Findings from a large randomized, controlled trial do not support the use of vitamin D3 supplementation for adults for the sole purpose of preventing depression.

Among adults aged 50 years or older who were without clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, vitamin D3 supplementation taken over 5 years did not reduce the risk for depression or make a difference in the quality of mood.

“The study is among the largest of its kind ever, and it was able to address whether vitamin D3 supplementation is useful for what we call ‘universal prevention’ of depression,” Olivia Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“These results tell us that there is no benefit to using vitamin D3 supplements for the sole purpose of preventing depression in the general population of middle-aged and older adults,” said Dr. Okereke.

“Because of the high dose and long duration of treatment and the randomized placebo-controlled design, we can have high confidence in results,” she added.

The study was published online August 4 in JAMA.
 

The VITAL-DEP trial

The findings are based on 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women) in the VITAL-DEP study; 16,657 were at risk for incident depression (ie, had no history of depression), and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression (i.e., had a history of depression but had not undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years).

Roughly half were randomly allocated to receive vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d of cholecalciferol) and half to receive matching placebo for a median of 5.3 years. The participants’ mean level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 31.1 ng/mL; for about 12%, levels were lower than 20 ng/mL.

The risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the vitamin D3 group (609 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 12.9/1000 person-years) and the placebo group (625 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 13.3/1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.09; P = .62).

“Cumulative incidence curves showed lack of separation between treatment groups over the entire follow-up,” the researchers report.

There was also no significant between-group difference in the other primary outcome – the mean difference in mood scores on the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8).

The mean difference for change between treatment groups in PHQ-8 scores was not significantly different from 0 over the entire follow-up (0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.05 points) or at any point during follow-up.

To date, 13 randomized clinical trials have examined the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on depression or mood during middle age or in older adults, and all except one reported null findings, Dr. Okereke and colleagues noted in their article.

The current study is the only one large enough to examine vitamin D3 supplementation for the universal prevention of depression, they point out.

Although the findings do not support vitamin D3 supplementation for depression prevention, Dr. Okereke said, “we cannot yet exclude the possibility of benefit of vitamin D3 for preventing depression among subgroups with certain health risk factors. We also know that vitamin D is essential for bone health, and this study does not tell us whether vitamin D3 is useful for prevention of other health outcomes.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D3, matching placebos, and packaging in the form of calendar packs. Dr. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing for a book on the prevention of late-life depression.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from a large randomized, controlled trial do not support the use of vitamin D3 supplementation for adults for the sole purpose of preventing depression.

Among adults aged 50 years or older who were without clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, vitamin D3 supplementation taken over 5 years did not reduce the risk for depression or make a difference in the quality of mood.

“The study is among the largest of its kind ever, and it was able to address whether vitamin D3 supplementation is useful for what we call ‘universal prevention’ of depression,” Olivia Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“These results tell us that there is no benefit to using vitamin D3 supplements for the sole purpose of preventing depression in the general population of middle-aged and older adults,” said Dr. Okereke.

“Because of the high dose and long duration of treatment and the randomized placebo-controlled design, we can have high confidence in results,” she added.

The study was published online August 4 in JAMA.
 

The VITAL-DEP trial

The findings are based on 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women) in the VITAL-DEP study; 16,657 were at risk for incident depression (ie, had no history of depression), and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression (i.e., had a history of depression but had not undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years).

Roughly half were randomly allocated to receive vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d of cholecalciferol) and half to receive matching placebo for a median of 5.3 years. The participants’ mean level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 31.1 ng/mL; for about 12%, levels were lower than 20 ng/mL.

The risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the vitamin D3 group (609 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 12.9/1000 person-years) and the placebo group (625 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 13.3/1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.09; P = .62).

“Cumulative incidence curves showed lack of separation between treatment groups over the entire follow-up,” the researchers report.

There was also no significant between-group difference in the other primary outcome – the mean difference in mood scores on the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8).

The mean difference for change between treatment groups in PHQ-8 scores was not significantly different from 0 over the entire follow-up (0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.05 points) or at any point during follow-up.

To date, 13 randomized clinical trials have examined the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on depression or mood during middle age or in older adults, and all except one reported null findings, Dr. Okereke and colleagues noted in their article.

The current study is the only one large enough to examine vitamin D3 supplementation for the universal prevention of depression, they point out.

Although the findings do not support vitamin D3 supplementation for depression prevention, Dr. Okereke said, “we cannot yet exclude the possibility of benefit of vitamin D3 for preventing depression among subgroups with certain health risk factors. We also know that vitamin D is essential for bone health, and this study does not tell us whether vitamin D3 is useful for prevention of other health outcomes.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D3, matching placebos, and packaging in the form of calendar packs. Dr. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing for a book on the prevention of late-life depression.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from a large randomized, controlled trial do not support the use of vitamin D3 supplementation for adults for the sole purpose of preventing depression.

Among adults aged 50 years or older who were without clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, vitamin D3 supplementation taken over 5 years did not reduce the risk for depression or make a difference in the quality of mood.

“The study is among the largest of its kind ever, and it was able to address whether vitamin D3 supplementation is useful for what we call ‘universal prevention’ of depression,” Olivia Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“These results tell us that there is no benefit to using vitamin D3 supplements for the sole purpose of preventing depression in the general population of middle-aged and older adults,” said Dr. Okereke.

“Because of the high dose and long duration of treatment and the randomized placebo-controlled design, we can have high confidence in results,” she added.

The study was published online August 4 in JAMA.
 

The VITAL-DEP trial

The findings are based on 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women) in the VITAL-DEP study; 16,657 were at risk for incident depression (ie, had no history of depression), and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression (i.e., had a history of depression but had not undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years).

Roughly half were randomly allocated to receive vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d of cholecalciferol) and half to receive matching placebo for a median of 5.3 years. The participants’ mean level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 31.1 ng/mL; for about 12%, levels were lower than 20 ng/mL.

The risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the vitamin D3 group (609 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 12.9/1000 person-years) and the placebo group (625 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 13.3/1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.09; P = .62).

“Cumulative incidence curves showed lack of separation between treatment groups over the entire follow-up,” the researchers report.

There was also no significant between-group difference in the other primary outcome – the mean difference in mood scores on the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8).

The mean difference for change between treatment groups in PHQ-8 scores was not significantly different from 0 over the entire follow-up (0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.05 points) or at any point during follow-up.

To date, 13 randomized clinical trials have examined the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on depression or mood during middle age or in older adults, and all except one reported null findings, Dr. Okereke and colleagues noted in their article.

The current study is the only one large enough to examine vitamin D3 supplementation for the universal prevention of depression, they point out.

Although the findings do not support vitamin D3 supplementation for depression prevention, Dr. Okereke said, “we cannot yet exclude the possibility of benefit of vitamin D3 for preventing depression among subgroups with certain health risk factors. We also know that vitamin D is essential for bone health, and this study does not tell us whether vitamin D3 is useful for prevention of other health outcomes.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D3, matching placebos, and packaging in the form of calendar packs. Dr. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing for a book on the prevention of late-life depression.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

On behalf of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, I am excited to announce the scheduled September 2020 release of the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM)!

For reasons all too familiar, this year’s SoHM survey process was unlike any in SHM’s history. We were still collecting survey responses from a few stragglers in early March when the entire world shut down almost overnight to flatten the curve of a deadly pandemic. Hospital medicine group (HMG) leaders were suddenly either up to their eyeballs trying to figure out how to safely care for huge influxes of COVID-19 patients that overwhelmed established systems of care or were trying to figure out how to staff in a low-volume environment with few COVID patients, a relative trickle of ED admissions, and virtually no surgical care. And everywhere, hospitals and their HMGs were quickly stressed in ways that would have been unimaginable just a couple of months earlier – financially, operationally, epidemiologically, and culturally.

SHM offices closed, with all staff working from home. And the talented people who would normally have been working diligently on the survey data were suddenly redirected to focus on COVID-related issues, including tracking government announcements that were changing daily and providing needed resources to SHM members. By the time they could raise their heads and begin thinking about survey data, we were months behind schedule.

I need to give a huge shout-out to our survey manager extraordinaire Josh Lapps, SHM’s Director of Policy and Practice Management, and his survey support team including Luke Heisinger and Kim Schonberger. Once they were able to turn their focus back to the SoHM, they worked like demons to catch up. And in addition to the work of preparing the SoHM for publication, they helped issue and analyze a follow-up survey to investigate how HMGs adjusted their staffing and operations in response to COVID! As I write this, we appear to be back on schedule for a September SoHM release date, with the COVID supplemental survey report to follow soon after. Thanks also to PAC committee members who, despite their own stresses, rose to the challenge of participating in calls and planning the supplemental survey.

Despite the pandemic, HMGs found survey participation valuable. When all was said and done, we had a respectable number of respondent groups: 502 this year vs. 569 in 2018. Although the number of respondent groups is down, the average group size has increased, so that an all-time high of 10,122 employed/contracted full-time equivalent (FTE) hospitalists (plus 484 locum tenens FTEs) are represented in the data set. The respondents continue to be very diverse, representing all practice models and every state – and even a couple of other countries. One notable change is a significant increase in pediatric HM group participation, thanks to a recruitment charge led by PAC member Sandra Gage, associate division chief of hospital medicine at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and supported by the inclusion of several new pediatric HM-specific questions to better capture unique attributes of these hospital medicine practices.

We had more multisite respondents than ever, and the multisite respondents overwhelmingly used the new “retake” feature in the online version of the survey. I’m happy to report that we received consistent positive feedback about our new electronic survey platform, and thanks to its capabilities data analysis has been significantly automated, enhancing both efficiency and data reliability.

The survey content is more wide ranging than ever. In addition to the usual topics such as scope of services, staffing and scheduling, compensation models, evaluation and management code distribution, and HM group finances, the 2020 report will include the afore-referenced information about HM groups serving children, expanded information on nurse practitioner (NPs)/physician assistant (PA) roles, and data on diversity in HM physician leadership. The follow-up COVID survey will be published separately as a supplement, available only to purchasers of the SoHM report.

