in practices with one to four doctors to 27% among physician practices with at least 50 physicians. Similarly, telemedicine use between physicians and other health care professionals ranged from 4% among doctors in the smallest practice category to 23% in the largest practice category. Physicians in solo practice were less likely to use telemedicine for patient interactions than physicians in single- or multispecialty group practices.

Unsurprisingly, rural physicians were more likely to use telemedicine to consult with other doctors and to use video conferencing with patients than were physicians in metropolitan areas. No significant differences in telemedicine use were observed between physicians in states with parity laws. Such laws generally require that commercial insurers cover and reimburse for telemedicine services as they would for in-person services.

SOURCE: Kane et al. Health Affairs. 2018. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05077.

Just 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care, with use of the technology varying widely by specialty.

Carol Kane, director of economic and health policy research, and Kurt Gillis, principal economist, both of the American Medical Association, evaluated the responses of 3,500 physicians about their telemedicine usage through data from the AMA’s 2016 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. They took into account physicians’ specialty, age, sex, practice setting, and region, as well as the type of telemedicine services employed, if any.

In a research article published in Health Affairs, they found that in 2016, 15% of medical practices used telemedicine for patient interactions – including e-visits and store and forward services – while 11% used the technology to communicate with other health professionals.

Of the primary three telemedicine modalities, physicians used videoconferencing most often (13%), followed by store and forward of data (9%), and remote patient monitoring (7%).

Of specialists, 40% of radiologists, 28% of psychiatrists, and 24% of cardiologists used telemedicine for patient interactions, Ms. Kane and Mr. Gillis found. Emergency physicians were most likely to use telemedicine for interactions with other health professionals (39%), followed by pathologists (30%), and radiologists 26%). On the lower end of the spectrum, 6% of immunologists, 9% of ob.gyns., and 10% of general surgeons used telemedicine for patient care.

Remote patient monitoring was the least used telemedicine modality, with less than 10% of physicians in every broad specialty group using the service, with the exception of internal medicine subspecialties. Cardiologists reported the highest use of remote patient monitoring, followed by nephrologists.

Practice size and setting markedly influenced the practice of telemedicine. Use for patient interactions ranged from 8% among physicians in practices with one to four doctors to 27% among physician practices with at least 50 physicians. Similarly, telemedicine use between physicians and other health care professionals ranged from 4% among doctors in the smallest practice category to 23% in the largest practice category. Physicians in solo practice were less likely to use telemedicine for patient interactions than physicians in single- or multispecialty group practices.

Unsurprisingly, rural physicians were more likely to use telemedicine to consult with other doctors and to use video conferencing with patients than were physicians in metropolitan areas. No significant differences in telemedicine use were observed between physicians in states with parity laws. Such laws generally require that commercial insurers cover and reimburse for telemedicine services as they would for in-person services.

SOURCE: Kane et al. Health Affairs. 2018. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05077.

Just 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care, with use of the technology varying widely by specialty.

Carol Kane, director of economic and health policy research, and Kurt Gillis, principal economist, both of the American Medical Association, evaluated the responses of 3,500 physicians about their telemedicine usage through data from the AMA’s 2016 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. They took into account physicians’ specialty, age, sex, practice setting, and region, as well as the type of telemedicine services employed, if any.

In a research article published in Health Affairs, they found that in 2016, 15% of medical practices used telemedicine for patient interactions – including e-visits and store and forward services – while 11% used the technology to communicate with other health professionals.

Of the primary three telemedicine modalities, physicians used videoconferencing most often (13%), followed by store and forward of data (9%), and remote patient monitoring (7%).

Of specialists, 40% of radiologists, 28% of psychiatrists, and 24% of cardiologists used telemedicine for patient interactions, Ms. Kane and Mr. Gillis found. Emergency physicians were most likely to use telemedicine for interactions with other health professionals (39%), followed by pathologists (30%), and radiologists 26%). On the lower end of the spectrum, 6% of immunologists, 9% of ob.gyns., and 10% of general surgeons used telemedicine for patient care.

Remote patient monitoring was the least used telemedicine modality, with less than 10% of physicians in every broad specialty group using the service, with the exception of internal medicine subspecialties. Cardiologists reported the highest use of remote patient monitoring, followed by nephrologists.

Practice size and setting markedly influenced the practice of telemedicine. Use for patient interactions ranged from 8% among physicians in practices with one to four doctors to 27% among physician practices with at least 50 physicians. Similarly, telemedicine use between physicians and other health care professionals ranged from 4% among doctors in the smallest practice category to 23% in the largest practice category. Physicians in solo practice were less likely to use telemedicine for patient interactions than physicians in single- or multispecialty group practices.

Unsurprisingly, rural physicians were more likely to use telemedicine to consult with other doctors and to use video conferencing with patients than were physicians in metropolitan areas. No significant differences in telemedicine use were observed between physicians in states with parity laws. Such laws generally require that commercial insurers cover and reimburse for telemedicine services as they would for in-person services.

SOURCE: Kane et al. Health Affairs. 2018. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05077.

Leave policies for residents who become new parents are uneven, oft-ignored by training boards, and provide less time off than similar policies for faculty physicians. Those were the findings of a pair of research letters published in JAMA.

Kirti Magudia, MD, of the department of radiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and her colleagues reviewed childbearing and family leave policies for 15 graduate medical education (GME)–sponsoring institutions, all of which were affiliated with the top 12 U.S. medical schools. Though all 12 schools provided paid childbearing or family leave for faculty physicians, only 8 of the 15 did so for residents (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22)]:2372-4).

In programs that did provide leave, the average of 6.6 weeks of paid total maternity leave for residents was less than the 8.6 weeks faculty receive. Both are considerably less than proscribed by the Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires large employers to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but only after 12 months of employment.

The research focused on only institutional policies for paid leave; unpaid leave and state policies may extend the average, and departments may offer leave that goes beyond specific policies, Dr. Magudia and her colleagues noted.

Changes in the residency population make now the right time for establishing consistent family leave policies, Dr. Magudia said in an interview. “We have people starting training later; we have more female trainees. And with the Match system, you’re not in control of exactly where you’re going. You may not have a support system where you end up, and a lot of the top training institutions are in high cost-of-living areas. All of those things together can make trainees especially vulnerable, and because trainees are temporary employees, changing policies to benefit them is very challenging.

“Wellness is a huge issue in medicine, and at large in society,” she said. “Making sure people have adequate parental leave goes a long way toward reducing stress levels and helping them cope with normal life transitions. We want to take steps that promote success among a diverse community of physicians; we want to retain as many people in the field as possible, and we want them to feel supported.”

