SAN DIEGO — An Air Force pharmacist urged colleagues in the military to advocate for the gold standard of quadruple therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). “When possible, initiate and optimize quadruple therapy before discharge; don’t leave it for a primary care manager (PCM) to handle,” said Maj. Elizabeth Tesch, PharmD, of Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala., in a presentation here at the Joint Federal Pharmacy Seminar. Tesch also cautioned colleagues about the proper use of IV inotropes and vasodilators in congestive heart failure and warned of the dangers of polypharmacy.

“It’s just as important to use medications that provide a mortality benefit in these patients as it is to remove things that are either harmful or lack trial benefit data,” Tesch said. 

In patients with acute heart failure and systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, guidelines recommend using both an inotrope and a vasopressor. “There tends to be better data about 2 of them together vs just cranking up a vasoconstrictor, which we tend to sometimes to do when a patient’s blood pressure is bottoming out,” Tesch explained. “But in these patients specifically, that tends to lead to increased afterload, difficulty with cardiac output, and then increased risk of ischemia. So it tends to be better to use both.”

Ideally, Tesch said, patients stabilize within a couple days. In cases of HFrEF, this is when quadruple therapy can enter the picture. 

Quadruple therapy consists of the “4 pillars”: a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), a β blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and either an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). 

Tesch noted that the need for titration varies by drug. β blockers typically will need the most up-titration, often in several steps, followed by ARNIs. MRAs may require only one titration or even not at all, and SGLT2 inhibitors do not require titration. 

“[Clinicians] are most comfortable giving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and β blockers to patients, she said. But new research suggests there is a 10.3% jump in mortality risk (absolute risk difference) compared to ACEi/ β blocker/ARB therapy. Additionally, a 2022 systematic review linked quadruple therapy to a gain of 5 years of life (ranging from 2.5 to7.5 years) for 70-year-old patients compared to no therapy. 

“I don't know how many times I've had a conversation along the lines of, ‘Hey, can we go ahead and start an SGLT2 on this patient?’ only to hear, ‘We'll give that to the PCM [primary care manager]. That sounds like a PCM thing. You just want to get them out of here, it’s a PCM problem.’”

But quick initiation of treatment is crucial. “We're seeing very real mortality benefit data very quickly in these patients,” Tesch said. 

As for polypharmacy, Tesch highlighted the importance of reducing mediation load when possible. “If they have nothing else wrong, these patients will walk out the door on quadruple therapy and perhaps a diuretic, but they probably have a lot more going on,” she said. “All of us in this room are fully aware of what polypharmacy can do to these patients: increased drug interactions, side effects, higher cost, and decreased patient compliance. This is a problem for the heart failure population that really translates into readmissions and increased mortality. We've got to be able to peel off things that are either harmful or not helping.”

Statins, for example, have questionable benefit in HFrEF without coronary artery disease or hyperlipidemia, she said. Oral iron and vitamin D supplementation also have uncertain benefits in the HFrEF population.

Tesch highlighted a pair of reports – one from 2024 and the other from 2022 – that recommended certain therapies  in heart failure, including the antidepressant citalopram (Celexa), the hypertension/urinary retention drug doxazosin (Cardura), and DPP-4 inhibitors (eg, diabetes/weight-loss drugs such as liraglutide [Saxenda]).

Tesch has no disclosures. 

SAN DIEGO — An Air Force pharmacist urged colleagues in the military to advocate for the gold standard of quadruple therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). “When possible, initiate and optimize quadruple therapy before discharge; don’t leave it for a primary care manager (PCM) to handle,” said Maj. Elizabeth Tesch, PharmD, of Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala., in a presentation here at the Joint Federal Pharmacy Seminar. Tesch also cautioned colleagues about the proper use of IV inotropes and vasodilators in congestive heart failure and warned of the dangers of polypharmacy.

“It’s just as important to use medications that provide a mortality benefit in these patients as it is to remove things that are either harmful or lack trial benefit data,” Tesch said. 

In patients with acute heart failure and systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, guidelines recommend using both an inotrope and a vasopressor. “There tends to be better data about 2 of them together vs just cranking up a vasoconstrictor, which we tend to sometimes to do when a patient’s blood pressure is bottoming out,” Tesch explained. “But in these patients specifically, that tends to lead to increased afterload, difficulty with cardiac output, and then increased risk of ischemia. So it tends to be better to use both.”

Ideally, Tesch said, patients stabilize within a couple days. In cases of HFrEF, this is when quadruple therapy can enter the picture. 

Quadruple therapy consists of the “4 pillars”: a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), a β blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and either an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). 

Tesch noted that the need for titration varies by drug. β blockers typically will need the most up-titration, often in several steps, followed by ARNIs. MRAs may require only one titration or even not at all, and SGLT2 inhibitors do not require titration. 

“[Clinicians] are most comfortable giving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and β blockers to patients, she said. But new research suggests there is a 10.3% jump in mortality risk (absolute risk difference) compared to ACEi/ β blocker/ARB therapy. Additionally, a 2022 systematic review linked quadruple therapy to a gain of 5 years of life (ranging from 2.5 to7.5 years) for 70-year-old patients compared to no therapy. 

“I don't know how many times I've had a conversation along the lines of, ‘Hey, can we go ahead and start an SGLT2 on this patient?’ only to hear, ‘We'll give that to the PCM [primary care manager]. That sounds like a PCM thing. You just want to get them out of here, it’s a PCM problem.’”

But quick initiation of treatment is crucial. “We're seeing very real mortality benefit data very quickly in these patients,” Tesch said. 

As for polypharmacy, Tesch highlighted the importance of reducing mediation load when possible. “If they have nothing else wrong, these patients will walk out the door on quadruple therapy and perhaps a diuretic, but they probably have a lot more going on,” she said. “All of us in this room are fully aware of what polypharmacy can do to these patients: increased drug interactions, side effects, higher cost, and decreased patient compliance. This is a problem for the heart failure population that really translates into readmissions and increased mortality. We've got to be able to peel off things that are either harmful or not helping.”

Statins, for example, have questionable benefit in HFrEF without coronary artery disease or hyperlipidemia, she said. Oral iron and vitamin D supplementation also have uncertain benefits in the HFrEF population.

Tesch highlighted a pair of reports – one from 2024 and the other from 2022 – that recommended certain therapies  in heart failure, including the antidepressant citalopram (Celexa), the hypertension/urinary retention drug doxazosin (Cardura), and DPP-4 inhibitors (eg, diabetes/weight-loss drugs such as liraglutide [Saxenda]).

Tesch has no disclosures. 

SAN DIEGO — An Air Force pharmacist urged colleagues in the military to advocate for the gold standard of quadruple therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). “When possible, initiate and optimize quadruple therapy before discharge; don’t leave it for a primary care manager (PCM) to handle,” said Maj. Elizabeth Tesch, PharmD, of Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala., in a presentation here at the Joint Federal Pharmacy Seminar. Tesch also cautioned colleagues about the proper use of IV inotropes and vasodilators in congestive heart failure and warned of the dangers of polypharmacy.

“It’s just as important to use medications that provide a mortality benefit in these patients as it is to remove things that are either harmful or lack trial benefit data,” Tesch said. 

In patients with acute heart failure and systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, guidelines recommend using both an inotrope and a vasopressor. “There tends to be better data about 2 of them together vs just cranking up a vasoconstrictor, which we tend to sometimes to do when a patient’s blood pressure is bottoming out,” Tesch explained. “But in these patients specifically, that tends to lead to increased afterload, difficulty with cardiac output, and then increased risk of ischemia. So it tends to be better to use both.”

Ideally, Tesch said, patients stabilize within a couple days. In cases of HFrEF, this is when quadruple therapy can enter the picture. 

Quadruple therapy consists of the “4 pillars”: a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), a β blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and either an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). 