Multiple options for SoHM report purchase. All survey participants will receive access to the online version of the survey. Others may purchase the hard copy report, online access, or both. The report has a colorful, easy-to-read layout, and many of the tables have been streamlined to make them easier to read. I encourage you to sign up to preorder your copy of the SoHM Report today at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm; you’ll almost certainly discover a treasure trove of worthwhile information.

Use the report to assess how your practice compares to other practices, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be; they only tell you what currently is the case – or at least, what was during the survey period. New best practices not yet reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and that is probably more true today in the new world affected by this pandemic than ever before. And while the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs, it always helps to know how you compare with others. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your hospital medicine practice and, armed with the best available data, are the best judges of what is right for you.
 

Ms. Flores is a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in La Quinta, Calif. She serves on SHM’s Practice Analysis and Annual Conference Committees and helps to coordinate SHM’s biannual State of Hospital Medicine survey.

On behalf of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, I am excited to announce the scheduled September 2020 release of the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM)!

For reasons all too familiar, this year’s SoHM survey process was unlike any in SHM’s history. We were still collecting survey responses from a few stragglers in early March when the entire world shut down almost overnight to flatten the curve of a deadly pandemic. Hospital medicine group (HMG) leaders were suddenly either up to their eyeballs trying to figure out how to safely care for huge influxes of COVID-19 patients that overwhelmed established systems of care or were trying to figure out how to staff in a low-volume environment with few COVID patients, a relative trickle of ED admissions, and virtually no surgical care. And everywhere, hospitals and their HMGs were quickly stressed in ways that would have been unimaginable just a couple of months earlier – financially, operationally, epidemiologically, and culturally.

SHM offices closed, with all staff working from home. And the talented people who would normally have been working diligently on the survey data were suddenly redirected to focus on COVID-related issues, including tracking government announcements that were changing daily and providing needed resources to SHM members. By the time they could raise their heads and begin thinking about survey data, we were months behind schedule.

I need to give a huge shout-out to our survey manager extraordinaire Josh Lapps, SHM’s Director of Policy and Practice Management, and his survey support team including Luke Heisinger and Kim Schonberger. Once they were able to turn their focus back to the SoHM, they worked like demons to catch up. And in addition to the work of preparing the SoHM for publication, they helped issue and analyze a follow-up survey to investigate how HMGs adjusted their staffing and operations in response to COVID! As I write this, we appear to be back on schedule for a September SoHM release date, with the COVID supplemental survey report to follow soon after. Thanks also to PAC committee members who, despite their own stresses, rose to the challenge of participating in calls and planning the supplemental survey.

Despite the pandemic, HMGs found survey participation valuable. When all was said and done, we had a respectable number of respondent groups: 502 this year vs. 569 in 2018. Although the number of respondent groups is down, the average group size has increased, so that an all-time high of 10,122 employed/contracted full-time equivalent (FTE) hospitalists (plus 484 locum tenens FTEs) are represented in the data set. The respondents continue to be very diverse, representing all practice models and every state – and even a couple of other countries. One notable change is a significant increase in pediatric HM group participation, thanks to a recruitment charge led by PAC member Sandra Gage, associate division chief of hospital medicine at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and supported by the inclusion of several new pediatric HM-specific questions to better capture unique attributes of these hospital medicine practices.

We had more multisite respondents than ever, and the multisite respondents overwhelmingly used the new “retake” feature in the online version of the survey. I’m happy to report that we received consistent positive feedback about our new electronic survey platform, and thanks to its capabilities data analysis has been significantly automated, enhancing both efficiency and data reliability.

The survey content is more wide ranging than ever. In addition to the usual topics such as scope of services, staffing and scheduling, compensation models, evaluation and management code distribution, and HM group finances, the 2020 report will include the afore-referenced information about HM groups serving children, expanded information on nurse practitioner (NPs)/physician assistant (PA) roles, and data on diversity in HM physician leadership. The follow-up COVID survey will be published separately as a supplement, available only to purchasers of the SoHM report.

Multiple options for SoHM report purchase. All survey participants will receive access to the online version of the survey. Others may purchase the hard copy report, online access, or both. The report has a colorful, easy-to-read layout, and many of the tables have been streamlined to make them easier to read. I encourage you to sign up to preorder your copy of the SoHM Report today at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm; you’ll almost certainly discover a treasure trove of worthwhile information.

Use the report to assess how your practice compares to other practices, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be; they only tell you what currently is the case – or at least, what was during the survey period. New best practices not yet reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and that is probably more true today in the new world affected by this pandemic than ever before. And while the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs, it always helps to know how you compare with others. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your hospital medicine practice and, armed with the best available data, are the best judges of what is right for you.
 

Ms. Flores is a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in La Quinta, Calif. She serves on SHM’s Practice Analysis and Annual Conference Committees and helps to coordinate SHM’s biannual State of Hospital Medicine survey.

On behalf of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, I am excited to announce the scheduled September 2020 release of the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM)!

For reasons all too familiar, this year’s SoHM survey process was unlike any in SHM’s history. We were still collecting survey responses from a few stragglers in early March when the entire world shut down almost overnight to flatten the curve of a deadly pandemic. Hospital medicine group (HMG) leaders were suddenly either up to their eyeballs trying to figure out how to safely care for huge influxes of COVID-19 patients that overwhelmed established systems of care or were trying to figure out how to staff in a low-volume environment with few COVID patients, a relative trickle of ED admissions, and virtually no surgical care. And everywhere, hospitals and their HMGs were quickly stressed in ways that would have been unimaginable just a couple of months earlier – financially, operationally, epidemiologically, and culturally.

SHM offices closed, with all staff working from home. And the talented people who would normally have been working diligently on the survey data were suddenly redirected to focus on COVID-related issues, including tracking government announcements that were changing daily and providing needed resources to SHM members. By the time they could raise their heads and begin thinking about survey data, we were months behind schedule.

I need to give a huge shout-out to our survey manager extraordinaire Josh Lapps, SHM’s Director of Policy and Practice Management, and his survey support team including Luke Heisinger and Kim Schonberger. Once they were able to turn their focus back to the SoHM, they worked like demons to catch up. And in addition to the work of preparing the SoHM for publication, they helped issue and analyze a follow-up survey to investigate how HMGs adjusted their staffing and operations in response to COVID! As I write this, we appear to be back on schedule for a September SoHM release date, with the COVID supplemental survey report to follow soon after. Thanks also to PAC committee members who, despite their own stresses, rose to the challenge of participating in calls and planning the supplemental survey.

Despite the pandemic, HMGs found survey participation valuable. When all was said and done, we had a respectable number of respondent groups: 502 this year vs. 569 in 2018. Although the number of respondent groups is down, the average group size has increased, so that an all-time high of 10,122 employed/contracted full-time equivalent (FTE) hospitalists (plus 484 locum tenens FTEs) are represented in the data set. The respondents continue to be very diverse, representing all practice models and every state – and even a couple of other countries. One notable change is a significant increase in pediatric HM group participation, thanks to a recruitment charge led by PAC member Sandra Gage, associate division chief of hospital medicine at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and supported by the inclusion of several new pediatric HM-specific questions to better capture unique attributes of these hospital medicine practices.

We had more multisite respondents than ever, and the multisite respondents overwhelmingly used the new “retake” feature in the online version of the survey. I’m happy to report that we received consistent positive feedback about our new electronic survey platform, and thanks to its capabilities data analysis has been significantly automated, enhancing both efficiency and data reliability.

The survey content is more wide ranging than ever. In addition to the usual topics such as scope of services, staffing and scheduling, compensation models, evaluation and management code distribution, and HM group finances, the 2020 report will include the afore-referenced information about HM groups serving children, expanded information on nurse practitioner (NPs)/physician assistant (PA) roles, and data on diversity in HM physician leadership. The follow-up COVID survey will be published separately as a supplement, available only to purchasers of the SoHM report.

Multiple options for SoHM report purchase. All survey participants will receive access to the online version of the survey. Others may purchase the hard copy report, online access, or both. The report has a colorful, easy-to-read layout, and many of the tables have been streamlined to make them easier to read. I encourage you to sign up to preorder your copy of the SoHM Report today at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm; you’ll almost certainly discover a treasure trove of worthwhile information.

Use the report to assess how your practice compares to other practices, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be; they only tell you what currently is the case – or at least, what was during the survey period. New best practices not yet reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and that is probably more true today in the new world affected by this pandemic than ever before. And while the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs, it always helps to know how you compare with others. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your hospital medicine practice and, armed with the best available data, are the best judges of what is right for you.
 

Ms. Flores is a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in La Quinta, Calif. She serves on SHM’s Practice Analysis and Annual Conference Committees and helps to coordinate SHM’s biannual State of Hospital Medicine survey.

By now it is well known that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted primary care. Office visits and revenues have precipitously dropped as physicians and patients alike fear in-person visits may increase their risks of contracting the virus. However, telemedicine has emerged as a lifeline of sorts for many practices, enabling them to conduct visits and maintain contact with patients.

Telemedicine is likely to continue to serve as a tool for primary care providers to improve access to convenient, cost-effective, high-quality care after the pandemic. Another benefit of telemedicine is it can help maintain a portion of a practice’s revenue stream for physicians during uncertain times.

Indeed, the nation has seen recent progress toward telemedicine parity, which refers to the concept of reimbursing providers’ telehealth visits at the same rates as similar in-person visits.

A challenge to adopting telemedicine is that it calls for adjusting established workflows for in-person encounters. A practice cannot simply replicate in-person processes to work for telehealth. While both in-person and virtual visits require adherence to HIPAA, for example, how you actually protect patient privacy will call for different measures. Harking back to the early days of EMR implementation, one does not need to like the telemedicine platform or process, but come to terms with the fact that it is a tool that is here to stay to deliver patient care.

Following are a few tips for primary care practices to help mitigate disruption while embracing telemedicine.

Treat your practice like a laboratory

Adoption may vary between practices depending on many factors, including clinicians’ comfort with technology, clinical tolerance and triage rules for nontouch encounters, state regulations, and more. Every provider group should begin experimenting with telemedicine in specific ways that make sense for them.

One physician may practice telemedicine full-time while the rest abstain, or perhaps the practice prefers to offer telemedicine services during specific hours on specific days. Don’t be afraid to start slowly when you’re trying something new – but do get started with telehealth. It will increasingly be a mainstream medium and more patients will come to expect it.