Beyond asking all GME-sponsoring institutions to adopt parental leave policies, Dr. Magudia believes trainees must be better informed. “It should be clear to training program applicants what the policies are at those institutions,” she said. “That information is extremely difficult to obtain, as we’ve discovered. You can imagine that, if you are the applicant, it can be difficult to ask about those policies during the interview process because it may affect how things turn out.”

“If we can see changes like these made in the near future,” she added, “we will be in a good place.”

In the second study, Briony K. Varda, MD, of the department of urology at Boston Children’s Hospital, and her colleagues also noted the complications of balancing parental leave with training requirements from specialty boards. They compared leave policies among American Board of Medical Specialty member organizations and found that less than half specifically mentioned parental leave for resident physicians (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22]:2374-7).

Dr. Varda and her colleagues reviewed the websites of 24 ABMS boards to determine their leave policies; 22 had policies but only 11 cited parental leave as an option for residents. Twenty boards have time-based training requirements and allow for a median of 6 weeks leave for any reason; none of the boards had a specific policy for parental leave. In addition, only eight boards had “explicit and clear clarifying language” that would allow program directors to seek exemptions for their residents.

Though limitations like not detecting all available policies – and a subjective evaluation of the policies that were reviewed – could have impacted their study, the coauthors reiterated that the median of 6 weeks leave is less than the average leave for faculty physicians. They also emphasized the detriments associated with inadequate parental leave, including delayed childbearing, use of assisted reproduction technology, and difficulty breastfeeding.

Dr. Varda underlined the issues that arise for program directors, who “must weigh potentially conflicting factors such as adhering to board and institutional policies, maintaining adequate clinical service coverage, considering precedent within the program, and ensuring that resident physicians are well trained.” To balance the needs of all involved “novel approaches such as use of competency-based rather than time-based training milestones” to determine certification eligibility and, in return, lessen the stresses for new-parent residents, she noted.

The researchers disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Magudia K et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22)]:2372-4; Varda B et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22]:2374-7.

Leave policies for residents who become new parents are uneven, oft-ignored by training boards, and provide less time off than similar policies for faculty physicians. Those were the findings of a pair of research letters published in JAMA.

Kirti Magudia, MD, of the department of radiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and her colleagues reviewed childbearing and family leave policies for 15 graduate medical education (GME)–sponsoring institutions, all of which were affiliated with the top 12 U.S. medical schools. Though all 12 schools provided paid childbearing or family leave for faculty physicians, only 8 of the 15 did so for residents (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22)]:2372-4).

In programs that did provide leave, the average of 6.6 weeks of paid total maternity leave for residents was less than the 8.6 weeks faculty receive. Both are considerably less than proscribed by the Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires large employers to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but only after 12 months of employment.

The research focused on only institutional policies for paid leave; unpaid leave and state policies may extend the average, and departments may offer leave that goes beyond specific policies, Dr. Magudia and her colleagues noted.

Changes in the residency population make now the right time for establishing consistent family leave policies, Dr. Magudia said in an interview. “We have people starting training later; we have more female trainees. And with the Match system, you’re not in control of exactly where you’re going. You may not have a support system where you end up, and a lot of the top training institutions are in high cost-of-living areas. All of those things together can make trainees especially vulnerable, and because trainees are temporary employees, changing policies to benefit them is very challenging.

“Wellness is a huge issue in medicine, and at large in society,” she said. “Making sure people have adequate parental leave goes a long way toward reducing stress levels and helping them cope with normal life transitions. We want to take steps that promote success among a diverse community of physicians; we want to retain as many people in the field as possible, and we want them to feel supported.”

Beyond asking all GME-sponsoring institutions to adopt parental leave policies, Dr. Magudia believes trainees must be better informed. “It should be clear to training program applicants what the policies are at those institutions,” she said. “That information is extremely difficult to obtain, as we’ve discovered. You can imagine that, if you are the applicant, it can be difficult to ask about those policies during the interview process because it may affect how things turn out.”

“If we can see changes like these made in the near future,” she added, “we will be in a good place.”

In the second study, Briony K. Varda, MD, of the department of urology at Boston Children’s Hospital, and her colleagues also noted the complications of balancing parental leave with training requirements from specialty boards. They compared leave policies among American Board of Medical Specialty member organizations and found that less than half specifically mentioned parental leave for resident physicians (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22]:2374-7).

Dr. Varda and her colleagues reviewed the websites of 24 ABMS boards to determine their leave policies; 22 had policies but only 11 cited parental leave as an option for residents. Twenty boards have time-based training requirements and allow for a median of 6 weeks leave for any reason; none of the boards had a specific policy for parental leave. In addition, only eight boards had “explicit and clear clarifying language” that would allow program directors to seek exemptions for their residents.

Though limitations like not detecting all available policies – and a subjective evaluation of the policies that were reviewed – could have impacted their study, the coauthors reiterated that the median of 6 weeks leave is less than the average leave for faculty physicians. They also emphasized the detriments associated with inadequate parental leave, including delayed childbearing, use of assisted reproduction technology, and difficulty breastfeeding.

Dr. Varda underlined the issues that arise for program directors, who “must weigh potentially conflicting factors such as adhering to board and institutional policies, maintaining adequate clinical service coverage, considering precedent within the program, and ensuring that resident physicians are well trained.” To balance the needs of all involved “novel approaches such as use of competency-based rather than time-based training milestones” to determine certification eligibility and, in return, lessen the stresses for new-parent residents, she noted.

The researchers disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Magudia K et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22)]:2372-4; Varda B et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22]:2374-7.

Leave policies for residents who become new parents are uneven, oft-ignored by training boards, and provide less time off than similar policies for faculty physicians. Those were the findings of a pair of research letters published in JAMA.

Kirti Magudia, MD, of the department of radiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and her colleagues reviewed childbearing and family leave policies for 15 graduate medical education (GME)–sponsoring institutions, all of which were affiliated with the top 12 U.S. medical schools. Though all 12 schools provided paid childbearing or family leave for faculty physicians, only 8 of the 15 did so for residents (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22)]:2372-4).

In programs that did provide leave, the average of 6.6 weeks of paid total maternity leave for residents was less than the 8.6 weeks faculty receive. Both are considerably less than proscribed by the Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires large employers to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but only after 12 months of employment.

The research focused on only institutional policies for paid leave; unpaid leave and state policies may extend the average, and departments may offer leave that goes beyond specific policies, Dr. Magudia and her colleagues noted.

Changes in the residency population make now the right time for establishing consistent family leave policies, Dr. Magudia said in an interview. “We have people starting training later; we have more female trainees. And with the Match system, you’re not in control of exactly where you’re going. You may not have a support system where you end up, and a lot of the top training institutions are in high cost-of-living areas. All of those things together can make trainees especially vulnerable, and because trainees are temporary employees, changing policies to benefit them is very challenging.