Tesch noted that the need for titration varies by drug. β blockers typically will need the most up-titration, often in several steps, followed by ARNIs. MRAs may require only one titration or even not at all, and SGLT2 inhibitors do not require titration. 

“[Clinicians] are most comfortable giving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and β blockers to patients, she said. But new research suggests there is a 10.3% jump in mortality risk (absolute risk difference) compared to ACEi/ β blocker/ARB therapy. Additionally, a 2022 systematic review linked quadruple therapy to a gain of 5 years of life (ranging from 2.5 to7.5 years) for 70-year-old patients compared to no therapy. 

“I don't know how many times I've had a conversation along the lines of, ‘Hey, can we go ahead and start an SGLT2 on this patient?’ only to hear, ‘We'll give that to the PCM [primary care manager]. That sounds like a PCM thing. You just want to get them out of here, it’s a PCM problem.’”

But quick initiation of treatment is crucial. “We're seeing very real mortality benefit data very quickly in these patients,” Tesch said. 

As for polypharmacy, Tesch highlighted the importance of reducing mediation load when possible. “If they have nothing else wrong, these patients will walk out the door on quadruple therapy and perhaps a diuretic, but they probably have a lot more going on,” she said. “All of us in this room are fully aware of what polypharmacy can do to these patients: increased drug interactions, side effects, higher cost, and decreased patient compliance. This is a problem for the heart failure population that really translates into readmissions and increased mortality. We've got to be able to peel off things that are either harmful or not helping.”

Statins, for example, have questionable benefit in HFrEF without coronary artery disease or hyperlipidemia, she said. Oral iron and vitamin D supplementation also have uncertain benefits in the HFrEF population.

Tesch highlighted a pair of reports – one from 2024 and the other from 2022 – that recommended certain therapies  in heart failure, including the antidepressant citalopram (Celexa), the hypertension/urinary retention drug doxazosin (Cardura), and DPP-4 inhibitors (eg, diabetes/weight-loss drugs such as liraglutide [Saxenda]).

Tesch has no disclosures. 

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

• Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
• Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
• Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation &amp; Survivorship

Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

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

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

• Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
• Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
• Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation &amp; Survivorship

Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

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

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

• Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
• Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
• Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation &amp; Survivorship

Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers and causes of cancer-related deaths in the United States.¹ Reflective of a nationwide trend, CRC screening rates at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2-5 Contributing factors to this decrease included cancellations of elective colonoscopies during the initial phase of the pandemic and concurrent turnover of endoscopists. In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended initial CRC screening age from 50 years to 45 years, further increasing the backlog of unscreened patients.⁶

Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is a noninvasive screening method in which antibodies are used to detect hemoglobin in the stool. The sensitivity and specificity of 1-time FIT are 79% to 80% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of CRC, with sensitivity improving with successive testing.^7,8 Annual FIT is recognized as a tier 1 preferred screening method by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.^7,9 Programs that mail FIT kits to eligible patients outside of physician visits have been successfully implemented in health care systems.^10,11

The VACHS designed and implemented a mailed FIT program using existing infrastructure and staffing.

Program Description

A team of local stakeholders comprised of VACHS leadership, primary care, nursing, and gastroenterology staff, as well as representatives from laboratory, informatics, mail services, and group practice management, was established to execute the project. The team met monthly to plan the project.

The team developed a dataset consisting of patients aged 45 to 75 years who were at average risk for CRC and due for CRC screening. Patients were defined as due for CRC screening if they had not had a colonoscopy in the previous 9 years or a FIT or fecal occult blood test in the previous 11 months. Average risk for CRC was defined by excluding patients with associated diagnosis codes for CRC, colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, and anemia. The program also excluded patients with diagnosis codes associated with dementia, deferring discussions about cancer screening to their primary care practitioners (PCPs). Patients with invalid mailing addresses were also excluded, as well as those whose PCPs had indicated in the electronic health record that the patient received CRC screening outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system.

Letter Templates

Two patient letter electronic health record templates were developed. The first was a primer letter, which was mailed to patients 2 to 3 weeks before the mailed FIT kit as an introduction to the program.¹² The purpose of the primer letter was to give advance notice to patients that they could expect a FIT kit to arrive in the mail. The goal was to prepare patients to complete FIT when the kit arrived and prompt them to call the VA to opt out of the mailed FIT program if they were up to date with CRC screening or if they had a condition which made them at high risk for CRC.

The second FIT letter arrived with the FIT kit, introduced FIT and described the importance of CRC screening. The letter detailed instructions for completing FIT and automatically created a FIT order. It also included a list of common conditions that may exclude patients, with a recommendation for patients to contact their medical team if they felt they were not candidates for FIT.

Staff Education

A previous VACHS pilot project demonstrated the success of a mailed FIT program to increase FIT use. Implemented as part of the pilot program, staff education consisted of a session for clinicians about the role of FIT in CRC screening and an all-staff education session. An additional education session about CRC and FIT for all staff was repeated with the program launch.

Program Launch

The mailed FIT program was introduced during a VACHS primary care all-staff meeting. After the meeting, each patient aligned care team (PACT) received an encrypted email that included a list of the patients on their team who were candidates for the program, a patient-facing FIT instruction sheet, detailed instructions on how to send the FIT primer letter, and a FIT package consisting of the labeled FIT kit, FIT letter, and patient instruction sheet. A reminder letter was sent to each patient 3 weeks after the FIT package was mailed. The patient lists were populated into a shared, encrypted Microsoft Teams folder that was edited in real time by PACT teams and viewed by VACHS leadership to track progress.

Program Metrics

At program launch, the VACHS had 4642 patients due for CRC screening who were eligible for the mailed FIT program. On March 7, 2023, the data consisting of FIT tests ordered between December 2022 and May 2023—3 months before and after the launch of the program—were reviewed and categorized. In the 3 months before program launch, 1528 FIT were ordered and 714 were returned (46.7%). In the 3 months after the launch of the program, 4383 FIT were ordered and 1712 were returned (39.1%) (Figure). Test orders increased 287% from the preintervention to the postintervention period. The mean (SD) number of monthly FIT tests prelaunch was 509 (32.7), which increased to 1461 (331.6) postlaunch.

At the VACHS, 61.4% of patients aged 45 to 75 years were up to date with CRC screening before the program launch. In the 3 months after program launch, the rate increased to 63.8% among patients aged 45 to 75 years, the highest rate in our Veterans Integrated Services Network and exceeding the VA national average CRC screening rate, according to unpublished VA Monthly Management Report data.

In the 3 months following the program launch, 139 FIT kits tested positive for potential CRC. Of these, 79 (56.8%) patients had completed a diagnostic colonoscopy. PACT PCPs and nurses received reports on patients with positive FIT tests and those with no colonoscopy scheduled or completed and were asked to follow up.

Discussion

Through a proactive, population-based CRC screening program centered on mailed FIT kits outside of the traditional patient visit, the VACHS increased the use of FIT and rates of CRC screening. The numbers of FIT kits ordered and completed substantially increased in the 3 months after program launch.

Compared to mailed FIT programs described in the literature that rely on centralized processes in that a separate team operates the mailed FIT program for the entire organization, this program used existing PACT infrastructure and staff.^10,11 This strategy allowed VACHS to design and implement the program in several months. Not needing to hire new staff or create a central team for the sole purpose of implementing the program allowed us to save on any organizational funding and efforts that would have accompanied the additional staff. The program described in this article may be more attainable for primary care practices or smaller health systems that do not have the capacity for the creation of a centralized process.

Limitations

Although the total number of FIT completions substantially increased during the program, the rate of FIT completion during the mailed FIT program was lower than the rate of completion prior to program launch. This decreased rate of FIT kit completion may be related to separation from a patient visit and potential loss of real-time education with a clinician. The program’s decentralized design increased the existing workload for primary care staff, and as a result, consideration must be given to local staffing levels. Additionally, the report of eligible patients depended on diagnosis codes and may have captured patients with higher-than-average risk of CRC, such as patients with prior history of adenomatous polyps, family history of CRC, or other medical or genetic conditions. We attempted to mitigate this by including a list of conditions that would exclude patients from FIT eligibility in the FIT letter and giving them the option to opt out.