Train the entire team

Many primary care practices do not enjoy the resources of an information technology team, so all team members essentially need to learn the new skill of telemedicine usage, in addition to assisting patients. That can’t happen without staff buy-in, so it is essential that everyone from the office manager to medical assistants have the training they need to make the technology work. Juggling schedules for telehealth and in-office, activating an account through email, starting and joining a telehealth meeting, and preparing a patient for a visit are just a handful of basic tasks your staff should be trained to do to contribute to the successful integration of telehealth.

Educate and encourage patients to use telehealth

While unfamiliarity with technology may represent a roadblock for some patients, others resist telemedicine simply because no one has explained to them why it’s so important and the benefits it can hold for them. Education and communication are critical, including the sometimes painstaking work of slowly walking patients through the process of performing important functions on the telemedicine app. By providing them with some friendly coaching, patients won’t feel lost or abandoned during what for some may be an unfamiliar and frustrating process.

Manage more behavioral health

Different states and health plans incentivize primary practices for integrating behavioral health into their offerings. Rather than dismiss this addition to your own practice as too cumbersome to take on, I would recommend using telehealth to expand behavioral health care services.

If your practice is working toward a team-based, interdisciplinary approach to care delivery, behavioral health is a critical component. While other elements of this “whole person” health care may be better suited for an office visit, the vast majority of behavioral health services can be delivered virtually.

To decide if your patient may benefit from behavioral health care, the primary care provider (PCP) can conduct a screening via telehealth. Once the screening is complete, the PCP can discuss results and refer the patient to a mental health professional – all via telehealth. While patients may be reluctant to receive behavioral health treatment, perhaps because of stigma or inexperience, they may appreciate the telemedicine option as they can remain in the comfort and familiarity of their homes.

Collaborative Care is both an in-person and virtual model that allows PCP practices to offer behavioral health services in a cost effective way by utilizing a psychiatrist as a “consultant” to the practice as opposed to hiring a full-time psychiatrist. All services within the Collaborative Care Model can be offered via telehealth, and all major insurance providers reimburse primary care providers for delivering Collaborative Care.

When PCPs provide behavioral health treatment as an “extension” of the primary care service offerings, the stigma is reduced and more patients are willing to accept the care they need.

Many areas of the country suffer from a lack of access to behavioral health specialists. In rural counties, for example, the nearest therapist may be located over an hour away. By integrating behavioral telehealth services into your practice’s offerings, you can remove geographic and transportation obstacles to care for your patient population.

Doing this can lead to providing more culturally competent care. It’s important that you’re able to offer mental health services to your patients from a professional with a similar ethnic or racial background. Language barriers and cultural differences may limit a provider’s ability to treat a patient, particularly if the patient faces health disparities related to race or ethnicity. If your practice needs to look outside of your community to tap into a more diverse pool of providers to better meet your patients’ needs, telehealth makes it easier to do that.

Adopting telemedicine for consultative patient visits offers primary care a path toward restoring patient volume and hope for a postpandemic future.
 

Mark Stephan, MD, is chief medical officer at Equality Health, a whole-health delivery system. He practiced family medicine for 19 years, including hospital medicine and obstetrics in rural and urban settings. Dr. Stephan has no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

By now it is well known that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted primary care. Office visits and revenues have precipitously dropped as physicians and patients alike fear in-person visits may increase their risks of contracting the virus. However, telemedicine has emerged as a lifeline of sorts for many practices, enabling them to conduct visits and maintain contact with patients.

Telemedicine is likely to continue to serve as a tool for primary care providers to improve access to convenient, cost-effective, high-quality care after the pandemic. Another benefit of telemedicine is it can help maintain a portion of a practice’s revenue stream for physicians during uncertain times.

Indeed, the nation has seen recent progress toward telemedicine parity, which refers to the concept of reimbursing providers’ telehealth visits at the same rates as similar in-person visits.

A challenge to adopting telemedicine is that it calls for adjusting established workflows for in-person encounters. A practice cannot simply replicate in-person processes to work for telehealth. While both in-person and virtual visits require adherence to HIPAA, for example, how you actually protect patient privacy will call for different measures. Harking back to the early days of EMR implementation, one does not need to like the telemedicine platform or process, but come to terms with the fact that it is a tool that is here to stay to deliver patient care.

Following are a few tips for primary care practices to help mitigate disruption while embracing telemedicine.

Treat your practice like a laboratory

Adoption may vary between practices depending on many factors, including clinicians’ comfort with technology, clinical tolerance and triage rules for nontouch encounters, state regulations, and more. Every provider group should begin experimenting with telemedicine in specific ways that make sense for them.

One physician may practice telemedicine full-time while the rest abstain, or perhaps the practice prefers to offer telemedicine services during specific hours on specific days. Don’t be afraid to start slowly when you’re trying something new – but do get started with telehealth. It will increasingly be a mainstream medium and more patients will come to expect it.

Train the entire team

Many primary care practices do not enjoy the resources of an information technology team, so all team members essentially need to learn the new skill of telemedicine usage, in addition to assisting patients. That can’t happen without staff buy-in, so it is essential that everyone from the office manager to medical assistants have the training they need to make the technology work. Juggling schedules for telehealth and in-office, activating an account through email, starting and joining a telehealth meeting, and preparing a patient for a visit are just a handful of basic tasks your staff should be trained to do to contribute to the successful integration of telehealth.

Educate and encourage patients to use telehealth

While unfamiliarity with technology may represent a roadblock for some patients, others resist telemedicine simply because no one has explained to them why it’s so important and the benefits it can hold for them. Education and communication are critical, including the sometimes painstaking work of slowly walking patients through the process of performing important functions on the telemedicine app. By providing them with some friendly coaching, patients won’t feel lost or abandoned during what for some may be an unfamiliar and frustrating process.

Manage more behavioral health

Different states and health plans incentivize primary practices for integrating behavioral health into their offerings. Rather than dismiss this addition to your own practice as too cumbersome to take on, I would recommend using telehealth to expand behavioral health care services.

If your practice is working toward a team-based, interdisciplinary approach to care delivery, behavioral health is a critical component. While other elements of this “whole person” health care may be better suited for an office visit, the vast majority of behavioral health services can be delivered virtually.

To decide if your patient may benefit from behavioral health care, the primary care provider (PCP) can conduct a screening via telehealth. Once the screening is complete, the PCP can discuss results and refer the patient to a mental health professional – all via telehealth. While patients may be reluctant to receive behavioral health treatment, perhaps because of stigma or inexperience, they may appreciate the telemedicine option as they can remain in the comfort and familiarity of their homes.

Collaborative Care is both an in-person and virtual model that allows PCP practices to offer behavioral health services in a cost effective way by utilizing a psychiatrist as a “consultant” to the practice as opposed to hiring a full-time psychiatrist. All services within the Collaborative Care Model can be offered via telehealth, and all major insurance providers reimburse primary care providers for delivering Collaborative Care.

When PCPs provide behavioral health treatment as an “extension” of the primary care service offerings, the stigma is reduced and more patients are willing to accept the care they need.

Many areas of the country suffer from a lack of access to behavioral health specialists. In rural counties, for example, the nearest therapist may be located over an hour away. By integrating behavioral telehealth services into your practice’s offerings, you can remove geographic and transportation obstacles to care for your patient population.

Doing this can lead to providing more culturally competent care. It’s important that you’re able to offer mental health services to your patients from a professional with a similar ethnic or racial background. Language barriers and cultural differences may limit a provider’s ability to treat a patient, particularly if the patient faces health disparities related to race or ethnicity. If your practice needs to look outside of your community to tap into a more diverse pool of providers to better meet your patients’ needs, telehealth makes it easier to do that.

Adopting telemedicine for consultative patient visits offers primary care a path toward restoring patient volume and hope for a postpandemic future.
 

Mark Stephan, MD, is chief medical officer at Equality Health, a whole-health delivery system. He practiced family medicine for 19 years, including hospital medicine and obstetrics in rural and urban settings. Dr. Stephan has no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

By now it is well known that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted primary care. Office visits and revenues have precipitously dropped as physicians and patients alike fear in-person visits may increase their risks of contracting the virus. However, telemedicine has emerged as a lifeline of sorts for many practices, enabling them to conduct visits and maintain contact with patients.

Telemedicine is likely to continue to serve as a tool for primary care providers to improve access to convenient, cost-effective, high-quality care after the pandemic. Another benefit of telemedicine is it can help maintain a portion of a practice’s revenue stream for physicians during uncertain times.

Indeed, the nation has seen recent progress toward telemedicine parity, which refers to the concept of reimbursing providers’ telehealth visits at the same rates as similar in-person visits.

A challenge to adopting telemedicine is that it calls for adjusting established workflows for in-person encounters. A practice cannot simply replicate in-person processes to work for telehealth. While both in-person and virtual visits require adherence to HIPAA, for example, how you actually protect patient privacy will call for different measures. Harking back to the early days of EMR implementation, one does not need to like the telemedicine platform or process, but come to terms with the fact that it is a tool that is here to stay to deliver patient care.

Following are a few tips for primary care practices to help mitigate disruption while embracing telemedicine.

Treat your practice like a laboratory

Adoption may vary between practices depending on many factors, including clinicians’ comfort with technology, clinical tolerance and triage rules for nontouch encounters, state regulations, and more. Every provider group should begin experimenting with telemedicine in specific ways that make sense for them.

One physician may practice telemedicine full-time while the rest abstain, or perhaps the practice prefers to offer telemedicine services during specific hours on specific days. Don’t be afraid to start slowly when you’re trying something new – but do get started with telehealth. It will increasingly be a mainstream medium and more patients will come to expect it.

Train the entire team

Many primary care practices do not enjoy the resources of an information technology team, so all team members essentially need to learn the new skill of telemedicine usage, in addition to assisting patients. That can’t happen without staff buy-in, so it is essential that everyone from the office manager to medical assistants have the training they need to make the technology work. Juggling schedules for telehealth and in-office, activating an account through email, starting and joining a telehealth meeting, and preparing a patient for a visit are just a handful of basic tasks your staff should be trained to do to contribute to the successful integration of telehealth.