“Wellness is a huge issue in medicine, and at large in society,” she said. “Making sure people have adequate parental leave goes a long way toward reducing stress levels and helping them cope with normal life transitions. We want to take steps that promote success among a diverse community of physicians; we want to retain as many people in the field as possible, and we want them to feel supported.”

Beyond asking all GME-sponsoring institutions to adopt parental leave policies, Dr. Magudia believes trainees must be better informed. “It should be clear to training program applicants what the policies are at those institutions,” she said. “That information is extremely difficult to obtain, as we’ve discovered. You can imagine that, if you are the applicant, it can be difficult to ask about those policies during the interview process because it may affect how things turn out.”

“If we can see changes like these made in the near future,” she added, “we will be in a good place.”

In the second study, Briony K. Varda, MD, of the department of urology at Boston Children’s Hospital, and her colleagues also noted the complications of balancing parental leave with training requirements from specialty boards. They compared leave policies among American Board of Medical Specialty member organizations and found that less than half specifically mentioned parental leave for resident physicians (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22]:2374-7).

Dr. Varda and her colleagues reviewed the websites of 24 ABMS boards to determine their leave policies; 22 had policies but only 11 cited parental leave as an option for residents. Twenty boards have time-based training requirements and allow for a median of 6 weeks leave for any reason; none of the boards had a specific policy for parental leave. In addition, only eight boards had “explicit and clear clarifying language” that would allow program directors to seek exemptions for their residents.

Though limitations like not detecting all available policies – and a subjective evaluation of the policies that were reviewed – could have impacted their study, the coauthors reiterated that the median of 6 weeks leave is less than the average leave for faculty physicians. They also emphasized the detriments associated with inadequate parental leave, including delayed childbearing, use of assisted reproduction technology, and difficulty breastfeeding.

Dr. Varda underlined the issues that arise for program directors, who “must weigh potentially conflicting factors such as adhering to board and institutional policies, maintaining adequate clinical service coverage, considering precedent within the program, and ensuring that resident physicians are well trained.” To balance the needs of all involved “novel approaches such as use of competency-based rather than time-based training milestones” to determine certification eligibility and, in return, lessen the stresses for new-parent residents, she noted.

The researchers disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Magudia K et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22)]:2372-4; Varda B et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 11;320[22]:2374-7.

Decreased insulin clearance may be the first step on the path to insulin resistance. Also today, tender joint count may confound assessment of RA inflammation, common AEDs confer moderately increased risk of major congenital malformations, and the ACR and the NPF unveil new treatment guidelines for psoriatic arthritis.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Decreased insulin clearance may be the first step on the path to insulin resistance. Also today, tender joint count may confound assessment of RA inflammation, common AEDs confer moderately increased risk of major congenital malformations, and the ACR and the NPF unveil new treatment guidelines for psoriatic arthritis.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Decreased insulin clearance may be the first step on the path to insulin resistance. Also today, tender joint count may confound assessment of RA inflammation, common AEDs confer moderately increased risk of major congenital malformations, and the ACR and the NPF unveil new treatment guidelines for psoriatic arthritis.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

NEW ORLEANS – Adults with focal epilepsy experience a range of disturbing symptoms and functional impacts of the disease, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The most prominent symptoms and effects on daily life may differ in the early, middle, and late stages of the disease, the results suggest.

Lead study author Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology at New York University, and her colleagues interviewed 62 patients with focal-onset epilepsy to examine patients’ experiences living with epilepsy. The investigators focused on salient symptoms and functional impacts – those that were reported by at least 50% of patients and were associated with a high degree of disturbance (patients rated them 5 or greater on a scale from 0 [no disturbance] to 10 [high disturbance]).

Of 51 symptoms that patients described during the interviews, the following 8 met the salience criteria for the total cohort: twitching or tremors, confusion, difficulty in talking, loss of awareness of others’ presence, stiffening, impaired consciousness or loss of consciousness, difficulty in remembering, and dizziness or lightheadedness. Patients reported salient functional impacts on driving and transportation, work and school, and leisure and social activities. Some symptoms met salience criteria among patients in certain stages of the disease (for example, tongue biting in patients with early-stage epilepsy and anxiety, fear, or panic in late-stage epilepsy) but not among patients in the other cohorts.

“These findings underscore the need to consider all these experiences when developing patient-reported outcome measures for use in clinical trials,” said Dr. French and her colleagues. “It may be useful to tailor measures of patient experiences to the patient’s stage of disease.”

Previous qualitative studies of epilepsy symptoms and burdens were based on small numbers of patients and interviews at a single center. For the present study, the researchers conducted qualitative, semistructured, in-person interviews with adults with focal epilepsy in different areas of the United States (such as California, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). Patients were grouped by early, middle, or late disease stage. Patients in the early cohort (n = 19) had at least two seizures in the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy in the past year, and had not yet received antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment or had received treatment with only one AED and had not failed treatment. Patients in the middle cohort (n = 17) had at least one seizure in the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy within the past 5 years, and had failed one AED because of lack of efficacy or had received their first add-on AED. Patients in the late cohort (n = 26) had at least one seizure every 3 months during the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy at age 12 years or older, and inadequate response to treatment of at least 3 months with two AEDs that were tolerated and appropriately chosen.

Patients’ mean age was 37 years (range, 19-60 years), 73% were female, 79% were white, 69% had a college degree as their highest level of education, and 65% were employed. Patients’ seizure types included simple partial without motor signs (52%), simple partial with motor signs (16%), complex partial (68%), or secondarily generalized (65%).

While driving or transportation was a salient impact for all three groups, memory loss was a salient impact in the early and middle cohorts only. Headaches and sadness or depression were salient impacts for the late cohort only.

This study was funded by Eisai and two of the authors are former or current employees of Eisai.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: French JA et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.196.

NEW ORLEANS – Adults with focal epilepsy experience a range of disturbing symptoms and functional impacts of the disease, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The most prominent symptoms and effects on daily life may differ in the early, middle, and late stages of the disease, the results suggest.

Lead study author Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology at New York University, and her colleagues interviewed 62 patients with focal-onset epilepsy to examine patients’ experiences living with epilepsy. The investigators focused on salient symptoms and functional impacts – those that were reported by at least 50% of patients and were associated with a high degree of disturbance (patients rated them 5 or greater on a scale from 0 [no disturbance] to 10 [high disturbance]).