Conclusions

CRC screening rates improved following implementation of a primary care team-centered quality improvement process to proactively identify patients appropriate for FIT and mail them FIT kits. This project highlights that population-health interventions around CRC screening via use of FIT can be successful within a primary care patient-centered medical home model, considering the increases in both CRC screening rates and increase in FIT tests ordered.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers and causes of cancer-related deaths in the United States.¹ Reflective of a nationwide trend, CRC screening rates at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2-5 Contributing factors to this decrease included cancellations of elective colonoscopies during the initial phase of the pandemic and concurrent turnover of endoscopists. In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended initial CRC screening age from 50 years to 45 years, further increasing the backlog of unscreened patients.⁶

Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is a noninvasive screening method in which antibodies are used to detect hemoglobin in the stool. The sensitivity and specificity of 1-time FIT are 79% to 80% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of CRC, with sensitivity improving with successive testing.^7,8 Annual FIT is recognized as a tier 1 preferred screening method by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.^7,9 Programs that mail FIT kits to eligible patients outside of physician visits have been successfully implemented in health care systems.^10,11

The VACHS designed and implemented a mailed FIT program using existing infrastructure and staffing.

Program Description

A team of local stakeholders comprised of VACHS leadership, primary care, nursing, and gastroenterology staff, as well as representatives from laboratory, informatics, mail services, and group practice management, was established to execute the project. The team met monthly to plan the project.

The team developed a dataset consisting of patients aged 45 to 75 years who were at average risk for CRC and due for CRC screening. Patients were defined as due for CRC screening if they had not had a colonoscopy in the previous 9 years or a FIT or fecal occult blood test in the previous 11 months. Average risk for CRC was defined by excluding patients with associated diagnosis codes for CRC, colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, and anemia. The program also excluded patients with diagnosis codes associated with dementia, deferring discussions about cancer screening to their primary care practitioners (PCPs). Patients with invalid mailing addresses were also excluded, as well as those whose PCPs had indicated in the electronic health record that the patient received CRC screening outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system.

Letter Templates

Two patient letter electronic health record templates were developed. The first was a primer letter, which was mailed to patients 2 to 3 weeks before the mailed FIT kit as an introduction to the program.¹² The purpose of the primer letter was to give advance notice to patients that they could expect a FIT kit to arrive in the mail. The goal was to prepare patients to complete FIT when the kit arrived and prompt them to call the VA to opt out of the mailed FIT program if they were up to date with CRC screening or if they had a condition which made them at high risk for CRC.

The second FIT letter arrived with the FIT kit, introduced FIT and described the importance of CRC screening. The letter detailed instructions for completing FIT and automatically created a FIT order. It also included a list of common conditions that may exclude patients, with a recommendation for patients to contact their medical team if they felt they were not candidates for FIT.

Staff Education

A previous VACHS pilot project demonstrated the success of a mailed FIT program to increase FIT use. Implemented as part of the pilot program, staff education consisted of a session for clinicians about the role of FIT in CRC screening and an all-staff education session. An additional education session about CRC and FIT for all staff was repeated with the program launch.

Program Launch

The mailed FIT program was introduced during a VACHS primary care all-staff meeting. After the meeting, each patient aligned care team (PACT) received an encrypted email that included a list of the patients on their team who were candidates for the program, a patient-facing FIT instruction sheet, detailed instructions on how to send the FIT primer letter, and a FIT package consisting of the labeled FIT kit, FIT letter, and patient instruction sheet. A reminder letter was sent to each patient 3 weeks after the FIT package was mailed. The patient lists were populated into a shared, encrypted Microsoft Teams folder that was edited in real time by PACT teams and viewed by VACHS leadership to track progress.

Program Metrics

At program launch, the VACHS had 4642 patients due for CRC screening who were eligible for the mailed FIT program. On March 7, 2023, the data consisting of FIT tests ordered between December 2022 and May 2023—3 months before and after the launch of the program—were reviewed and categorized. In the 3 months before program launch, 1528 FIT were ordered and 714 were returned (46.7%). In the 3 months after the launch of the program, 4383 FIT were ordered and 1712 were returned (39.1%) (Figure). Test orders increased 287% from the preintervention to the postintervention period. The mean (SD) number of monthly FIT tests prelaunch was 509 (32.7), which increased to 1461 (331.6) postlaunch.

At the VACHS, 61.4% of patients aged 45 to 75 years were up to date with CRC screening before the program launch. In the 3 months after program launch, the rate increased to 63.8% among patients aged 45 to 75 years, the highest rate in our Veterans Integrated Services Network and exceeding the VA national average CRC screening rate, according to unpublished VA Monthly Management Report data.

In the 3 months following the program launch, 139 FIT kits tested positive for potential CRC. Of these, 79 (56.8%) patients had completed a diagnostic colonoscopy. PACT PCPs and nurses received reports on patients with positive FIT tests and those with no colonoscopy scheduled or completed and were asked to follow up.

Discussion

Through a proactive, population-based CRC screening program centered on mailed FIT kits outside of the traditional patient visit, the VACHS increased the use of FIT and rates of CRC screening. The numbers of FIT kits ordered and completed substantially increased in the 3 months after program launch.

Compared to mailed FIT programs described in the literature that rely on centralized processes in that a separate team operates the mailed FIT program for the entire organization, this program used existing PACT infrastructure and staff.^10,11 This strategy allowed VACHS to design and implement the program in several months. Not needing to hire new staff or create a central team for the sole purpose of implementing the program allowed us to save on any organizational funding and efforts that would have accompanied the additional staff. The program described in this article may be more attainable for primary care practices or smaller health systems that do not have the capacity for the creation of a centralized process.

Limitations

Although the total number of FIT completions substantially increased during the program, the rate of FIT completion during the mailed FIT program was lower than the rate of completion prior to program launch. This decreased rate of FIT kit completion may be related to separation from a patient visit and potential loss of real-time education with a clinician. The program’s decentralized design increased the existing workload for primary care staff, and as a result, consideration must be given to local staffing levels. Additionally, the report of eligible patients depended on diagnosis codes and may have captured patients with higher-than-average risk of CRC, such as patients with prior history of adenomatous polyps, family history of CRC, or other medical or genetic conditions. We attempted to mitigate this by including a list of conditions that would exclude patients from FIT eligibility in the FIT letter and giving them the option to opt out.

Conclusions

CRC screening rates improved following implementation of a primary care team-centered quality improvement process to proactively identify patients appropriate for FIT and mail them FIT kits. This project highlights that population-health interventions around CRC screening via use of FIT can be successful within a primary care patient-centered medical home model, considering the increases in both CRC screening rates and increase in FIT tests ordered.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers and causes of cancer-related deaths in the United States.¹ Reflective of a nationwide trend, CRC screening rates at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2-5 Contributing factors to this decrease included cancellations of elective colonoscopies during the initial phase of the pandemic and concurrent turnover of endoscopists. In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended initial CRC screening age from 50 years to 45 years, further increasing the backlog of unscreened patients.⁶

Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is a noninvasive screening method in which antibodies are used to detect hemoglobin in the stool. The sensitivity and specificity of 1-time FIT are 79% to 80% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of CRC, with sensitivity improving with successive testing.^7,8 Annual FIT is recognized as a tier 1 preferred screening method by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.^7,9 Programs that mail FIT kits to eligible patients outside of physician visits have been successfully implemented in health care systems.^10,11

The VACHS designed and implemented a mailed FIT program using existing infrastructure and staffing.

Program Description

A team of local stakeholders comprised of VACHS leadership, primary care, nursing, and gastroenterology staff, as well as representatives from laboratory, informatics, mail services, and group practice management, was established to execute the project. The team met monthly to plan the project.