Educate and encourage patients to use telehealth

While unfamiliarity with technology may represent a roadblock for some patients, others resist telemedicine simply because no one has explained to them why it’s so important and the benefits it can hold for them. Education and communication are critical, including the sometimes painstaking work of slowly walking patients through the process of performing important functions on the telemedicine app. By providing them with some friendly coaching, patients won’t feel lost or abandoned during what for some may be an unfamiliar and frustrating process.

Manage more behavioral health

Different states and health plans incentivize primary practices for integrating behavioral health into their offerings. Rather than dismiss this addition to your own practice as too cumbersome to take on, I would recommend using telehealth to expand behavioral health care services.

If your practice is working toward a team-based, interdisciplinary approach to care delivery, behavioral health is a critical component. While other elements of this “whole person” health care may be better suited for an office visit, the vast majority of behavioral health services can be delivered virtually.

To decide if your patient may benefit from behavioral health care, the primary care provider (PCP) can conduct a screening via telehealth. Once the screening is complete, the PCP can discuss results and refer the patient to a mental health professional – all via telehealth. While patients may be reluctant to receive behavioral health treatment, perhaps because of stigma or inexperience, they may appreciate the telemedicine option as they can remain in the comfort and familiarity of their homes.

Collaborative Care is both an in-person and virtual model that allows PCP practices to offer behavioral health services in a cost effective way by utilizing a psychiatrist as a “consultant” to the practice as opposed to hiring a full-time psychiatrist. All services within the Collaborative Care Model can be offered via telehealth, and all major insurance providers reimburse primary care providers for delivering Collaborative Care.

When PCPs provide behavioral health treatment as an “extension” of the primary care service offerings, the stigma is reduced and more patients are willing to accept the care they need.

Many areas of the country suffer from a lack of access to behavioral health specialists. In rural counties, for example, the nearest therapist may be located over an hour away. By integrating behavioral telehealth services into your practice’s offerings, you can remove geographic and transportation obstacles to care for your patient population.

Doing this can lead to providing more culturally competent care. It’s important that you’re able to offer mental health services to your patients from a professional with a similar ethnic or racial background. Language barriers and cultural differences may limit a provider’s ability to treat a patient, particularly if the patient faces health disparities related to race or ethnicity. If your practice needs to look outside of your community to tap into a more diverse pool of providers to better meet your patients’ needs, telehealth makes it easier to do that.

Adopting telemedicine for consultative patient visits offers primary care a path toward restoring patient volume and hope for a postpandemic future.
 

Mark Stephan, MD, is chief medical officer at Equality Health, a whole-health delivery system. He practiced family medicine for 19 years, including hospital medicine and obstetrics in rural and urban settings. Dr. Stephan has no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.

Researchers from the Royal Wolverhampton (England) Hospitals National Health Service Trust say shielding – or taking extra steps to protect oneself against COVID-19 if at high risk – has had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 in rheumatology patients.

In Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the team present data from a large rheumatology cohort in the United Kingdom between Feb. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2020. Patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed on April 24, 2020, using the Short Form–12 to assess Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) on a 0-100 scale (0 being the lowest score).

Of 1,693 participants, at the time, there were 61 (3.6%) reported COVID-19 infections (eight had confirmatory swab results; three had clinical diagnoses with “false-negative” swab; 50 had clinical diagnosis but were not swabbed in line with U.K. policy at that time).

Seven of the 61 (11.5%) patients were hospitalized, two requiring intensive care. Of this group, 24 were shielding, a similar proportion to the non-COVID cohort (24/61 vs. 768/1,632; P = .24). There was no significant effect of treatment on self-reported COVID-19 incidence.

There were significantly lower MCSs in the infected group, compared with control participants (38.9 vs. 42.2; mean difference: −3.3; 95% CI, −5.2 to 1.4; P < .001). There was no difference in PCS (−0.4; 95% CI, −2.1 to 1.3).

In patients without COVID-19, the ‘shielding’ group had significantly lower MCS (−2.1; 95% CI, −2.9 to 1.4; P < .001) and PCS (−2.2; 95% CI, −3.8 to 2.5; P < .001) than those not shielding.

There were no differences in MCSs between patients on non–biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic DMARDs (0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.4).

The findings suggest that overall strict social isolation had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 infection. Patients who had suffered from the virus had reduced mental but not physical HRQoL scores.

There was an adverse effect on both MCS and PCS reported by patients undergoing shielding,n compared with those not. This has also been shown in previous work from India.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Researchers from the Royal Wolverhampton (England) Hospitals National Health Service Trust say shielding – or taking extra steps to protect oneself against COVID-19 if at high risk – has had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 in rheumatology patients.

In Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the team present data from a large rheumatology cohort in the United Kingdom between Feb. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2020. Patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed on April 24, 2020, using the Short Form–12 to assess Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) on a 0-100 scale (0 being the lowest score).

Of 1,693 participants, at the time, there were 61 (3.6%) reported COVID-19 infections (eight had confirmatory swab results; three had clinical diagnoses with “false-negative” swab; 50 had clinical diagnosis but were not swabbed in line with U.K. policy at that time).

Seven of the 61 (11.5%) patients were hospitalized, two requiring intensive care. Of this group, 24 were shielding, a similar proportion to the non-COVID cohort (24/61 vs. 768/1,632; P = .24). There was no significant effect of treatment on self-reported COVID-19 incidence.

There were significantly lower MCSs in the infected group, compared with control participants (38.9 vs. 42.2; mean difference: −3.3; 95% CI, −5.2 to 1.4; P < .001). There was no difference in PCS (−0.4; 95% CI, −2.1 to 1.3).

In patients without COVID-19, the ‘shielding’ group had significantly lower MCS (−2.1; 95% CI, −2.9 to 1.4; P < .001) and PCS (−2.2; 95% CI, −3.8 to 2.5; P < .001) than those not shielding.

There were no differences in MCSs between patients on non–biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic DMARDs (0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.4).

The findings suggest that overall strict social isolation had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 infection. Patients who had suffered from the virus had reduced mental but not physical HRQoL scores.

There was an adverse effect on both MCS and PCS reported by patients undergoing shielding,n compared with those not. This has also been shown in previous work from India.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Researchers from the Royal Wolverhampton (England) Hospitals National Health Service Trust say shielding – or taking extra steps to protect oneself against COVID-19 if at high risk – has had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 in rheumatology patients.

In Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the team present data from a large rheumatology cohort in the United Kingdom between Feb. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2020. Patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed on April 24, 2020, using the Short Form–12 to assess Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) on a 0-100 scale (0 being the lowest score).

Of 1,693 participants, at the time, there were 61 (3.6%) reported COVID-19 infections (eight had confirmatory swab results; three had clinical diagnoses with “false-negative” swab; 50 had clinical diagnosis but were not swabbed in line with U.K. policy at that time).

Seven of the 61 (11.5%) patients were hospitalized, two requiring intensive care. Of this group, 24 were shielding, a similar proportion to the non-COVID cohort (24/61 vs. 768/1,632; P = .24). There was no significant effect of treatment on self-reported COVID-19 incidence.

There were significantly lower MCSs in the infected group, compared with control participants (38.9 vs. 42.2; mean difference: −3.3; 95% CI, −5.2 to 1.4; P < .001). There was no difference in PCS (−0.4; 95% CI, −2.1 to 1.3).

In patients without COVID-19, the ‘shielding’ group had significantly lower MCS (−2.1; 95% CI, −2.9 to 1.4; P < .001) and PCS (−2.2; 95% CI, −3.8 to 2.5; P < .001) than those not shielding.

There were no differences in MCSs between patients on non–biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic DMARDs (0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.4).

The findings suggest that overall strict social isolation had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 infection. Patients who had suffered from the virus had reduced mental but not physical HRQoL scores.

There was an adverse effect on both MCS and PCS reported by patients undergoing shielding,n compared with those not. This has also been shown in previous work from India.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently completed a highly critical investigation into allegations concerning the care of a suicidal patient in the Washington, DC, VA Medical Center Emergency Department (ED). The patient committed suicide by gunshot 6 days after an ED visit in which a VA provider reportedly commented, “[The patient] can go shoot [themself]. I do not care.”

In early 2019, the patient, who was in his 60s and had a history of panic attacks, painkiller addiction, and various injuries, came to the ED complaining of alprazolam and oxycodone withdrawal and insomnia. He asked to be admitted for detoxification. The ED resident physician documented that request and recommended outpatient psychiatry follow-up. The attending physician documented agreement with the assessment, and an ED social worker scheduled the patient for a same-day outpatient psychiatry evaluation. However, the patient, along with a family member, told a Veteran Experience Specialist he was dissatisfied with care, and again requested admission for inpatient detoxification. The specialist accompanied the patient and family member to the ED and informed a staff member of the patient’s preference for admission.

Following this, the patient presented to the outpatient psychiatry appointment, where a psychiatrist assessed his suicide risk as “moderate” and recommended admission. He was escorted back to the ED, where the psychiatrist reportedly handed him off both verbally and with an alert in the electronic health record to the attending physician. The family member told the OIG that the outpatient psychiatrist had indicated that the patient was going to be admitted to the detoxification of the psychiatry unit. The family member left, thinking the patient was being admitted.

A physician assistant documented the patient’s chief complaint as anxiety, documented the patient’s suicidal ideation, and placed a psychiatry consult to evaluate the patient for inpatient admission. The consulting psychiatry resident and attending psychiatrist deemed him at mild risk of suicide and didn’t meet the criterial for inpatient admission. They recommended outpatient care, and that the patient be discharged and sent home. The patient, though, refused to leave. A second ED attending physician documented that the patient was “clearly malingering” and “ranting.” Police were called to escort him out. At least 3 hospital staff members said they heard the physician say “I do not care,” if the patient committed suicide. A family member later called the facility’s medical advice line and told the on-call nurse that the patient had died at home 6 days after the ED visit.

The OIG found numerous preventable mix-ups, oversights, and outright misconduct throughout this patient’s health care experience. Notably, the patient navigated 2 transitions between the ED and outpatient Mental Health Clinic and saw 7 providers over the course of 12 hours. The lack of collaboration between the various health care providers, deficiencies in the hand-off process, and ED and inpatient mental health providers’ failure to read the outpatient psychiatrist’s notes led to a “compromised understanding” of the patient’s treatment needs and a failure to enact the outpatient psychiatrist’s recommended treatment plan.