Of 51 symptoms that patients described during the interviews, the following 8 met the salience criteria for the total cohort: twitching or tremors, confusion, difficulty in talking, loss of awareness of others’ presence, stiffening, impaired consciousness or loss of consciousness, difficulty in remembering, and dizziness or lightheadedness. Patients reported salient functional impacts on driving and transportation, work and school, and leisure and social activities. Some symptoms met salience criteria among patients in certain stages of the disease (for example, tongue biting in patients with early-stage epilepsy and anxiety, fear, or panic in late-stage epilepsy) but not among patients in the other cohorts.

“These findings underscore the need to consider all these experiences when developing patient-reported outcome measures for use in clinical trials,” said Dr. French and her colleagues. “It may be useful to tailor measures of patient experiences to the patient’s stage of disease.”

Previous qualitative studies of epilepsy symptoms and burdens were based on small numbers of patients and interviews at a single center. For the present study, the researchers conducted qualitative, semistructured, in-person interviews with adults with focal epilepsy in different areas of the United States (such as California, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). Patients were grouped by early, middle, or late disease stage. Patients in the early cohort (n = 19) had at least two seizures in the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy in the past year, and had not yet received antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment or had received treatment with only one AED and had not failed treatment. Patients in the middle cohort (n = 17) had at least one seizure in the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy within the past 5 years, and had failed one AED because of lack of efficacy or had received their first add-on AED. Patients in the late cohort (n = 26) had at least one seizure every 3 months during the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy at age 12 years or older, and inadequate response to treatment of at least 3 months with two AEDs that were tolerated and appropriately chosen.

Patients’ mean age was 37 years (range, 19-60 years), 73% were female, 79% were white, 69% had a college degree as their highest level of education, and 65% were employed. Patients’ seizure types included simple partial without motor signs (52%), simple partial with motor signs (16%), complex partial (68%), or secondarily generalized (65%).

While driving or transportation was a salient impact for all three groups, memory loss was a salient impact in the early and middle cohorts only. Headaches and sadness or depression were salient impacts for the late cohort only.

This study was funded by Eisai and two of the authors are former or current employees of Eisai.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: French JA et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.196.

NEW ORLEANS – Adults with focal epilepsy experience a range of disturbing symptoms and functional impacts of the disease, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The most prominent symptoms and effects on daily life may differ in the early, middle, and late stages of the disease, the results suggest.

Lead study author Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology at New York University, and her colleagues interviewed 62 patients with focal-onset epilepsy to examine patients’ experiences living with epilepsy. The investigators focused on salient symptoms and functional impacts – those that were reported by at least 50% of patients and were associated with a high degree of disturbance (patients rated them 5 or greater on a scale from 0 [no disturbance] to 10 [high disturbance]).

Of 51 symptoms that patients described during the interviews, the following 8 met the salience criteria for the total cohort: twitching or tremors, confusion, difficulty in talking, loss of awareness of others’ presence, stiffening, impaired consciousness or loss of consciousness, difficulty in remembering, and dizziness or lightheadedness. Patients reported salient functional impacts on driving and transportation, work and school, and leisure and social activities. Some symptoms met salience criteria among patients in certain stages of the disease (for example, tongue biting in patients with early-stage epilepsy and anxiety, fear, or panic in late-stage epilepsy) but not among patients in the other cohorts.

“These findings underscore the need to consider all these experiences when developing patient-reported outcome measures for use in clinical trials,” said Dr. French and her colleagues. “It may be useful to tailor measures of patient experiences to the patient’s stage of disease.”

Previous qualitative studies of epilepsy symptoms and burdens were based on small numbers of patients and interviews at a single center. For the present study, the researchers conducted qualitative, semistructured, in-person interviews with adults with focal epilepsy in different areas of the United States (such as California, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). Patients were grouped by early, middle, or late disease stage. Patients in the early cohort (n = 19) had at least two seizures in the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy in the past year, and had not yet received antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment or had received treatment with only one AED and had not failed treatment. Patients in the middle cohort (n = 17) had at least one seizure in the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy within the past 5 years, and had failed one AED because of lack of efficacy or had received their first add-on AED. Patients in the late cohort (n = 26) had at least one seizure every 3 months during the past year, a diagnosis of focal epilepsy at age 12 years or older, and inadequate response to treatment of at least 3 months with two AEDs that were tolerated and appropriately chosen.

Patients’ mean age was 37 years (range, 19-60 years), 73% were female, 79% were white, 69% had a college degree as their highest level of education, and 65% were employed. Patients’ seizure types included simple partial without motor signs (52%), simple partial with motor signs (16%), complex partial (68%), or secondarily generalized (65%).

While driving or transportation was a salient impact for all three groups, memory loss was a salient impact in the early and middle cohorts only. Headaches and sadness or depression were salient impacts for the late cohort only.

This study was funded by Eisai and two of the authors are former or current employees of Eisai.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: French JA et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.196.

Investigating the link between statin use and type 2 diabetes risk. Also today, should metabolic syndrome be renamed circadian syndrome? A smart phone application diagnoses STEMI nearly as well as ECG, and fewer people having insurance may have helped slow health spending growth in 2017.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Investigating the link between statin use and type 2 diabetes risk. Also today, should metabolic syndrome be renamed circadian syndrome? A smart phone application diagnoses STEMI nearly as well as ECG, and fewer people having insurance may have helped slow health spending growth in 2017.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Investigating the link between statin use and type 2 diabetes risk. Also today, should metabolic syndrome be renamed circadian syndrome? A smart phone application diagnoses STEMI nearly as well as ECG, and fewer people having insurance may have helped slow health spending growth in 2017.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

The 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology n San Diego included research presentations on more than 3,000 abstracts. In this special meetings edition of the MDedge Daily News we hear from Dr. Arok Khorana of the Cleveland Clinic on rivaroxaban for the prevention of VTE in cancer patients. We also hear from Dr. Ify Osunkwo of the Levine Cancer Institute on recent advances in sickle cell disease.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

The 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology n San Diego included research presentations on more than 3,000 abstracts. In this special meetings edition of the MDedge Daily News we hear from Dr. Arok Khorana of the Cleveland Clinic on rivaroxaban for the prevention of VTE in cancer patients. We also hear from Dr. Ify Osunkwo of the Levine Cancer Institute on recent advances in sickle cell disease.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

The 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology n San Diego included research presentations on more than 3,000 abstracts. In this special meetings edition of the MDedge Daily News we hear from Dr. Arok Khorana of the Cleveland Clinic on rivaroxaban for the prevention of VTE in cancer patients. We also hear from Dr. Ify Osunkwo of the Levine Cancer Institute on recent advances in sickle cell disease.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

NEW YORK – The rates of carotid artery revascularization with either endarterectomy or stenting declined precipitously over a recent 15-year period, at least among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A reduction in carotid endarterectomies (CEA) largely accounted for the decline during 1999-2014 although there was a cumulative decline in all carotid revascularization procedures when rates of CEA and stenting were combined, according to Brajesh K. Lal, MD, professor of surgery, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore.