The team developed a dataset consisting of patients aged 45 to 75 years who were at average risk for CRC and due for CRC screening. Patients were defined as due for CRC screening if they had not had a colonoscopy in the previous 9 years or a FIT or fecal occult blood test in the previous 11 months. Average risk for CRC was defined by excluding patients with associated diagnosis codes for CRC, colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, and anemia. The program also excluded patients with diagnosis codes associated with dementia, deferring discussions about cancer screening to their primary care practitioners (PCPs). Patients with invalid mailing addresses were also excluded, as well as those whose PCPs had indicated in the electronic health record that the patient received CRC screening outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system.

Letter Templates

Two patient letter electronic health record templates were developed. The first was a primer letter, which was mailed to patients 2 to 3 weeks before the mailed FIT kit as an introduction to the program.¹² The purpose of the primer letter was to give advance notice to patients that they could expect a FIT kit to arrive in the mail. The goal was to prepare patients to complete FIT when the kit arrived and prompt them to call the VA to opt out of the mailed FIT program if they were up to date with CRC screening or if they had a condition which made them at high risk for CRC.

The second FIT letter arrived with the FIT kit, introduced FIT and described the importance of CRC screening. The letter detailed instructions for completing FIT and automatically created a FIT order. It also included a list of common conditions that may exclude patients, with a recommendation for patients to contact their medical team if they felt they were not candidates for FIT.

Staff Education

A previous VACHS pilot project demonstrated the success of a mailed FIT program to increase FIT use. Implemented as part of the pilot program, staff education consisted of a session for clinicians about the role of FIT in CRC screening and an all-staff education session. An additional education session about CRC and FIT for all staff was repeated with the program launch.

Program Launch

The mailed FIT program was introduced during a VACHS primary care all-staff meeting. After the meeting, each patient aligned care team (PACT) received an encrypted email that included a list of the patients on their team who were candidates for the program, a patient-facing FIT instruction sheet, detailed instructions on how to send the FIT primer letter, and a FIT package consisting of the labeled FIT kit, FIT letter, and patient instruction sheet. A reminder letter was sent to each patient 3 weeks after the FIT package was mailed. The patient lists were populated into a shared, encrypted Microsoft Teams folder that was edited in real time by PACT teams and viewed by VACHS leadership to track progress.

Program Metrics

At program launch, the VACHS had 4642 patients due for CRC screening who were eligible for the mailed FIT program. On March 7, 2023, the data consisting of FIT tests ordered between December 2022 and May 2023—3 months before and after the launch of the program—were reviewed and categorized. In the 3 months before program launch, 1528 FIT were ordered and 714 were returned (46.7%). In the 3 months after the launch of the program, 4383 FIT were ordered and 1712 were returned (39.1%) (Figure). Test orders increased 287% from the preintervention to the postintervention period. The mean (SD) number of monthly FIT tests prelaunch was 509 (32.7), which increased to 1461 (331.6) postlaunch.

At the VACHS, 61.4% of patients aged 45 to 75 years were up to date with CRC screening before the program launch. In the 3 months after program launch, the rate increased to 63.8% among patients aged 45 to 75 years, the highest rate in our Veterans Integrated Services Network and exceeding the VA national average CRC screening rate, according to unpublished VA Monthly Management Report data.

In the 3 months following the program launch, 139 FIT kits tested positive for potential CRC. Of these, 79 (56.8%) patients had completed a diagnostic colonoscopy. PACT PCPs and nurses received reports on patients with positive FIT tests and those with no colonoscopy scheduled or completed and were asked to follow up.

Discussion

Through a proactive, population-based CRC screening program centered on mailed FIT kits outside of the traditional patient visit, the VACHS increased the use of FIT and rates of CRC screening. The numbers of FIT kits ordered and completed substantially increased in the 3 months after program launch.

Compared to mailed FIT programs described in the literature that rely on centralized processes in that a separate team operates the mailed FIT program for the entire organization, this program used existing PACT infrastructure and staff.^10,11 This strategy allowed VACHS to design and implement the program in several months. Not needing to hire new staff or create a central team for the sole purpose of implementing the program allowed us to save on any organizational funding and efforts that would have accompanied the additional staff. The program described in this article may be more attainable for primary care practices or smaller health systems that do not have the capacity for the creation of a centralized process.

Limitations

Although the total number of FIT completions substantially increased during the program, the rate of FIT completion during the mailed FIT program was lower than the rate of completion prior to program launch. This decreased rate of FIT kit completion may be related to separation from a patient visit and potential loss of real-time education with a clinician. The program’s decentralized design increased the existing workload for primary care staff, and as a result, consideration must be given to local staffing levels. Additionally, the report of eligible patients depended on diagnosis codes and may have captured patients with higher-than-average risk of CRC, such as patients with prior history of adenomatous polyps, family history of CRC, or other medical or genetic conditions. We attempted to mitigate this by including a list of conditions that would exclude patients from FIT eligibility in the FIT letter and giving them the option to opt out.

Conclusions

CRC screening rates improved following implementation of a primary care team-centered quality improvement process to proactively identify patients appropriate for FIT and mail them FIT kits. This project highlights that population-health interventions around CRC screening via use of FIT can be successful within a primary care patient-centered medical home model, considering the increases in both CRC screening rates and increase in FIT tests ordered.

Keep up to date with the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections home page for the latest in ID Practitioner's continuing reporting from the CROI meeting and our follow-ups afterward. You can also check out our archival coverage from last year's meeting.

Keep up to date with the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections home page for the latest in ID Practitioner's continuing reporting from the CROI meeting and our follow-ups afterward. You can also check out our archival coverage from last year's meeting.

Keep up to date with the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections home page for the latest in ID Practitioner's continuing reporting from the CROI meeting and our follow-ups afterward. You can also check out our archival coverage from last year's meeting.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) executive board has established a task force to explore developing a vascular certification program for inpatient and outpatient care settings.

Noting the shift in professional reimbursement from payment for volume to payment for quality, along with a surge in outpatient endovascular care, “The SVS executive board believes that it is a critical time for vascular surgery to set standards based on quality improvement, efficiency and appropriateness,” said Dr. R. Clement Darling III, SVS president.

Task force chair Dr. Tony Sidawy will oversee two subcommittees, one for inpatient and one for office-based endovascular care (OBEC). Dr. Krishna Jain has been appointed chair of the OBEC subcommittee. A chair for the inpatient subcommittee has yet to be named.

“Vascular surgeons represented by the SVS should take the lead in defining quality and value standards for vascular care before they are defined for us,” said Dr. Sidawy.

“Offering an SVS-led certification process will inspire the most appropriate, high-quality vascular care and optimal outcomes for all patients,” Dr. Jain added.

Many SVS members are pioneers in the design and delivery of care in office-based practice settings, and they have been fierce advocates for this effort, said Dr. Darling. “We have heard our members loud and clear. They want SVS to play a major role in shaping the future of the office-based endovascular center, setting the bar for appropriateness and quality and helping all practitioners achieve it.

“We feel that to provide the best vascular care in a data-driven, quality-based system, the SVS needs to be actively involved in this process," he added. "Vascular surgeons have a long history of making data-driven decisions about which patients need an intervention, and since we treat patients medically as well as by endovascular or open techniques, we have a unique perspective."  

A data registry is a critical component and will be provided by the SVS Patient Safety Organization and Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS VQI). VQI registries are already used in more than 430 vascular care settings, ranging from academic to community practice. VQI data can be used to benchmark performance and improve the quality of vascular care.

“Given that the SVS VQI has already been adopted by all types of facilities, including OBECs and vein centers, the SVS VQI is well positioned to help assess and improve quality of care,” said Dr. Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen, SVS PSO medical director.

The process will include discussions and potential collaboration with partners such as the American College of Surgeons, the Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society and the Intersociety Accreditation Council, Dr. Darling said, as well as societies such as the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Ultrasound, and the Society for Vascular Nursing.