For instance, 2 days after the patient presented to the ED, the outpatient psychiatrist entered a consult for the outpatient substance use treatment program indicating that the patient was informed of the appointment date and time (5 days after the ED visit); however, the OIG found no evidence that staff informed the patient of the appointment date and time. An outpatient nurse closed the consult and added a comment that the patient was to report to the treatment program 5 days after the ED visit. Contrary to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) policy, the OIG report says, the nurse explained that an appointment was not scheduled because it was not program procedure at the time. The nurse mistakenly thought the patient already was receiving outpatient treatment, and because the patient had no scheduled appointment, staff did not follow up when he missed it.

The OIG also found that the facility’s Suicide Prevention Coordinator had failed to complete the suicide behavior report following notification of the patient’s death by suicide, as required by VHA. In fact, the coordinator was unable to locate a suicide behavior report. Moreover, the OIG says, the ED failed to meet VHA’s requirements for a safe and secure evaluation area for patients seeking mental health services. A renovation project begun in 2009 to include 3 mental health examination rooms had been on hold.

Regarding the doctor who was heard making the callous statement, the OIG found that, despite the facility leaders’ awareness of the comment and of the doctor’s “prior pattern of misconduct,” they did not conduct a formal fact-finding or administrative investigation as required by the VA. Instead, they seemed to focus on the physician’s “overall positive clinical outcomes.”

The doctor “was never a VA employee, only worked on a contract basis and is no longer welcome at the facility,” said Dr. Michael Heimall, the center’s director, in a statement to The New York Times.

He added that the episode has prompted the hospital to change its policies. Among the changes: a “comprehensive education program” on employee misconduct and patient abuse has been instituted. Further, now only the Chief of Staff can reverse the outpatient mental health provider’s recommendation for a patient’s admission.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently completed a highly critical investigation into allegations concerning the care of a suicidal patient in the Washington, DC, VA Medical Center Emergency Department (ED). The patient committed suicide by gunshot 6 days after an ED visit in which a VA provider reportedly commented, “[The patient] can go shoot [themself]. I do not care.”

In early 2019, the patient, who was in his 60s and had a history of panic attacks, painkiller addiction, and various injuries, came to the ED complaining of alprazolam and oxycodone withdrawal and insomnia. He asked to be admitted for detoxification. The ED resident physician documented that request and recommended outpatient psychiatry follow-up. The attending physician documented agreement with the assessment, and an ED social worker scheduled the patient for a same-day outpatient psychiatry evaluation. However, the patient, along with a family member, told a Veteran Experience Specialist he was dissatisfied with care, and again requested admission for inpatient detoxification. The specialist accompanied the patient and family member to the ED and informed a staff member of the patient’s preference for admission.

Following this, the patient presented to the outpatient psychiatry appointment, where a psychiatrist assessed his suicide risk as “moderate” and recommended admission. He was escorted back to the ED, where the psychiatrist reportedly handed him off both verbally and with an alert in the electronic health record to the attending physician. The family member told the OIG that the outpatient psychiatrist had indicated that the patient was going to be admitted to the detoxification of the psychiatry unit. The family member left, thinking the patient was being admitted.

A physician assistant documented the patient’s chief complaint as anxiety, documented the patient’s suicidal ideation, and placed a psychiatry consult to evaluate the patient for inpatient admission. The consulting psychiatry resident and attending psychiatrist deemed him at mild risk of suicide and didn’t meet the criterial for inpatient admission. They recommended outpatient care, and that the patient be discharged and sent home. The patient, though, refused to leave. A second ED attending physician documented that the patient was “clearly malingering” and “ranting.” Police were called to escort him out. At least 3 hospital staff members said they heard the physician say “I do not care,” if the patient committed suicide. A family member later called the facility’s medical advice line and told the on-call nurse that the patient had died at home 6 days after the ED visit.

The OIG found numerous preventable mix-ups, oversights, and outright misconduct throughout this patient’s health care experience. Notably, the patient navigated 2 transitions between the ED and outpatient Mental Health Clinic and saw 7 providers over the course of 12 hours. The lack of collaboration between the various health care providers, deficiencies in the hand-off process, and ED and inpatient mental health providers’ failure to read the outpatient psychiatrist’s notes led to a “compromised understanding” of the patient’s treatment needs and a failure to enact the outpatient psychiatrist’s recommended treatment plan.

For instance, 2 days after the patient presented to the ED, the outpatient psychiatrist entered a consult for the outpatient substance use treatment program indicating that the patient was informed of the appointment date and time (5 days after the ED visit); however, the OIG found no evidence that staff informed the patient of the appointment date and time. An outpatient nurse closed the consult and added a comment that the patient was to report to the treatment program 5 days after the ED visit. Contrary to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) policy, the OIG report says, the nurse explained that an appointment was not scheduled because it was not program procedure at the time. The nurse mistakenly thought the patient already was receiving outpatient treatment, and because the patient had no scheduled appointment, staff did not follow up when he missed it.

The OIG also found that the facility’s Suicide Prevention Coordinator had failed to complete the suicide behavior report following notification of the patient’s death by suicide, as required by VHA. In fact, the coordinator was unable to locate a suicide behavior report. Moreover, the OIG says, the ED failed to meet VHA’s requirements for a safe and secure evaluation area for patients seeking mental health services. A renovation project begun in 2009 to include 3 mental health examination rooms had been on hold.

Regarding the doctor who was heard making the callous statement, the OIG found that, despite the facility leaders’ awareness of the comment and of the doctor’s “prior pattern of misconduct,” they did not conduct a formal fact-finding or administrative investigation as required by the VA. Instead, they seemed to focus on the physician’s “overall positive clinical outcomes.”

The doctor “was never a VA employee, only worked on a contract basis and is no longer welcome at the facility,” said Dr. Michael Heimall, the center’s director, in a statement to The New York Times.

He added that the episode has prompted the hospital to change its policies. Among the changes: a “comprehensive education program” on employee misconduct and patient abuse has been instituted. Further, now only the Chief of Staff can reverse the outpatient mental health provider’s recommendation for a patient’s admission.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently completed a highly critical investigation into allegations concerning the care of a suicidal patient in the Washington, DC, VA Medical Center Emergency Department (ED). The patient committed suicide by gunshot 6 days after an ED visit in which a VA provider reportedly commented, “[The patient] can go shoot [themself]. I do not care.”

In early 2019, the patient, who was in his 60s and had a history of panic attacks, painkiller addiction, and various injuries, came to the ED complaining of alprazolam and oxycodone withdrawal and insomnia. He asked to be admitted for detoxification. The ED resident physician documented that request and recommended outpatient psychiatry follow-up. The attending physician documented agreement with the assessment, and an ED social worker scheduled the patient for a same-day outpatient psychiatry evaluation. However, the patient, along with a family member, told a Veteran Experience Specialist he was dissatisfied with care, and again requested admission for inpatient detoxification. The specialist accompanied the patient and family member to the ED and informed a staff member of the patient’s preference for admission.

Following this, the patient presented to the outpatient psychiatry appointment, where a psychiatrist assessed his suicide risk as “moderate” and recommended admission. He was escorted back to the ED, where the psychiatrist reportedly handed him off both verbally and with an alert in the electronic health record to the attending physician. The family member told the OIG that the outpatient psychiatrist had indicated that the patient was going to be admitted to the detoxification of the psychiatry unit. The family member left, thinking the patient was being admitted.

A physician assistant documented the patient’s chief complaint as anxiety, documented the patient’s suicidal ideation, and placed a psychiatry consult to evaluate the patient for inpatient admission. The consulting psychiatry resident and attending psychiatrist deemed him at mild risk of suicide and didn’t meet the criterial for inpatient admission. They recommended outpatient care, and that the patient be discharged and sent home. The patient, though, refused to leave. A second ED attending physician documented that the patient was “clearly malingering” and “ranting.” Police were called to escort him out. At least 3 hospital staff members said they heard the physician say “I do not care,” if the patient committed suicide. A family member later called the facility’s medical advice line and told the on-call nurse that the patient had died at home 6 days after the ED visit.

The OIG found numerous preventable mix-ups, oversights, and outright misconduct throughout this patient’s health care experience. Notably, the patient navigated 2 transitions between the ED and outpatient Mental Health Clinic and saw 7 providers over the course of 12 hours. The lack of collaboration between the various health care providers, deficiencies in the hand-off process, and ED and inpatient mental health providers’ failure to read the outpatient psychiatrist’s notes led to a “compromised understanding” of the patient’s treatment needs and a failure to enact the outpatient psychiatrist’s recommended treatment plan.

For instance, 2 days after the patient presented to the ED, the outpatient psychiatrist entered a consult for the outpatient substance use treatment program indicating that the patient was informed of the appointment date and time (5 days after the ED visit); however, the OIG found no evidence that staff informed the patient of the appointment date and time. An outpatient nurse closed the consult and added a comment that the patient was to report to the treatment program 5 days after the ED visit. Contrary to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) policy, the OIG report says, the nurse explained that an appointment was not scheduled because it was not program procedure at the time. The nurse mistakenly thought the patient already was receiving outpatient treatment, and because the patient had no scheduled appointment, staff did not follow up when he missed it.

The OIG also found that the facility’s Suicide Prevention Coordinator had failed to complete the suicide behavior report following notification of the patient’s death by suicide, as required by VHA. In fact, the coordinator was unable to locate a suicide behavior report. Moreover, the OIG says, the ED failed to meet VHA’s requirements for a safe and secure evaluation area for patients seeking mental health services. A renovation project begun in 2009 to include 3 mental health examination rooms had been on hold.

Regarding the doctor who was heard making the callous statement, the OIG found that, despite the facility leaders’ awareness of the comment and of the doctor’s “prior pattern of misconduct,” they did not conduct a formal fact-finding or administrative investigation as required by the VA. Instead, they seemed to focus on the physician’s “overall positive clinical outcomes.”