In 1999, when enthusiasm for CEA appears to have peaked, 81,306 patients received this procedure, but a steady decline was observed until 2014, when 36,325 patients were being treated annually in the Medicare database. When calculated as endarterectomies per 100,000 beneficiaries, the rate declined from 298 to 128 (57%; P less than .001) over this 15-year period.

The number of stenting procedures had not reached its peak in 1999, when 10,416 were performed. Rather, the number performed annually nearly doubled to, 22.865 by 2006. However, it then began to decline and reached 10,208 by 2014, which was slightly fewer than in 1999, according to Dr. Lal.

These trends have been observed even though outcomes are getting better, at least for CEA, according to Dr. Lal. From the same pool of data, there was a 31% (1.1% vs. 1.6%) reduction from 1999 to 2014 in mortality at 30 days following CEA. For a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality, the rate fell 29.5% (3.1% vs. 4.4%). Both reductions were called statistically significant by Dr. Lal.

The improvements in CEA outcomes were observed even though “the treated patients got sicker when looking at comorbidities and risk factors, particularly hypertension, renal insufficiency, and diabetes,” Dr. Lal said.

Outcomes also improved among patients undergoing carotid stenting in general, although the patterns were described as “more complex.” In general, there was steady improvement on outcomes during 1999-2006, but there was no further gain and some lost ground during 2006-2014. For example, ischemic stroke or death fell from 7.0% in 1999 to 4.8% in 2006, but it had climbed back to 7.0% by 2014 with no net change when the first and last year were compared.

However, with risk adjustment, there was a reduction in in-hospital mortality (1.13% vs. 2.78%) over the study period for patients undergoing carotid stenting, according to Dr. Lal, who said this reached statistical significance. Like the CEA group, there was more comorbidity among those treated with stenting at the end, relative to the early part of the study period.

In the stenting group, patients with symptomatic carotid disease rose from 14.4% in 1999 to 25.9% in 2014. This tracks with Medicare policy, which required patients after 2005 to have symptomatic disease for reimbursement, according to Dr. Lal. Prior to 2005, reimbursement was granted for patients participating in clinical trials only.

The rates of carotid revascularization are not evenly distributed geographically in the United States, according to the Medicare data. Endarterectomy in particular has been more common in the south and Midwest than on either coast. This was true in 1999 and remained so in 2014. The distribution was similar for stenting, although it was also relatively common in the southwest in the early part of the study period.

In the beginning of the study, the increased rate of stenting might have contributed to the decline in endarterectomy, but there are several other factors that are implicated in the observed trends, according to Dr. Lal. He suggested that decreasing reimbursement for the performance of these procedures, better clinical management of risk factors, and advances in medical therapy. He cited a physician survey that showed a growing preference for medical management over invasive procedures in patients with high-grade stenosis and indicated that this last factor might be a particularly important driver of the decline in revascularization referrals for asymptomatic carotid disease.

The degree to which these Medicare data are representative of overall trends in the United States is unclear, but Dr. Lal called for further work to understand the forces that these data suggest are driving the changing patterns of carotid revascularization.

NEW YORK – The rates of carotid artery revascularization with either endarterectomy or stenting declined precipitously over a recent 15-year period, at least among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A reduction in carotid endarterectomies (CEA) largely accounted for the decline during 1999-2014 although there was a cumulative decline in all carotid revascularization procedures when rates of CEA and stenting were combined, according to Brajesh K. Lal, MD, professor of surgery, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore.

In 1999, when enthusiasm for CEA appears to have peaked, 81,306 patients received this procedure, but a steady decline was observed until 2014, when 36,325 patients were being treated annually in the Medicare database. When calculated as endarterectomies per 100,000 beneficiaries, the rate declined from 298 to 128 (57%; P less than .001) over this 15-year period.

The number of stenting procedures had not reached its peak in 1999, when 10,416 were performed. Rather, the number performed annually nearly doubled to, 22.865 by 2006. However, it then began to decline and reached 10,208 by 2014, which was slightly fewer than in 1999, according to Dr. Lal.

These trends have been observed even though outcomes are getting better, at least for CEA, according to Dr. Lal. From the same pool of data, there was a 31% (1.1% vs. 1.6%) reduction from 1999 to 2014 in mortality at 30 days following CEA. For a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality, the rate fell 29.5% (3.1% vs. 4.4%). Both reductions were called statistically significant by Dr. Lal.

The improvements in CEA outcomes were observed even though “the treated patients got sicker when looking at comorbidities and risk factors, particularly hypertension, renal insufficiency, and diabetes,” Dr. Lal said.

Outcomes also improved among patients undergoing carotid stenting in general, although the patterns were described as “more complex.” In general, there was steady improvement on outcomes during 1999-2006, but there was no further gain and some lost ground during 2006-2014. For example, ischemic stroke or death fell from 7.0% in 1999 to 4.8% in 2006, but it had climbed back to 7.0% by 2014 with no net change when the first and last year were compared.

However, with risk adjustment, there was a reduction in in-hospital mortality (1.13% vs. 2.78%) over the study period for patients undergoing carotid stenting, according to Dr. Lal, who said this reached statistical significance. Like the CEA group, there was more comorbidity among those treated with stenting at the end, relative to the early part of the study period.

In the stenting group, patients with symptomatic carotid disease rose from 14.4% in 1999 to 25.9% in 2014. This tracks with Medicare policy, which required patients after 2005 to have symptomatic disease for reimbursement, according to Dr. Lal. Prior to 2005, reimbursement was granted for patients participating in clinical trials only.

The rates of carotid revascularization are not evenly distributed geographically in the United States, according to the Medicare data. Endarterectomy in particular has been more common in the south and Midwest than on either coast. This was true in 1999 and remained so in 2014. The distribution was similar for stenting, although it was also relatively common in the southwest in the early part of the study period.

In the beginning of the study, the increased rate of stenting might have contributed to the decline in endarterectomy, but there are several other factors that are implicated in the observed trends, according to Dr. Lal. He suggested that decreasing reimbursement for the performance of these procedures, better clinical management of risk factors, and advances in medical therapy. He cited a physician survey that showed a growing preference for medical management over invasive procedures in patients with high-grade stenosis and indicated that this last factor might be a particularly important driver of the decline in revascularization referrals for asymptomatic carotid disease.