If established, a pilot program would be launched in 2018 with a full launch planned in 2019.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) executive board has established a task force to explore developing a vascular certification program for inpatient and outpatient care settings.

Noting the shift in professional reimbursement from payment for volume to payment for quality, along with a surge in outpatient endovascular care, “The SVS executive board believes that it is a critical time for vascular surgery to set standards based on quality improvement, efficiency and appropriateness,” said Dr. R. Clement Darling III, SVS president.

Task force chair Dr. Tony Sidawy will oversee two subcommittees, one for inpatient and one for office-based endovascular care (OBEC). Dr. Krishna Jain has been appointed chair of the OBEC subcommittee. A chair for the inpatient subcommittee has yet to be named.

“Vascular surgeons represented by the SVS should take the lead in defining quality and value standards for vascular care before they are defined for us,” said Dr. Sidawy.

“Offering an SVS-led certification process will inspire the most appropriate, high-quality vascular care and optimal outcomes for all patients,” Dr. Jain added.

Many SVS members are pioneers in the design and delivery of care in office-based practice settings, and they have been fierce advocates for this effort, said Dr. Darling. “We have heard our members loud and clear. They want SVS to play a major role in shaping the future of the office-based endovascular center, setting the bar for appropriateness and quality and helping all practitioners achieve it.

“We feel that to provide the best vascular care in a data-driven, quality-based system, the SVS needs to be actively involved in this process," he added. "Vascular surgeons have a long history of making data-driven decisions about which patients need an intervention, and since we treat patients medically as well as by endovascular or open techniques, we have a unique perspective."  

A data registry is a critical component and will be provided by the SVS Patient Safety Organization and Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS VQI). VQI registries are already used in more than 430 vascular care settings, ranging from academic to community practice. VQI data can be used to benchmark performance and improve the quality of vascular care.

“Given that the SVS VQI has already been adopted by all types of facilities, including OBECs and vein centers, the SVS VQI is well positioned to help assess and improve quality of care,” said Dr. Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen, SVS PSO medical director.

The process will include discussions and potential collaboration with partners such as the American College of Surgeons, the Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society and the Intersociety Accreditation Council, Dr. Darling said, as well as societies such as the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Ultrasound, and the Society for Vascular Nursing.

If established, a pilot program would be launched in 2018 with a full launch planned in 2019.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) executive board has established a task force to explore developing a vascular certification program for inpatient and outpatient care settings.

Noting the shift in professional reimbursement from payment for volume to payment for quality, along with a surge in outpatient endovascular care, “The SVS executive board believes that it is a critical time for vascular surgery to set standards based on quality improvement, efficiency and appropriateness,” said Dr. R. Clement Darling III, SVS president.

Task force chair Dr. Tony Sidawy will oversee two subcommittees, one for inpatient and one for office-based endovascular care (OBEC). Dr. Krishna Jain has been appointed chair of the OBEC subcommittee. A chair for the inpatient subcommittee has yet to be named.

“Vascular surgeons represented by the SVS should take the lead in defining quality and value standards for vascular care before they are defined for us,” said Dr. Sidawy.

“Offering an SVS-led certification process will inspire the most appropriate, high-quality vascular care and optimal outcomes for all patients,” Dr. Jain added.

Many SVS members are pioneers in the design and delivery of care in office-based practice settings, and they have been fierce advocates for this effort, said Dr. Darling. “We have heard our members loud and clear. They want SVS to play a major role in shaping the future of the office-based endovascular center, setting the bar for appropriateness and quality and helping all practitioners achieve it.

“We feel that to provide the best vascular care in a data-driven, quality-based system, the SVS needs to be actively involved in this process," he added. "Vascular surgeons have a long history of making data-driven decisions about which patients need an intervention, and since we treat patients medically as well as by endovascular or open techniques, we have a unique perspective."  

A data registry is a critical component and will be provided by the SVS Patient Safety Organization and Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS VQI). VQI registries are already used in more than 430 vascular care settings, ranging from academic to community practice. VQI data can be used to benchmark performance and improve the quality of vascular care.

“Given that the SVS VQI has already been adopted by all types of facilities, including OBECs and vein centers, the SVS VQI is well positioned to help assess and improve quality of care,” said Dr. Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen, SVS PSO medical director.

The process will include discussions and potential collaboration with partners such as the American College of Surgeons, the Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society and the Intersociety Accreditation Council, Dr. Darling said, as well as societies such as the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Ultrasound, and the Society for Vascular Nursing.

If established, a pilot program would be launched in 2018 with a full launch planned in 2019.

A U.S. House of Representatives appropriation to fund the Veterans Choice Program surprisingly went down to defeat on Monday. The VA Choice Program is set to run out of money in September, and VA officials have been calling for Congress to provide additional funding for the program. Republican leaders, hoping to expedite the bill’s passage and thinking that it was not controversial, submitted the bill in a process that required the votes of two-thirds of the representatives. The 219-186 vote fell well short of the necessary two-thirds, and voting fell largely along party lines.

Many veterans service organizations (VSOs) were critical of the bill and called on the House to make substantial changes to it. Seven VSOs signed a joint statement calling for the bill’s defeat. “As organizations who represent and support the interests of America’s 21 million veterans, and in fulfillment of our mandate to ensure that the men and women who served are able to receive the health care and benefits they need and deserve, we are calling on Members of Congress to defeat the House vote on unacceptable choice funding legislation (S. 114, with amendments),” the statement read.

AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans , Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Wounded Warrior Project all signed on to the statement. The chief complaint was that the legislation “includes funding only for the ‘choice’ program which provides additional community care options, but makes no investment in VA and uses ‘savings’ from other veterans benefits or services to ‘pay’ for the ‘choice’ program.”

The bill would have allocated $2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program, taken funding for veteran  housing loan fees, and would reduce the pensions for some veterans living in nursing facilities that also could be paid for under the Medicaid program.

The fate of the bill and funding for the Veterans Choice Program remains unclear. Senate and House veterans committees seem to be far apart on how to fund the program and for efforts to make more substantive changes to the program. Although House Republicans eventually may be able to pass a bill without Democrats, in the Senate, they will need the support of at least a handful of Democrats to move the bill to the President’s desk.

A U.S. House of Representatives appropriation to fund the Veterans Choice Program surprisingly went down to defeat on Monday. The VA Choice Program is set to run out of money in September, and VA officials have been calling for Congress to provide additional funding for the program. Republican leaders, hoping to expedite the bill’s passage and thinking that it was not controversial, submitted the bill in a process that required the votes of two-thirds of the representatives. The 219-186 vote fell well short of the necessary two-thirds, and voting fell largely along party lines.

Many veterans service organizations (VSOs) were critical of the bill and called on the House to make substantial changes to it. Seven VSOs signed a joint statement calling for the bill’s defeat. “As organizations who represent and support the interests of America’s 21 million veterans, and in fulfillment of our mandate to ensure that the men and women who served are able to receive the health care and benefits they need and deserve, we are calling on Members of Congress to defeat the House vote on unacceptable choice funding legislation (S. 114, with amendments),” the statement read.

AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans , Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Wounded Warrior Project all signed on to the statement. The chief complaint was that the legislation “includes funding only for the ‘choice’ program which provides additional community care options, but makes no investment in VA and uses ‘savings’ from other veterans benefits or services to ‘pay’ for the ‘choice’ program.”

The bill would have allocated $2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program, taken funding for veteran  housing loan fees, and would reduce the pensions for some veterans living in nursing facilities that also could be paid for under the Medicaid program.

The fate of the bill and funding for the Veterans Choice Program remains unclear. Senate and House veterans committees seem to be far apart on how to fund the program and for efforts to make more substantive changes to the program. Although House Republicans eventually may be able to pass a bill without Democrats, in the Senate, they will need the support of at least a handful of Democrats to move the bill to the President’s desk.