The doctor “was never a VA employee, only worked on a contract basis and is no longer welcome at the facility,” said Dr. Michael Heimall, the center’s director, in a statement to The New York Times.

He added that the episode has prompted the hospital to change its policies. Among the changes: a “comprehensive education program” on employee misconduct and patient abuse has been instituted. Further, now only the Chief of Staff can reverse the outpatient mental health provider’s recommendation for a patient’s admission.

Collecting cells from the skin surface with adhesive tape strips is demonstrating a level of accuracy that is rivaling skin biopsies for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, promising a minimally invasive approach for monitoring these and potentially other dermatologic diseases, according to the latest advances with this approach.

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“Tape strips are not going to fully replace biopsies, but we think they will have an important role in diagnosing and monitoring response to therapy by avoiding the potential scarring and pain of biopsy,” reported Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the laboratory inflammatory skin diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

The concept of using adhesive strips to remove surface skin cells for clinical study has been around for more than 20 years, but there has been recent progress. A newly published study, which compared skin from patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) or psoriasis with that of controls, was characterized as “the most comprehensive tape strip molecular profiling in any inflammatory skin disease to date and the first to fully characterize and compare AD to psoriasis,” wrote Dr. Guttman-Yassky, the senior author, and coauthors.

It also appears to be a leap forward. RNA sequencing detected thousands of differentially expressed genes reflecting immune and barrier biomarkers characteristic of the molecular phenotypes of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. These were not only found to be consistent with biopsy studies but identified additional unique genes and pathways relevant to their pathological signature.

“In the past, the success rate for transcriptome sequencing even for a more limited panel of proteins was approaching 50% when considering both lesional, nonlesional skin, and healthy skin, but we are now approaching 100% for sample recovery and for analysis of RNA and genes,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in an interview.

Tissue samples were obtained with tape strips from lesional and nonlesional skin from 20 patients with AD and 20 patients with psoriasis. Compared with 20 tape strips from controls, they were evaluated with RNA sequencing followed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction of immune and barrier biomarkers.

The sample recovery rate was 96% overall and 95% or better regardless of whether the skin was lesional or nonlesional.

With RNA sequencing of more than 20,000 transcripts, including multiple cellular, immune, and barrier biomarkers, an enormous amount of data was generated, but the key finding is that these diseases are readily distinguished with profiling based on tape strips.

Although numerous biomarkers were shared, “tape strips completely discriminate between atopic dermatitis and psoriasis with a degree of reliability that is comparable to skin biopsy,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said.

One of the biomarkers, expression of nitric oxide synthase 2/inducible nitric oxide synthase, distinguished AD from psoriasis with 100% accuracy. As previously reported in biopsy studies, other biomarkers collectively associated AD with a profile related to a Th2-type inflammatory response and psoriasis with a Th17-type inflammatory response.

Tape strips also confirmed significant pathology in the nonlesional as well as the lesional skin of patients with AD or psoriasis. This included an increase in Th2-type products, such as interleukin-4 and IL-13, in nonlesional skin of atopic dermatitis and Th17-type products, such as IL-17, in nonlesional skin of psoriasis.

Some biomarkers of AD and psoriasis had an even greater differentiation in tape strips than previously reported from biopsy studies, according to Dr. Guttman-Yassky. In this study, tape strips also captured more differentially expressed genes than previously reported with biopsies.

One potential limitation of tape strips is that the RNA isolation process is time consuming, but this might be less of an issue in routine clinical use if there is a more refined number of biomarkers that are targeted or if technological improvements simplify processing, Dr. Guttman-Yassky pointed out.

To develop clinical utility for tape strips beyond AD and psoriasis, more work is needed to standardize the depth of sampling, which is variable with tape strips, she noted. Depth is relevant to the analysis of gene expression and mRNA activity of each dermatologic disease.

“Tape strips remain a research tool for now, but we do think that this technique can be refined and employed for clinical purposes, including diagnosis and monitoring response to treatment,” she said.

Relative to biopsy, the advantages are not difficult to envision. Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recently published a study of tape strips for evaluating AD in children emphasized that tape strips are generally painless.

“Patients really do not mind tape strips,” she said. Although she believes that tape strips are providing unique insight into the pathology of inflammatory diseases not necessarily available with biopsy, she emphasized the practical value. Not least, “these could really help when the goal is to evaluate response to therapy over time.”

Another investigator who has conducted studies with tape strips, Maja-Lisa Clausen, MD, PhD, also thinks tape strips are likely to become routine clinical tools.

“Once the basis research, validation, and data are out, I think numerous companies will be ready to develop machines for more quick and easy processing, compared to the more labor intensive process that is used today for research,” explained Dr. Clausen, who is in the department of dermatology, Bispebjerb Hospital, University of Copenhagen.

She considers tape strips particularly promising for children, but she thinks the biomarker profiling made possible by these strips might be leading to personalized treatment programs for dermatologic diseases.

“What we need is further validation; which tape to use, how deep, and the importance of storage, which is a big issue in the clinic,” Dr. Clausen said in an interview.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those with therapies for psoriasis.

SOURCE: Guttman-Yassky E et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.048.

Collecting cells from the skin surface with adhesive tape strips is demonstrating a level of accuracy that is rivaling skin biopsies for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, promising a minimally invasive approach for monitoring these and potentially other dermatologic diseases, according to the latest advances with this approach.

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“Tape strips are not going to fully replace biopsies, but we think they will have an important role in diagnosing and monitoring response to therapy by avoiding the potential scarring and pain of biopsy,” reported Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the laboratory inflammatory skin diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

The concept of using adhesive strips to remove surface skin cells for clinical study has been around for more than 20 years, but there has been recent progress. A newly published study, which compared skin from patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) or psoriasis with that of controls, was characterized as “the most comprehensive tape strip molecular profiling in any inflammatory skin disease to date and the first to fully characterize and compare AD to psoriasis,” wrote Dr. Guttman-Yassky, the senior author, and coauthors.

It also appears to be a leap forward. RNA sequencing detected thousands of differentially expressed genes reflecting immune and barrier biomarkers characteristic of the molecular phenotypes of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. These were not only found to be consistent with biopsy studies but identified additional unique genes and pathways relevant to their pathological signature.

“In the past, the success rate for transcriptome sequencing even for a more limited panel of proteins was approaching 50% when considering both lesional, nonlesional skin, and healthy skin, but we are now approaching 100% for sample recovery and for analysis of RNA and genes,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in an interview.

Tissue samples were obtained with tape strips from lesional and nonlesional skin from 20 patients with AD and 20 patients with psoriasis. Compared with 20 tape strips from controls, they were evaluated with RNA sequencing followed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction of immune and barrier biomarkers.

The sample recovery rate was 96% overall and 95% or better regardless of whether the skin was lesional or nonlesional.

With RNA sequencing of more than 20,000 transcripts, including multiple cellular, immune, and barrier biomarkers, an enormous amount of data was generated, but the key finding is that these diseases are readily distinguished with profiling based on tape strips.

Although numerous biomarkers were shared, “tape strips completely discriminate between atopic dermatitis and psoriasis with a degree of reliability that is comparable to skin biopsy,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said.

One of the biomarkers, expression of nitric oxide synthase 2/inducible nitric oxide synthase, distinguished AD from psoriasis with 100% accuracy. As previously reported in biopsy studies, other biomarkers collectively associated AD with a profile related to a Th2-type inflammatory response and psoriasis with a Th17-type inflammatory response.

Tape strips also confirmed significant pathology in the nonlesional as well as the lesional skin of patients with AD or psoriasis. This included an increase in Th2-type products, such as interleukin-4 and IL-13, in nonlesional skin of atopic dermatitis and Th17-type products, such as IL-17, in nonlesional skin of psoriasis.

Some biomarkers of AD and psoriasis had an even greater differentiation in tape strips than previously reported from biopsy studies, according to Dr. Guttman-Yassky. In this study, tape strips also captured more differentially expressed genes than previously reported with biopsies.

One potential limitation of tape strips is that the RNA isolation process is time consuming, but this might be less of an issue in routine clinical use if there is a more refined number of biomarkers that are targeted or if technological improvements simplify processing, Dr. Guttman-Yassky pointed out.

To develop clinical utility for tape strips beyond AD and psoriasis, more work is needed to standardize the depth of sampling, which is variable with tape strips, she noted. Depth is relevant to the analysis of gene expression and mRNA activity of each dermatologic disease.

“Tape strips remain a research tool for now, but we do think that this technique can be refined and employed for clinical purposes, including diagnosis and monitoring response to treatment,” she said.

Relative to biopsy, the advantages are not difficult to envision. Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recently published a study of tape strips for evaluating AD in children emphasized that tape strips are generally painless.

“Patients really do not mind tape strips,” she said. Although she believes that tape strips are providing unique insight into the pathology of inflammatory diseases not necessarily available with biopsy, she emphasized the practical value. Not least, “these could really help when the goal is to evaluate response to therapy over time.”

Another investigator who has conducted studies with tape strips, Maja-Lisa Clausen, MD, PhD, also thinks tape strips are likely to become routine clinical tools.

“Once the basis research, validation, and data are out, I think numerous companies will be ready to develop machines for more quick and easy processing, compared to the more labor intensive process that is used today for research,” explained Dr. Clausen, who is in the department of dermatology, Bispebjerb Hospital, University of Copenhagen.

She considers tape strips particularly promising for children, but she thinks the biomarker profiling made possible by these strips might be leading to personalized treatment programs for dermatologic diseases.

“What we need is further validation; which tape to use, how deep, and the importance of storage, which is a big issue in the clinic,” Dr. Clausen said in an interview.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those with therapies for psoriasis.

SOURCE: Guttman-Yassky E et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.048.

Collecting cells from the skin surface with adhesive tape strips is demonstrating a level of accuracy that is rivaling skin biopsies for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, promising a minimally invasive approach for monitoring these and potentially other dermatologic diseases, according to the latest advances with this approach.

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“Tape strips are not going to fully replace biopsies, but we think they will have an important role in diagnosing and monitoring response to therapy by avoiding the potential scarring and pain of biopsy,” reported Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the laboratory inflammatory skin diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

The concept of using adhesive strips to remove surface skin cells for clinical study has been around for more than 20 years, but there has been recent progress. A newly published study, which compared skin from patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) or psoriasis with that of controls, was characterized as “the most comprehensive tape strip molecular profiling in any inflammatory skin disease to date and the first to fully characterize and compare AD to psoriasis,” wrote Dr. Guttman-Yassky, the senior author, and coauthors.