The degree to which these Medicare data are representative of overall trends in the United States is unclear, but Dr. Lal called for further work to understand the forces that these data suggest are driving the changing patterns of carotid revascularization.

NEW YORK – The rates of carotid artery revascularization with either endarterectomy or stenting declined precipitously over a recent 15-year period, at least among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A reduction in carotid endarterectomies (CEA) largely accounted for the decline during 1999-2014 although there was a cumulative decline in all carotid revascularization procedures when rates of CEA and stenting were combined, according to Brajesh K. Lal, MD, professor of surgery, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore.

In 1999, when enthusiasm for CEA appears to have peaked, 81,306 patients received this procedure, but a steady decline was observed until 2014, when 36,325 patients were being treated annually in the Medicare database. When calculated as endarterectomies per 100,000 beneficiaries, the rate declined from 298 to 128 (57%; P less than .001) over this 15-year period.

The number of stenting procedures had not reached its peak in 1999, when 10,416 were performed. Rather, the number performed annually nearly doubled to, 22.865 by 2006. However, it then began to decline and reached 10,208 by 2014, which was slightly fewer than in 1999, according to Dr. Lal.

These trends have been observed even though outcomes are getting better, at least for CEA, according to Dr. Lal. From the same pool of data, there was a 31% (1.1% vs. 1.6%) reduction from 1999 to 2014 in mortality at 30 days following CEA. For a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality, the rate fell 29.5% (3.1% vs. 4.4%). Both reductions were called statistically significant by Dr. Lal.

The improvements in CEA outcomes were observed even though “the treated patients got sicker when looking at comorbidities and risk factors, particularly hypertension, renal insufficiency, and diabetes,” Dr. Lal said.

Outcomes also improved among patients undergoing carotid stenting in general, although the patterns were described as “more complex.” In general, there was steady improvement on outcomes during 1999-2006, but there was no further gain and some lost ground during 2006-2014. For example, ischemic stroke or death fell from 7.0% in 1999 to 4.8% in 2006, but it had climbed back to 7.0% by 2014 with no net change when the first and last year were compared.

However, with risk adjustment, there was a reduction in in-hospital mortality (1.13% vs. 2.78%) over the study period for patients undergoing carotid stenting, according to Dr. Lal, who said this reached statistical significance. Like the CEA group, there was more comorbidity among those treated with stenting at the end, relative to the early part of the study period.

In the stenting group, patients with symptomatic carotid disease rose from 14.4% in 1999 to 25.9% in 2014. This tracks with Medicare policy, which required patients after 2005 to have symptomatic disease for reimbursement, according to Dr. Lal. Prior to 2005, reimbursement was granted for patients participating in clinical trials only.

The rates of carotid revascularization are not evenly distributed geographically in the United States, according to the Medicare data. Endarterectomy in particular has been more common in the south and Midwest than on either coast. This was true in 1999 and remained so in 2014. The distribution was similar for stenting, although it was also relatively common in the southwest in the early part of the study period.

In the beginning of the study, the increased rate of stenting might have contributed to the decline in endarterectomy, but there are several other factors that are implicated in the observed trends, according to Dr. Lal. He suggested that decreasing reimbursement for the performance of these procedures, better clinical management of risk factors, and advances in medical therapy. He cited a physician survey that showed a growing preference for medical management over invasive procedures in patients with high-grade stenosis and indicated that this last factor might be a particularly important driver of the decline in revascularization referrals for asymptomatic carotid disease.

The degree to which these Medicare data are representative of overall trends in the United States is unclear, but Dr. Lal called for further work to understand the forces that these data suggest are driving the changing patterns of carotid revascularization.

In the years since I last wrote about addressing patients’ complaints, the issues that prompt them have only grown, both in number and complexity. More than ever, it seems impossible to construct any sort of template for consistent, mutually satisfactory resolutions of such disputes.

But it is possible, and it’s not as complex as it appears, once you realize what the vast majority of complaints have in common: Expectations have not been met. Sometimes it’s your fault, sometimes the patient’s, and often a bit of both, but either way, the result is the same: You have an unhappy patient, and you must deal with it.

Why, you might ask? Is the expenditure of time and effort necessary to resolve complaints really worth it? Absolutely, because the old cliché is true: A satisfied patient will refer five new patients, but a dissatisfied one will chase away twenty or more. Besides, if the complaint is significant, and you decline to resolve it, the patient is likely to find someone who will; and chances are you won’t like the choice, or the venue – or the resolution.

As such, this is not a job you should delegate. Unless the complaint is trivial or purely administrative, you should address it yourself. It’s what you would want if you were the complainant, and it’s often too important to trust to a subordinate.

I have distilled this unpleasant duty down to a three-part strategy:

• Discover which expectations went unmet, and why.
• Agree on a solution.
• Learn from the experience, to prevent similar future complaints.

Of course, the easiest way to deal with complaints is to prevent as many as possible in the first place. Take the time to explain all treatments and procedures, and their most likely outcomes. Nip unrealistic expectations in the bud. Make it clear (preferably in writing) that reputable practitioners cannot guarantee perfect results. And, of course, document everything you have explained. Documentation is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.

Of course, despite your best efforts at prevention, there will always be complaints, and handling them is a skill set worth honing, especially the one most of us do poorly: listening to the complaint.

Before you can resolve a problem you have to know what it is, and this is precisely the wrong time to make assumptions or jump to conclusions. So listen to the entire complaint without interrupting, defending, or justifying. Angry patients don’t care why the problem occurred, and they are not interested in your side of the story. This is not about you, so listen and understand.

As you listen, the unmet expectations will become clear. When the patient is finished, I like to summarize the complaint in that context: “So if I understand you correctly, you expected ‘X’ to happen, but ‘Y’ happened instead.” If I’m wrong, I modify my summary until the patient agrees that I understand the issue.

Once you know the problem, you can talk about a solution. The patient usually has one in mind – additional treatment, a referral elsewhere, a fee adjustment, or sometimes simply an apology. Consider it.

If the patient’s solution is reasonable, by all means, agree to it; if it is unreasonable, try to offer a reasonable alternative. The temptation here is to think more about protecting yourself than making the patient happy, but that often leads to bigger problems. Don’t be defensive. Again, this is not about you.

I am often asked if a refund is a reasonable option. Some patients (and lawyers) will interpret a refund as a tacit admission of guilt, so I generally try to avoid them. However, canceling a small fee or copay for an angry patient can be an expedient solution (particularly if it is still unpaid), and in my opinion, looks exactly like what it is: an honest effort to rectify the situation. But in general, additional materials or services, at reduced or waived fees, are a better alternative than refunding money.