A U.S. House of Representatives appropriation to fund the Veterans Choice Program surprisingly went down to defeat on Monday. The VA Choice Program is set to run out of money in September, and VA officials have been calling for Congress to provide additional funding for the program. Republican leaders, hoping to expedite the bill’s passage and thinking that it was not controversial, submitted the bill in a process that required the votes of two-thirds of the representatives. The 219-186 vote fell well short of the necessary two-thirds, and voting fell largely along party lines.

Many veterans service organizations (VSOs) were critical of the bill and called on the House to make substantial changes to it. Seven VSOs signed a joint statement calling for the bill’s defeat. “As organizations who represent and support the interests of America’s 21 million veterans, and in fulfillment of our mandate to ensure that the men and women who served are able to receive the health care and benefits they need and deserve, we are calling on Members of Congress to defeat the House vote on unacceptable choice funding legislation (S. 114, with amendments),” the statement read.

AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans , Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Wounded Warrior Project all signed on to the statement. The chief complaint was that the legislation “includes funding only for the ‘choice’ program which provides additional community care options, but makes no investment in VA and uses ‘savings’ from other veterans benefits or services to ‘pay’ for the ‘choice’ program.”

The bill would have allocated $2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program, taken funding for veteran  housing loan fees, and would reduce the pensions for some veterans living in nursing facilities that also could be paid for under the Medicaid program.

The fate of the bill and funding for the Veterans Choice Program remains unclear. Senate and House veterans committees seem to be far apart on how to fund the program and for efforts to make more substantive changes to the program. Although House Republicans eventually may be able to pass a bill without Democrats, in the Senate, they will need the support of at least a handful of Democrats to move the bill to the President’s desk.

In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.

[polldaddy:9779752]

The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.

The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.

We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.

What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.

First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.

Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.

Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.

Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.

A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.

It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.

If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com

This column was updated June 22, 2017. 

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

In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.

[polldaddy:9779752]

The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.

The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.

We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.

What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.

First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.

Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.

Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.

Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.

A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.

It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.

If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com

This column was updated June 22, 2017. 

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

In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.

[polldaddy:9779752]

The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.

The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.

We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.

What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.

First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.

Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.

Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.

Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.

A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.

It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.

If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com

This column was updated June 22, 2017. 

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

A 53 year-old white male with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and former tobacco use was referred to the Dayton VAMC in Ohio for symptoms that included shortness of breath and a recent abnormal stress test. The patient reported no history of known coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure, or other cardiovascular diseases. The patient also reported no recent fever, bacterial blood infection, syphilis infection, recreational drug use, or chest trauma.

A physical examination was remarkable for grade 3/6 continuous murmur at the 5th interspace to the left of the sternum and a loud “pistol shot” sound heard over the femoral artery. The patient had jugular venous distension and 2+ leg edema bilaterally. His vital signs were normal, and laboratory blood tests showed normal hemoglobin level and kidney function.

An electrocardiogram showed nonspecific ST segment changes and a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) revealed a high-velocity jet in the right atrium (RA) above the tricuspid valve concerning for sinus of Valsalva aneurysm (SVA).

Right heart catheterization revealed elevated RA pressures with positive shunt study showing oxygen saturation step-up in the RA (Figure 3). Left heart hemodynamic measurement from an aortic approach to the distal part of the noncoronary cusp SVA revealed an RA pressure-tracing pattern consistent with rupture of the noncoronary SVA into the RA (Figure 4).

The primary diagnosis was of acute heart failure secondary to ruptured aneurysm of the noncoronary SVA into RA. The patient also received a secondary diagnosis of atrial septal aneurysm and PFO.

Treatment & Outcome

The patient was treated with aggressive diuresis and responded well to therapy. Considering the high mortality rate associated with a ruptured SVA, the patient was referred to a tertiary care center for surgical evaluation. He underwent repair of aorto-right atrial communication with a Cormatrix patch (Roswell, GA) from the aortic side and with primary closure from the right atrial side with resection of the windsock tract; coronary artery bypass graft x1 with right internal mammary artery to the right coronary artery; closure of the PFO with the Cormatrix patch.

The postoperative TEE confirmed preserved LV and RV function, no shunts, no aortic or tricuspid insufficiency. Biopsy of the tissue resected showed intimal fibroplasia. A TTE completed 1 year after surgery showed normal valvular function and without any structural abnormalities. The patient had improvement in symptoms and an uneventful year after surgical intervention followed by 24 session of cardiac rehabilitation.

Discussion

Sinus of Valsalva aneurysm is a dilation of the aortic wall between the aortic valve and the sinotubular junction that is caused by the lack of continuity between the middle layer of the aortic wall and the aortic valve.¹ Cases of SVA are rare cardiac anomalies with prevalence of 1% in patients undergoing open-heart surgery.² Between 65% and 85% of SVA cases originate from the right coronary sinus, 10% to 20% from the noncoronary sinus, and < 5% from the left coronary sinus.³

Sinus of Valsalva aneurysm is usually congenital, although cases associated with syphilis, bacterial endocarditis, trauma, Behçet disease, and aortic dissection have been reported. Structural defects associated with congenital SVAs include ventricular septal defect, bicuspid aortic valve, and aortic regurgitation. It is less commonly associated with pulmonary stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, patent ductus arteriosus, tricuspid regurgitation, and atrial septal defects.

The most common complication of the SVA is rupture into another cardiac chamber, frequently the right ventricle (60%) or RA (29%) and less frequently into left atrium (6%), left ventricle (4%), or pericardium (1%).¹ Patients with ruptured SVA mainly develop dyspnea and chest pain, but cough, fatigue, peripheral edema, and continuous murmur have been reported.¹

Atrial septal aneurysm is an uncommon finding in adults, with an incidence of 2.2 % in the general population, and it is often associated with atrial septal defect and PFO.^1,4 Although ASA formation can be secondary to interatrial differences in pressures, it can be a primary malformation involving the region of the fossa ovalis or the entire atrial septum.⁴ Atrial septal aneurysm may be an isolated anomaly, but often is found in association with other structural cardiac anomalies, including SVA and PFO.^4,5

Conclusion

Although coexistence of SVA and ASA has been reported previously, the case reported here, a ruptured noncoronary SVA that was associated with a large ASA and a PFO, has not been previously documented in the English literature. This patient’s anomalies are most likely congenital in origin. Progressive dyspnea and chest pain in the presence of a continuous loud murmur should raise the suspicion of ruptured sinus of Valsalva. Although no significant aortic regurgitation was noted on echocardiography, the pistol shot sound heard over the femoral artery was believed to be due to the rapid diastolic runoff into the RA through the ruptured SVA.

The significant increase in the RA pressure made the ASA and PFO more prominent. A TEE, left and right heart catheterizations with shunt study are vital for the diagnosis of SVA. If left untreated, SVA has an ominous prognosis. Surgical repair of ruptured SVA has an accepted risk and good prognosis with 10-year survival rate of 90%, whereas the mean survival of untreated ruptured SVA is about 4 years.^6,7 Hence, the patient in this study was referred to a tertiary care center for surgical intervention.

A 53 year-old white male with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and former tobacco use was referred to the Dayton VAMC in Ohio for symptoms that included shortness of breath and a recent abnormal stress test. The patient reported no history of known coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure, or other cardiovascular diseases. The patient also reported no recent fever, bacterial blood infection, syphilis infection, recreational drug use, or chest trauma.

A physical examination was remarkable for grade 3/6 continuous murmur at the 5th interspace to the left of the sternum and a loud “pistol shot” sound heard over the femoral artery. The patient had jugular venous distension and 2+ leg edema bilaterally. His vital signs were normal, and laboratory blood tests showed normal hemoglobin level and kidney function.

An electrocardiogram showed nonspecific ST segment changes and a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) revealed a high-velocity jet in the right atrium (RA) above the tricuspid valve concerning for sinus of Valsalva aneurysm (SVA).