It also appears to be a leap forward. RNA sequencing detected thousands of differentially expressed genes reflecting immune and barrier biomarkers characteristic of the molecular phenotypes of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. These were not only found to be consistent with biopsy studies but identified additional unique genes and pathways relevant to their pathological signature.

“In the past, the success rate for transcriptome sequencing even for a more limited panel of proteins was approaching 50% when considering both lesional, nonlesional skin, and healthy skin, but we are now approaching 100% for sample recovery and for analysis of RNA and genes,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in an interview.

Tissue samples were obtained with tape strips from lesional and nonlesional skin from 20 patients with AD and 20 patients with psoriasis. Compared with 20 tape strips from controls, they were evaluated with RNA sequencing followed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction of immune and barrier biomarkers.

The sample recovery rate was 96% overall and 95% or better regardless of whether the skin was lesional or nonlesional.

With RNA sequencing of more than 20,000 transcripts, including multiple cellular, immune, and barrier biomarkers, an enormous amount of data was generated, but the key finding is that these diseases are readily distinguished with profiling based on tape strips.

Although numerous biomarkers were shared, “tape strips completely discriminate between atopic dermatitis and psoriasis with a degree of reliability that is comparable to skin biopsy,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said.

One of the biomarkers, expression of nitric oxide synthase 2/inducible nitric oxide synthase, distinguished AD from psoriasis with 100% accuracy. As previously reported in biopsy studies, other biomarkers collectively associated AD with a profile related to a Th2-type inflammatory response and psoriasis with a Th17-type inflammatory response.

Tape strips also confirmed significant pathology in the nonlesional as well as the lesional skin of patients with AD or psoriasis. This included an increase in Th2-type products, such as interleukin-4 and IL-13, in nonlesional skin of atopic dermatitis and Th17-type products, such as IL-17, in nonlesional skin of psoriasis.

Some biomarkers of AD and psoriasis had an even greater differentiation in tape strips than previously reported from biopsy studies, according to Dr. Guttman-Yassky. In this study, tape strips also captured more differentially expressed genes than previously reported with biopsies.

One potential limitation of tape strips is that the RNA isolation process is time consuming, but this might be less of an issue in routine clinical use if there is a more refined number of biomarkers that are targeted or if technological improvements simplify processing, Dr. Guttman-Yassky pointed out.

To develop clinical utility for tape strips beyond AD and psoriasis, more work is needed to standardize the depth of sampling, which is variable with tape strips, she noted. Depth is relevant to the analysis of gene expression and mRNA activity of each dermatologic disease.

“Tape strips remain a research tool for now, but we do think that this technique can be refined and employed for clinical purposes, including diagnosis and monitoring response to treatment,” she said.

Relative to biopsy, the advantages are not difficult to envision. Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recently published a study of tape strips for evaluating AD in children emphasized that tape strips are generally painless.

“Patients really do not mind tape strips,” she said. Although she believes that tape strips are providing unique insight into the pathology of inflammatory diseases not necessarily available with biopsy, she emphasized the practical value. Not least, “these could really help when the goal is to evaluate response to therapy over time.”

Another investigator who has conducted studies with tape strips, Maja-Lisa Clausen, MD, PhD, also thinks tape strips are likely to become routine clinical tools.

“Once the basis research, validation, and data are out, I think numerous companies will be ready to develop machines for more quick and easy processing, compared to the more labor intensive process that is used today for research,” explained Dr. Clausen, who is in the department of dermatology, Bispebjerb Hospital, University of Copenhagen.

She considers tape strips particularly promising for children, but she thinks the biomarker profiling made possible by these strips might be leading to personalized treatment programs for dermatologic diseases.

“What we need is further validation; which tape to use, how deep, and the importance of storage, which is a big issue in the clinic,” Dr. Clausen said in an interview.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those with therapies for psoriasis.

SOURCE: Guttman-Yassky E et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.048.

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

An article published in March in the Journal of the American Heart Association that raised a ruckus on #medtwitter this week has now been retracted.   

It’s unclear what prompted the public explosion of anger, sadness, and recrimination that ultimately led to the retraction of this article – which flew almost completely under the radar when it first appeared online and in print – but it’s crystal clear why it might offend.

To many readers, the paper, written by Norman C. Wang, MD, MSc, an electrophysiologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, is a “racist” rant that relies on half-truths (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Mar 24. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.015959).

Officially, the article, “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce in the United States of America From 1969 to 2019,” was retracted after the American Heart Association “became aware of serious concerns after publication. The author’s institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, has notified the Editor‐in‐Chief that the article contains many misconceptions and misquotes and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity,” the retraction reads (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014602).

The journal will be publishing a detailed rebuttal, the notice adds: “This retraction notice will be updated with a link to the rebuttal when it publishes.”

“The Editor‐in‐Chief deeply regrets publishing the article and offers his apologies,” it further reads. “The American Heart Association and the Editor‐in‐Chief have determined that the best interest of the public and the research community will be served by issuing this notice of retraction. The author does not agree to the retraction.”

In the paper, Dr. Wang argues that affirmative action policies designed to increase minority representation in medical schools and cardiovascular training programs result in unqualified applicants being admitted, where they will struggle to succeed.

The article itself is a dense review of the topic of diversity, inclusion, and equity, aiming to “critically assess current paradigms, and to consider potential solutions to anticipated challenges,” according to its author. Supported by 108 references, Dr. Wang concludes with a lengthy quote from tennis great Arthur Ashe, an opponent of affirmative action who died in 1993.

Affirmative action, said Mr. Ashe, is “an insult to the people it intended to help.” Dr. Wang suggests that “racial and ethnic preferences for undergraduate and medical school admissions should be gradually rolled back with a target end year of 2028.”

He cites the $16 billion in federal funding that cardiovascular disease training programs receive every year to support graduate medical education in support of this contention.
 

#Medtwitter explodes

“My entire lived experience contradicts everything in that racist @JAHA_AHA article, as does the experience of so many others. So, I know it’s just a bad opinion piece passed off as ‘research’ that shouldn’t have been published. Still the damage has been done. We MUST do better,” tweeted Bryan A. Smith, MD, University of Chicago Medicine.

According to its Altmetric score, the article received very little attention back in March and April. There were three tweets referencing it, including one from JAHA announcing its publication. Since Aug. 2, an additional 390-odd Tweets from 347 Twitter users have been registered. None appear to be complimentary. Several days into the Twitter storm, the article was officially retracted.

“This article is shocking and makes me sad,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “We are all working so hard to make cardiology more inclusive and diverse, and this takes us like 1,000 steps backwards.”

For her part, Dr. Gulati would have liked a retraction earlier in the week. “The analysis was selective and incorrect, and the statements made intimate that minority trainees were selected based on affirmative action rather than their merits,” she said. It also suggested that their presence was representative of a decline in standards in cardiology programs that take underrepresented minorities (URMs).   
 

Standard arguments against affirmative action

According to Dr. Wang, who did not respond to a request to comment for this article, allowing minority students into medical school with academic records that are weaker than their classmates sets them up for failure.

“Many do not complete their intended programs or do not attain academic success to be attractive candidates for subsequent educational programs or employment,” he wrote.

This is a standard argument of opponents to affirmative action, said Quinn Capers IV, MD. Dr. Capers, a longtime advocate for diversity in medicine, acknowledges that, “on average,” test scores for Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans tend to be lower than for White applicants for a wide range of reasons, many of which are related to systemic racism.

“This is the strongest weapon opponents to affirmative action have, and they keep coming back to it, but it’s out of step with how many in academic medicine feel,” said Dr. Capers, who is an interventional cardiologist and the vice dean for faculty affairs at Ohio State University, Columbus.

This is why, he added, most medical schools have embraced the Association of American Medical Colleges’ concept of “holistic review,” which judges potential physicians on their academic records, their personal experiences, and their individual attributes.

“Standardized tests and academic records are important, but so are the experiences one has gone through and the individual attributes they may have. How resilient are you? How compassionate? Our embrace of this more holistic approach, I believe, is helping many medical schools move toward having a more diverse class that is closer to reflecting the needs of our multicultural and multiracial society,” Dr. Capers said. 

To be clear, Dr. Capers is not afraid of having a discussion on this topic and denies that the uproar against this article represents “cancel culture.”

“Hey, I love to debate and I’m not against hearing divisive voices, but then let’s have a debate and hear both sides. But there are several problems with the way they did this. No. 1, they called it a ‘white paper,’ which to most people means it reflects the views of the organization, not a specific individual, and, secondly, it’s more than an opinion piece in that he manipulates facts to make his points, with no chance for rebuttal.”

Several have also questioned how this paper, which is written by a nonexpert in the field, passed peer review.

The article contains some accurate historical references, said Dr. Capers, but intertwined with this history the author editorializes in a fashion that is “charged with racism.” In other places, Dr. Wang is just outright wrong, he added. 

“I can also tell you that, in one place where he quotes me specifically, what he says is quite damaging and completely wrong. He quotes something we wrote but cuts off the final sentence, making it seem as though we acknowledged that we had to artificially rank minority applicants high, just so we could say we have a diverse fellowship program.

“It’s frankly very hard to believe that was an accident,” Dr. Capers added.
 

AHA backs away, promises investigation

The article has been disowned by all levels of the AHA leadership – past, present, and future.

In an Editor’s Note, Barry London, MD, PhD, the Editor in chief of the Journal of the American Heart Association, apologized for his role and the role of his staff in publishing the article.

“JAHA will support all efforts to correct this error, including but not limited to the publication of alternate viewpoints, which we solicited at the time of publication but have not yet been submitted to the journal. In addition, we will work to improve our peer review system to prevent future missteps of this type,” Dr. London wrote. “I can only hope that igniting a discussion around diversity in cardiology will ultimately fuel new ideas and lead to real advances.”

“I want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that this paper does not represent the views of the AHA as an organization or its leadership. This paper should never have been published. A thorough investigation is rightly being conducted,” tweeted Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MPhil, who took over the AHA presidency last month.