Once you have arrived at a mutually satisfactory solution, again, document everything but consider reserving a “private” chart area for such documentation (unless it is a bona fide clinical issue), so that it won’t go out to referrers and other third parties with copies of your clinical notes. Also, consider having the patient sign off on the documentation, acknowledging that the complaint has been resolved.

Finally, always try to learn something from the experience. Ask yourself what you can do (or avoid doing) next time, and how you might prevent similar unrealistic expectations in a future situation.

Above all, never take complaints personally – even when they are personal. It’s always worth reminding yourself that no matter how hard you try, you will never please everyone.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In the years since I last wrote about addressing patients’ complaints, the issues that prompt them have only grown, both in number and complexity. More than ever, it seems impossible to construct any sort of template for consistent, mutually satisfactory resolutions of such disputes.

But it is possible, and it’s not as complex as it appears, once you realize what the vast majority of complaints have in common: Expectations have not been met. Sometimes it’s your fault, sometimes the patient’s, and often a bit of both, but either way, the result is the same: You have an unhappy patient, and you must deal with it.

Why, you might ask? Is the expenditure of time and effort necessary to resolve complaints really worth it? Absolutely, because the old cliché is true: A satisfied patient will refer five new patients, but a dissatisfied one will chase away twenty or more. Besides, if the complaint is significant, and you decline to resolve it, the patient is likely to find someone who will; and chances are you won’t like the choice, or the venue – or the resolution.

As such, this is not a job you should delegate. Unless the complaint is trivial or purely administrative, you should address it yourself. It’s what you would want if you were the complainant, and it’s often too important to trust to a subordinate.

I have distilled this unpleasant duty down to a three-part strategy:

• Discover which expectations went unmet, and why.
• Agree on a solution.
• Learn from the experience, to prevent similar future complaints.

Of course, the easiest way to deal with complaints is to prevent as many as possible in the first place. Take the time to explain all treatments and procedures, and their most likely outcomes. Nip unrealistic expectations in the bud. Make it clear (preferably in writing) that reputable practitioners cannot guarantee perfect results. And, of course, document everything you have explained. Documentation is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.

Of course, despite your best efforts at prevention, there will always be complaints, and handling them is a skill set worth honing, especially the one most of us do poorly: listening to the complaint.

Before you can resolve a problem you have to know what it is, and this is precisely the wrong time to make assumptions or jump to conclusions. So listen to the entire complaint without interrupting, defending, or justifying. Angry patients don’t care why the problem occurred, and they are not interested in your side of the story. This is not about you, so listen and understand.

As you listen, the unmet expectations will become clear. When the patient is finished, I like to summarize the complaint in that context: “So if I understand you correctly, you expected ‘X’ to happen, but ‘Y’ happened instead.” If I’m wrong, I modify my summary until the patient agrees that I understand the issue.

Once you know the problem, you can talk about a solution. The patient usually has one in mind – additional treatment, a referral elsewhere, a fee adjustment, or sometimes simply an apology. Consider it.

If the patient’s solution is reasonable, by all means, agree to it; if it is unreasonable, try to offer a reasonable alternative. The temptation here is to think more about protecting yourself than making the patient happy, but that often leads to bigger problems. Don’t be defensive. Again, this is not about you.

I am often asked if a refund is a reasonable option. Some patients (and lawyers) will interpret a refund as a tacit admission of guilt, so I generally try to avoid them. However, canceling a small fee or copay for an angry patient can be an expedient solution (particularly if it is still unpaid), and in my opinion, looks exactly like what it is: an honest effort to rectify the situation. But in general, additional materials or services, at reduced or waived fees, are a better alternative than refunding money.

Once you have arrived at a mutually satisfactory solution, again, document everything but consider reserving a “private” chart area for such documentation (unless it is a bona fide clinical issue), so that it won’t go out to referrers and other third parties with copies of your clinical notes. Also, consider having the patient sign off on the documentation, acknowledging that the complaint has been resolved.

Finally, always try to learn something from the experience. Ask yourself what you can do (or avoid doing) next time, and how you might prevent similar unrealistic expectations in a future situation.

Above all, never take complaints personally – even when they are personal. It’s always worth reminding yourself that no matter how hard you try, you will never please everyone.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In the years since I last wrote about addressing patients’ complaints, the issues that prompt them have only grown, both in number and complexity. More than ever, it seems impossible to construct any sort of template for consistent, mutually satisfactory resolutions of such disputes.

But it is possible, and it’s not as complex as it appears, once you realize what the vast majority of complaints have in common: Expectations have not been met. Sometimes it’s your fault, sometimes the patient’s, and often a bit of both, but either way, the result is the same: You have an unhappy patient, and you must deal with it.

Why, you might ask? Is the expenditure of time and effort necessary to resolve complaints really worth it? Absolutely, because the old cliché is true: A satisfied patient will refer five new patients, but a dissatisfied one will chase away twenty or more. Besides, if the complaint is significant, and you decline to resolve it, the patient is likely to find someone who will; and chances are you won’t like the choice, or the venue – or the resolution.

As such, this is not a job you should delegate. Unless the complaint is trivial or purely administrative, you should address it yourself. It’s what you would want if you were the complainant, and it’s often too important to trust to a subordinate.

I have distilled this unpleasant duty down to a three-part strategy:

• Discover which expectations went unmet, and why.
• Agree on a solution.
• Learn from the experience, to prevent similar future complaints.

Of course, the easiest way to deal with complaints is to prevent as many as possible in the first place. Take the time to explain all treatments and procedures, and their most likely outcomes. Nip unrealistic expectations in the bud. Make it clear (preferably in writing) that reputable practitioners cannot guarantee perfect results. And, of course, document everything you have explained. Documentation is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.

Of course, despite your best efforts at prevention, there will always be complaints, and handling them is a skill set worth honing, especially the one most of us do poorly: listening to the complaint.

Before you can resolve a problem you have to know what it is, and this is precisely the wrong time to make assumptions or jump to conclusions. So listen to the entire complaint without interrupting, defending, or justifying. Angry patients don’t care why the problem occurred, and they are not interested in your side of the story. This is not about you, so listen and understand.

As you listen, the unmet expectations will become clear. When the patient is finished, I like to summarize the complaint in that context: “So if I understand you correctly, you expected ‘X’ to happen, but ‘Y’ happened instead.” If I’m wrong, I modify my summary until the patient agrees that I understand the issue.

Once you know the problem, you can talk about a solution. The patient usually has one in mind – additional treatment, a referral elsewhere, a fee adjustment, or sometimes simply an apology. Consider it.