Right heart catheterization revealed elevated RA pressures with positive shunt study showing oxygen saturation step-up in the RA (Figure 3). Left heart hemodynamic measurement from an aortic approach to the distal part of the noncoronary cusp SVA revealed an RA pressure-tracing pattern consistent with rupture of the noncoronary SVA into the RA (Figure 4).

The primary diagnosis was of acute heart failure secondary to ruptured aneurysm of the noncoronary SVA into RA. The patient also received a secondary diagnosis of atrial septal aneurysm and PFO.

Treatment & Outcome

The patient was treated with aggressive diuresis and responded well to therapy. Considering the high mortality rate associated with a ruptured SVA, the patient was referred to a tertiary care center for surgical evaluation. He underwent repair of aorto-right atrial communication with a Cormatrix patch (Roswell, GA) from the aortic side and with primary closure from the right atrial side with resection of the windsock tract; coronary artery bypass graft x1 with right internal mammary artery to the right coronary artery; closure of the PFO with the Cormatrix patch.

The postoperative TEE confirmed preserved LV and RV function, no shunts, no aortic or tricuspid insufficiency. Biopsy of the tissue resected showed intimal fibroplasia. A TTE completed 1 year after surgery showed normal valvular function and without any structural abnormalities. The patient had improvement in symptoms and an uneventful year after surgical intervention followed by 24 session of cardiac rehabilitation.

Discussion

Sinus of Valsalva aneurysm is a dilation of the aortic wall between the aortic valve and the sinotubular junction that is caused by the lack of continuity between the middle layer of the aortic wall and the aortic valve.¹ Cases of SVA are rare cardiac anomalies with prevalence of 1% in patients undergoing open-heart surgery.² Between 65% and 85% of SVA cases originate from the right coronary sinus, 10% to 20% from the noncoronary sinus, and < 5% from the left coronary sinus.³

Sinus of Valsalva aneurysm is usually congenital, although cases associated with syphilis, bacterial endocarditis, trauma, Behçet disease, and aortic dissection have been reported. Structural defects associated with congenital SVAs include ventricular septal defect, bicuspid aortic valve, and aortic regurgitation. It is less commonly associated with pulmonary stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, patent ductus arteriosus, tricuspid regurgitation, and atrial septal defects.

The most common complication of the SVA is rupture into another cardiac chamber, frequently the right ventricle (60%) or RA (29%) and less frequently into left atrium (6%), left ventricle (4%), or pericardium (1%).¹ Patients with ruptured SVA mainly develop dyspnea and chest pain, but cough, fatigue, peripheral edema, and continuous murmur have been reported.¹

Atrial septal aneurysm is an uncommon finding in adults, with an incidence of 2.2 % in the general population, and it is often associated with atrial septal defect and PFO.^1,4 Although ASA formation can be secondary to interatrial differences in pressures, it can be a primary malformation involving the region of the fossa ovalis or the entire atrial septum.⁴ Atrial septal aneurysm may be an isolated anomaly, but often is found in association with other structural cardiac anomalies, including SVA and PFO.^4,5

Conclusion

Although coexistence of SVA and ASA has been reported previously, the case reported here, a ruptured noncoronary SVA that was associated with a large ASA and a PFO, has not been previously documented in the English literature. This patient’s anomalies are most likely congenital in origin. Progressive dyspnea and chest pain in the presence of a continuous loud murmur should raise the suspicion of ruptured sinus of Valsalva. Although no significant aortic regurgitation was noted on echocardiography, the pistol shot sound heard over the femoral artery was believed to be due to the rapid diastolic runoff into the RA through the ruptured SVA.

The significant increase in the RA pressure made the ASA and PFO more prominent. A TEE, left and right heart catheterizations with shunt study are vital for the diagnosis of SVA. If left untreated, SVA has an ominous prognosis. Surgical repair of ruptured SVA has an accepted risk and good prognosis with 10-year survival rate of 90%, whereas the mean survival of untreated ruptured SVA is about 4 years.^6,7 Hence, the patient in this study was referred to a tertiary care center for surgical intervention.

A 53 year-old white male with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and former tobacco use was referred to the Dayton VAMC in Ohio for symptoms that included shortness of breath and a recent abnormal stress test. The patient reported no history of known coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure, or other cardiovascular diseases. The patient also reported no recent fever, bacterial blood infection, syphilis infection, recreational drug use, or chest trauma.

A physical examination was remarkable for grade 3/6 continuous murmur at the 5th interspace to the left of the sternum and a loud “pistol shot” sound heard over the femoral artery. The patient had jugular venous distension and 2+ leg edema bilaterally. His vital signs were normal, and laboratory blood tests showed normal hemoglobin level and kidney function.

An electrocardiogram showed nonspecific ST segment changes and a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) revealed a high-velocity jet in the right atrium (RA) above the tricuspid valve concerning for sinus of Valsalva aneurysm (SVA).

Right heart catheterization revealed elevated RA pressures with positive shunt study showing oxygen saturation step-up in the RA (Figure 3). Left heart hemodynamic measurement from an aortic approach to the distal part of the noncoronary cusp SVA revealed an RA pressure-tracing pattern consistent with rupture of the noncoronary SVA into the RA (Figure 4).

The primary diagnosis was of acute heart failure secondary to ruptured aneurysm of the noncoronary SVA into RA. The patient also received a secondary diagnosis of atrial septal aneurysm and PFO.

Treatment & Outcome

The patient was treated with aggressive diuresis and responded well to therapy. Considering the high mortality rate associated with a ruptured SVA, the patient was referred to a tertiary care center for surgical evaluation. He underwent repair of aorto-right atrial communication with a Cormatrix patch (Roswell, GA) from the aortic side and with primary closure from the right atrial side with resection of the windsock tract; coronary artery bypass graft x1 with right internal mammary artery to the right coronary artery; closure of the PFO with the Cormatrix patch.

The postoperative TEE confirmed preserved LV and RV function, no shunts, no aortic or tricuspid insufficiency. Biopsy of the tissue resected showed intimal fibroplasia. A TTE completed 1 year after surgery showed normal valvular function and without any structural abnormalities. The patient had improvement in symptoms and an uneventful year after surgical intervention followed by 24 session of cardiac rehabilitation.

Discussion

Sinus of Valsalva aneurysm is a dilation of the aortic wall between the aortic valve and the sinotubular junction that is caused by the lack of continuity between the middle layer of the aortic wall and the aortic valve.¹ Cases of SVA are rare cardiac anomalies with prevalence of 1% in patients undergoing open-heart surgery.² Between 65% and 85% of SVA cases originate from the right coronary sinus, 10% to 20% from the noncoronary sinus, and < 5% from the left coronary sinus.³

Sinus of Valsalva aneurysm is usually congenital, although cases associated with syphilis, bacterial endocarditis, trauma, Behçet disease, and aortic dissection have been reported. Structural defects associated with congenital SVAs include ventricular septal defect, bicuspid aortic valve, and aortic regurgitation. It is less commonly associated with pulmonary stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, patent ductus arteriosus, tricuspid regurgitation, and atrial septal defects.

The most common complication of the SVA is rupture into another cardiac chamber, frequently the right ventricle (60%) or RA (29%) and less frequently into left atrium (6%), left ventricle (4%), or pericardium (1%).¹ Patients with ruptured SVA mainly develop dyspnea and chest pain, but cough, fatigue, peripheral edema, and continuous murmur have been reported.¹

Atrial septal aneurysm is an uncommon finding in adults, with an incidence of 2.2 % in the general population, and it is often associated with atrial septal defect and PFO.^1,4 Although ASA formation can be secondary to interatrial differences in pressures, it can be a primary malformation involving the region of the fossa ovalis or the entire atrial septum.⁴ Atrial septal aneurysm may be an isolated anomaly, but often is found in association with other structural cardiac anomalies, including SVA and PFO.^4,5

Conclusion

Although coexistence of SVA and ASA has been reported previously, the case reported here, a ruptured noncoronary SVA that was associated with a large ASA and a PFO, has not been previously documented in the English literature. This patient’s anomalies are most likely congenital in origin. Progressive dyspnea and chest pain in the presence of a continuous loud murmur should raise the suspicion of ruptured sinus of Valsalva. Although no significant aortic regurgitation was noted on echocardiography, the pistol shot sound heard over the femoral artery was believed to be due to the rapid diastolic runoff into the RA through the ruptured SVA.

The significant increase in the RA pressure made the ASA and PFO more prominent. A TEE, left and right heart catheterizations with shunt study are vital for the diagnosis of SVA. If left untreated, SVA has an ominous prognosis. Surgical repair of ruptured SVA has an accepted risk and good prognosis with 10-year survival rate of 90%, whereas the mean survival of untreated ruptured SVA is about 4 years.^6,7 Hence, the patient in this study was referred to a tertiary care center for surgical intervention.

Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences. 

From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus. 

From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout. 

Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.

There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.

2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated. 

3)  Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.

How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model? 
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:

• Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting. 
• Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
• The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
• Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
• Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.

The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation. 

*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP  Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5

Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences. 

From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus. 

From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout. 

Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.

There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.

2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated. 

3)  Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.

How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model? 
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:

• Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting. 
• Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
• The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
• Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
• Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.

The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation. 

*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP  Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5

Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences. 

From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus. 

From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout. 

Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.

There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.

2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated. 

3)  Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.

How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model? 
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:

• Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting. 
• Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
• The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
• Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
• Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.

The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation. 

*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP  Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5

Participants at the Vascular Annual Meeting (VAM) have lots more to look forward to than sunny skies, beaches and palm trees. A number of new program features are planned to add interest and value to the meeting, said Dr. Ron Dalman.
Dr. Dalman chairs the SVS Program Committee, which develops programming and content for VAM, the premiere meeting for vascular specialists. 
The 2017 meeting will be May 31-June 3 in beautiful San Diego, with plenaries and exhibits set for June 1-3. 

Changes for 2017 include:
•   More and potentially longer sessions with collaborative specialty societies, such as the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Ultrasound and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “These sessions provide a multi-disciplinary perspective on our common problems and showcase the SVS’ leadership role in vascular health and disease management,” said Dr. Dalman. Members provided positive feedback on last year’s partnership sessions, so this year, these program features will be significantly expanded.
•   An educational review course highlighting some of the more frequently missed questions from the latest version of the Vascular Education Self-Assessment Program (VESAP3). 
•   Guideline summaries, organized by the SVS Document Oversight Committee and presented by the authorship group for each, on critical topics such as abdominal aortic aneurysms, aortic dissection, venous disease and more. These summaries will be incorporated into post-graduate programming. “It makes sense to cover current practice guidelines and consensus documents, as several high-profile efforts are being updated this year,” said Dr. Dalman. “We can give attendees an executive summary of current guidelines by their respective authors, and attendees will come away with unique insights into why the most impactful and significant changes were included in each respective document.”
• Sessions of potential interest to surgeons in community practice environments, marked in the schedule as such by the SVS Community Practice Committee. 

“These improvements will increase the value of the Annual Meeting for all attendees,” Dr. Dalman said. “We’re emphasizing interactive education, not simply passive learning. It’s going to be very exciting – and different in both style and substance.”
A Californian himself, Dr. Dalman also is looking forward to showing off his state. “San Diego is a wonderful place to vacation and the meeting venue provides convenient access to the Gaslamp District, the waterfront and the world-famous beaches,” he said. 
“We encourage our members to bring their families to San Diego and make a vacation out of it.”
With the programming additions, increased opportunities for participation, the educational activities planned plus the perfect location, he added, “This is going to be a spectacular meeting.”

Participants at the Vascular Annual Meeting (VAM) have lots more to look forward to than sunny skies, beaches and palm trees. A number of new program features are planned to add interest and value to the meeting, said Dr. Ron Dalman.
Dr. Dalman chairs the SVS Program Committee, which develops programming and content for VAM, the premiere meeting for vascular specialists. 
The 2017 meeting will be May 31-June 3 in beautiful San Diego, with plenaries and exhibits set for June 1-3. 

Changes for 2017 include:
•   More and potentially longer sessions with collaborative specialty societies, such as the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Ultrasound and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “These sessions provide a multi-disciplinary perspective on our common problems and showcase the SVS’ leadership role in vascular health and disease management,” said Dr. Dalman. Members provided positive feedback on last year’s partnership sessions, so this year, these program features will be significantly expanded.
•   An educational review course highlighting some of the more frequently missed questions from the latest version of the Vascular Education Self-Assessment Program (VESAP3). 
•   Guideline summaries, organized by the SVS Document Oversight Committee and presented by the authorship group for each, on critical topics such as abdominal aortic aneurysms, aortic dissection, venous disease and more. These summaries will be incorporated into post-graduate programming. “It makes sense to cover current practice guidelines and consensus documents, as several high-profile efforts are being updated this year,” said Dr. Dalman. “We can give attendees an executive summary of current guidelines by their respective authors, and attendees will come away with unique insights into why the most impactful and significant changes were included in each respective document.”
• Sessions of potential interest to surgeons in community practice environments, marked in the schedule as such by the SVS Community Practice Committee. 

“These improvements will increase the value of the Annual Meeting for all attendees,” Dr. Dalman said. “We’re emphasizing interactive education, not simply passive learning. It’s going to be very exciting – and different in both style and substance.”
A Californian himself, Dr. Dalman also is looking forward to showing off his state. “San Diego is a wonderful place to vacation and the meeting venue provides convenient access to the Gaslamp District, the waterfront and the world-famous beaches,” he said. 
“We encourage our members to bring their families to San Diego and make a vacation out of it.”
With the programming additions, increased opportunities for participation, the educational activities planned plus the perfect location, he added, “This is going to be a spectacular meeting.”

Participants at the Vascular Annual Meeting (VAM) have lots more to look forward to than sunny skies, beaches and palm trees. A number of new program features are planned to add interest and value to the meeting, said Dr. Ron Dalman.
Dr. Dalman chairs the SVS Program Committee, which develops programming and content for VAM, the premiere meeting for vascular specialists. 
The 2017 meeting will be May 31-June 3 in beautiful San Diego, with plenaries and exhibits set for June 1-3. 

Changes for 2017 include:
•   More and potentially longer sessions with collaborative specialty societies, such as the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Ultrasound and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “These sessions provide a multi-disciplinary perspective on our common problems and showcase the SVS’ leadership role in vascular health and disease management,” said Dr. Dalman. Members provided positive feedback on last year’s partnership sessions, so this year, these program features will be significantly expanded.
•   An educational review course highlighting some of the more frequently missed questions from the latest version of the Vascular Education Self-Assessment Program (VESAP3). 
•   Guideline summaries, organized by the SVS Document Oversight Committee and presented by the authorship group for each, on critical topics such as abdominal aortic aneurysms, aortic dissection, venous disease and more. These summaries will be incorporated into post-graduate programming. “It makes sense to cover current practice guidelines and consensus documents, as several high-profile efforts are being updated this year,” said Dr. Dalman. “We can give attendees an executive summary of current guidelines by their respective authors, and attendees will come away with unique insights into why the most impactful and significant changes were included in each respective document.”
• Sessions of potential interest to surgeons in community practice environments, marked in the schedule as such by the SVS Community Practice Committee. 

“These improvements will increase the value of the Annual Meeting for all attendees,” Dr. Dalman said. “We’re emphasizing interactive education, not simply passive learning. It’s going to be very exciting – and different in both style and substance.”
A Californian himself, Dr. Dalman also is looking forward to showing off his state. “San Diego is a wonderful place to vacation and the meeting venue provides convenient access to the Gaslamp District, the waterfront and the world-famous beaches,” he said. 
“We encourage our members to bring their families to San Diego and make a vacation out of it.”
With the programming additions, increased opportunities for participation, the educational activities planned plus the perfect location, he added, “This is going to be a spectacular meeting.”