If the patient’s solution is reasonable, by all means, agree to it; if it is unreasonable, try to offer a reasonable alternative. The temptation here is to think more about protecting yourself than making the patient happy, but that often leads to bigger problems. Don’t be defensive. Again, this is not about you.

I am often asked if a refund is a reasonable option. Some patients (and lawyers) will interpret a refund as a tacit admission of guilt, so I generally try to avoid them. However, canceling a small fee or copay for an angry patient can be an expedient solution (particularly if it is still unpaid), and in my opinion, looks exactly like what it is: an honest effort to rectify the situation. But in general, additional materials or services, at reduced or waived fees, are a better alternative than refunding money.

Once you have arrived at a mutually satisfactory solution, again, document everything but consider reserving a “private” chart area for such documentation (unless it is a bona fide clinical issue), so that it won’t go out to referrers and other third parties with copies of your clinical notes. Also, consider having the patient sign off on the documentation, acknowledging that the complaint has been resolved.

Finally, always try to learn something from the experience. Ask yourself what you can do (or avoid doing) next time, and how you might prevent similar unrealistic expectations in a future situation.

Above all, never take complaints personally – even when they are personal. It’s always worth reminding yourself that no matter how hard you try, you will never please everyone.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

BERLIN – Among a host of potential risk factors for multiple sclerosis (MS), one emerging risk factor – dietary sodium – has accumulating evidence, bolstered by new imaging techniques and emerging research about the mediating effect of the gut microbiome.

Georges Lievre / Fotolia.com

“The word is still out on salt – there’s still some work to do; we are not where we stand with smoking or obesity” and the association with MS, said Ralf Linker, MD, speaking at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

For all potential emerging risk factors for MS, there’s an attractive hypothesis and, often, epidemiologic data, Dr. Linker said. “There are probably good [epidemiologic] data in multiple sclerosis for vitamin D, smoking, obesity, and probably also alcohol,” he said. “The therapeutic consequence, however, is much less clear, the best example of that being, of course, vitamin D.”

“The attractive risk factor is not enough to be a hypothesis, although some people seem to believe that nowadays,” said Dr. Linker, chair of the department of neurology at Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany. “Probably it’s better to start with some basic science and some experimental data to get an idea of the mechanism.”

“Today, we need clear associations with clear markers, well-defined cohorts, and proper epidemiological data telling us whether this is a real risk factor. ... If you look at the clinicians – and there are many among us in the room here – your ultimate goal, of course, is to use this as an intervention.”

For salt intake, there’s a clear overlap between high salt consumption in Westernized diets and increasing incidence of MS. The association also holds for many other autoimmune diseases, Dr. Linker added.

“The next step is experimental evidence,” Dr. Linker said. In a rodent model of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), rats with high salt intake had a worse clinical course, compared with control rats fed a usual diet (Nature. 2013 Apr 25;496[7446]:518-22).

“There were a lot of follow-up studies on that,” with identification of multiple immune cells that are up- or down-regulated via distinct pathways in a high-salt environment, Dr. Linker said.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Linker R. ECTRIMS 2018, Scientific Session 7.

BERLIN – Among a host of potential risk factors for multiple sclerosis (MS), one emerging risk factor – dietary sodium – has accumulating evidence, bolstered by new imaging techniques and emerging research about the mediating effect of the gut microbiome.

Georges Lievre / Fotolia.com

“The word is still out on salt – there’s still some work to do; we are not where we stand with smoking or obesity” and the association with MS, said Ralf Linker, MD, speaking at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

For all potential emerging risk factors for MS, there’s an attractive hypothesis and, often, epidemiologic data, Dr. Linker said. “There are probably good [epidemiologic] data in multiple sclerosis for vitamin D, smoking, obesity, and probably also alcohol,” he said. “The therapeutic consequence, however, is much less clear, the best example of that being, of course, vitamin D.”

“The attractive risk factor is not enough to be a hypothesis, although some people seem to believe that nowadays,” said Dr. Linker, chair of the department of neurology at Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany. “Probably it’s better to start with some basic science and some experimental data to get an idea of the mechanism.”

“Today, we need clear associations with clear markers, well-defined cohorts, and proper epidemiological data telling us whether this is a real risk factor. ... If you look at the clinicians – and there are many among us in the room here – your ultimate goal, of course, is to use this as an intervention.”

For salt intake, there’s a clear overlap between high salt consumption in Westernized diets and increasing incidence of MS. The association also holds for many other autoimmune diseases, Dr. Linker added.

“The next step is experimental evidence,” Dr. Linker said. In a rodent model of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), rats with high salt intake had a worse clinical course, compared with control rats fed a usual diet (Nature. 2013 Apr 25;496[7446]:518-22).

“There were a lot of follow-up studies on that,” with identification of multiple immune cells that are up- or down-regulated via distinct pathways in a high-salt environment, Dr. Linker said.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Linker R. ECTRIMS 2018, Scientific Session 7.

BERLIN – Among a host of potential risk factors for multiple sclerosis (MS), one emerging risk factor – dietary sodium – has accumulating evidence, bolstered by new imaging techniques and emerging research about the mediating effect of the gut microbiome.

Georges Lievre / Fotolia.com

“The word is still out on salt – there’s still some work to do; we are not where we stand with smoking or obesity” and the association with MS, said Ralf Linker, MD, speaking at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

For all potential emerging risk factors for MS, there’s an attractive hypothesis and, often, epidemiologic data, Dr. Linker said. “There are probably good [epidemiologic] data in multiple sclerosis for vitamin D, smoking, obesity, and probably also alcohol,” he said. “The therapeutic consequence, however, is much less clear, the best example of that being, of course, vitamin D.”

“The attractive risk factor is not enough to be a hypothesis, although some people seem to believe that nowadays,” said Dr. Linker, chair of the department of neurology at Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany. “Probably it’s better to start with some basic science and some experimental data to get an idea of the mechanism.”

“Today, we need clear associations with clear markers, well-defined cohorts, and proper epidemiological data telling us whether this is a real risk factor. ... If you look at the clinicians – and there are many among us in the room here – your ultimate goal, of course, is to use this as an intervention.”

For salt intake, there’s a clear overlap between high salt consumption in Westernized diets and increasing incidence of MS. The association also holds for many other autoimmune diseases, Dr. Linker added.

“The next step is experimental evidence,” Dr. Linker said. In a rodent model of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), rats with high salt intake had a worse clinical course, compared with control rats fed a usual diet (Nature. 2013 Apr 25;496[7446]:518-22).

“There were a lot of follow-up studies on that,” with identification of multiple immune cells that are up- or down-regulated via distinct pathways in a high-salt environment, Dr. Linker said.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Linker R. ECTRIMS 2018, Scientific Session 7.