“Author’s views are racist and not consistent with my values nor AHA,” tweeted Robert Harrington, MD, immediate past president of the AHA. ‘Investigation is underway into how it made it through the editorial process. Like you, I want to know what happened. I am angry, frustrated and disappointed that this piece was published; expect review soon.’

“Agree with @HeartBobH. It is impossible not to hear and feel the hurt and pain out there on a very personal level, especially among our young colleagues. You are valued, and worthy. Please stay tuned and then help all of us work to be better,” tweeted Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of AHA.

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

An article published in March in the Journal of the American Heart Association that raised a ruckus on #medtwitter this week has now been retracted.   

It’s unclear what prompted the public explosion of anger, sadness, and recrimination that ultimately led to the retraction of this article – which flew almost completely under the radar when it first appeared online and in print – but it’s crystal clear why it might offend.

To many readers, the paper, written by Norman C. Wang, MD, MSc, an electrophysiologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, is a “racist” rant that relies on half-truths (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Mar 24. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.015959).

Officially, the article, “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce in the United States of America From 1969 to 2019,” was retracted after the American Heart Association “became aware of serious concerns after publication. The author’s institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, has notified the Editor‐in‐Chief that the article contains many misconceptions and misquotes and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity,” the retraction reads (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014602).

The journal will be publishing a detailed rebuttal, the notice adds: “This retraction notice will be updated with a link to the rebuttal when it publishes.”

“The Editor‐in‐Chief deeply regrets publishing the article and offers his apologies,” it further reads. “The American Heart Association and the Editor‐in‐Chief have determined that the best interest of the public and the research community will be served by issuing this notice of retraction. The author does not agree to the retraction.”

In the paper, Dr. Wang argues that affirmative action policies designed to increase minority representation in medical schools and cardiovascular training programs result in unqualified applicants being admitted, where they will struggle to succeed.

The article itself is a dense review of the topic of diversity, inclusion, and equity, aiming to “critically assess current paradigms, and to consider potential solutions to anticipated challenges,” according to its author. Supported by 108 references, Dr. Wang concludes with a lengthy quote from tennis great Arthur Ashe, an opponent of affirmative action who died in 1993.

Affirmative action, said Mr. Ashe, is “an insult to the people it intended to help.” Dr. Wang suggests that “racial and ethnic preferences for undergraduate and medical school admissions should be gradually rolled back with a target end year of 2028.”

He cites the $16 billion in federal funding that cardiovascular disease training programs receive every year to support graduate medical education in support of this contention.
 

#Medtwitter explodes

“My entire lived experience contradicts everything in that racist @JAHA_AHA article, as does the experience of so many others. So, I know it’s just a bad opinion piece passed off as ‘research’ that shouldn’t have been published. Still the damage has been done. We MUST do better,” tweeted Bryan A. Smith, MD, University of Chicago Medicine.

According to its Altmetric score, the article received very little attention back in March and April. There were three tweets referencing it, including one from JAHA announcing its publication. Since Aug. 2, an additional 390-odd Tweets from 347 Twitter users have been registered. None appear to be complimentary. Several days into the Twitter storm, the article was officially retracted.

“This article is shocking and makes me sad,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “We are all working so hard to make cardiology more inclusive and diverse, and this takes us like 1,000 steps backwards.”

For her part, Dr. Gulati would have liked a retraction earlier in the week. “The analysis was selective and incorrect, and the statements made intimate that minority trainees were selected based on affirmative action rather than their merits,” she said. It also suggested that their presence was representative of a decline in standards in cardiology programs that take underrepresented minorities (URMs).   
 

Standard arguments against affirmative action

According to Dr. Wang, who did not respond to a request to comment for this article, allowing minority students into medical school with academic records that are weaker than their classmates sets them up for failure.

“Many do not complete their intended programs or do not attain academic success to be attractive candidates for subsequent educational programs or employment,” he wrote.

This is a standard argument of opponents to affirmative action, said Quinn Capers IV, MD. Dr. Capers, a longtime advocate for diversity in medicine, acknowledges that, “on average,” test scores for Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans tend to be lower than for White applicants for a wide range of reasons, many of which are related to systemic racism.

“This is the strongest weapon opponents to affirmative action have, and they keep coming back to it, but it’s out of step with how many in academic medicine feel,” said Dr. Capers, who is an interventional cardiologist and the vice dean for faculty affairs at Ohio State University, Columbus.

This is why, he added, most medical schools have embraced the Association of American Medical Colleges’ concept of “holistic review,” which judges potential physicians on their academic records, their personal experiences, and their individual attributes.

“Standardized tests and academic records are important, but so are the experiences one has gone through and the individual attributes they may have. How resilient are you? How compassionate? Our embrace of this more holistic approach, I believe, is helping many medical schools move toward having a more diverse class that is closer to reflecting the needs of our multicultural and multiracial society,” Dr. Capers said. 

To be clear, Dr. Capers is not afraid of having a discussion on this topic and denies that the uproar against this article represents “cancel culture.”

“Hey, I love to debate and I’m not against hearing divisive voices, but then let’s have a debate and hear both sides. But there are several problems with the way they did this. No. 1, they called it a ‘white paper,’ which to most people means it reflects the views of the organization, not a specific individual, and, secondly, it’s more than an opinion piece in that he manipulates facts to make his points, with no chance for rebuttal.”

Several have also questioned how this paper, which is written by a nonexpert in the field, passed peer review.

The article contains some accurate historical references, said Dr. Capers, but intertwined with this history the author editorializes in a fashion that is “charged with racism.” In other places, Dr. Wang is just outright wrong, he added. 

“I can also tell you that, in one place where he quotes me specifically, what he says is quite damaging and completely wrong. He quotes something we wrote but cuts off the final sentence, making it seem as though we acknowledged that we had to artificially rank minority applicants high, just so we could say we have a diverse fellowship program.

“It’s frankly very hard to believe that was an accident,” Dr. Capers added.
 

AHA backs away, promises investigation

The article has been disowned by all levels of the AHA leadership – past, present, and future.

In an Editor’s Note, Barry London, MD, PhD, the Editor in chief of the Journal of the American Heart Association, apologized for his role and the role of his staff in publishing the article.

“JAHA will support all efforts to correct this error, including but not limited to the publication of alternate viewpoints, which we solicited at the time of publication but have not yet been submitted to the journal. In addition, we will work to improve our peer review system to prevent future missteps of this type,” Dr. London wrote. “I can only hope that igniting a discussion around diversity in cardiology will ultimately fuel new ideas and lead to real advances.”

“I want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that this paper does not represent the views of the AHA as an organization or its leadership. This paper should never have been published. A thorough investigation is rightly being conducted,” tweeted Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MPhil, who took over the AHA presidency last month.

“Author’s views are racist and not consistent with my values nor AHA,” tweeted Robert Harrington, MD, immediate past president of the AHA. ‘Investigation is underway into how it made it through the editorial process. Like you, I want to know what happened. I am angry, frustrated and disappointed that this piece was published; expect review soon.’

“Agree with @HeartBobH. It is impossible not to hear and feel the hurt and pain out there on a very personal level, especially among our young colleagues. You are valued, and worthy. Please stay tuned and then help all of us work to be better,” tweeted Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of AHA.

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

An article published in March in the Journal of the American Heart Association that raised a ruckus on #medtwitter this week has now been retracted.   

It’s unclear what prompted the public explosion of anger, sadness, and recrimination that ultimately led to the retraction of this article – which flew almost completely under the radar when it first appeared online and in print – but it’s crystal clear why it might offend.

To many readers, the paper, written by Norman C. Wang, MD, MSc, an electrophysiologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, is a “racist” rant that relies on half-truths (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Mar 24. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.015959).

Officially, the article, “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce in the United States of America From 1969 to 2019,” was retracted after the American Heart Association “became aware of serious concerns after publication. The author’s institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, has notified the Editor‐in‐Chief that the article contains many misconceptions and misquotes and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity,” the retraction reads (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014602).

The journal will be publishing a detailed rebuttal, the notice adds: “This retraction notice will be updated with a link to the rebuttal when it publishes.”

“The Editor‐in‐Chief deeply regrets publishing the article and offers his apologies,” it further reads. “The American Heart Association and the Editor‐in‐Chief have determined that the best interest of the public and the research community will be served by issuing this notice of retraction. The author does not agree to the retraction.”

In the paper, Dr. Wang argues that affirmative action policies designed to increase minority representation in medical schools and cardiovascular training programs result in unqualified applicants being admitted, where they will struggle to succeed.

The article itself is a dense review of the topic of diversity, inclusion, and equity, aiming to “critically assess current paradigms, and to consider potential solutions to anticipated challenges,” according to its author. Supported by 108 references, Dr. Wang concludes with a lengthy quote from tennis great Arthur Ashe, an opponent of affirmative action who died in 1993.

Affirmative action, said Mr. Ashe, is “an insult to the people it intended to help.” Dr. Wang suggests that “racial and ethnic preferences for undergraduate and medical school admissions should be gradually rolled back with a target end year of 2028.”

He cites the $16 billion in federal funding that cardiovascular disease training programs receive every year to support graduate medical education in support of this contention.
 

#Medtwitter explodes

“My entire lived experience contradicts everything in that racist @JAHA_AHA article, as does the experience of so many others. So, I know it’s just a bad opinion piece passed off as ‘research’ that shouldn’t have been published. Still the damage has been done. We MUST do better,” tweeted Bryan A. Smith, MD, University of Chicago Medicine.

According to its Altmetric score, the article received very little attention back in March and April. There were three tweets referencing it, including one from JAHA announcing its publication. Since Aug. 2, an additional 390-odd Tweets from 347 Twitter users have been registered. None appear to be complimentary. Several days into the Twitter storm, the article was officially retracted.

“This article is shocking and makes me sad,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “We are all working so hard to make cardiology more inclusive and diverse, and this takes us like 1,000 steps backwards.”

For her part, Dr. Gulati would have liked a retraction earlier in the week. “The analysis was selective and incorrect, and the statements made intimate that minority trainees were selected based on affirmative action rather than their merits,” she said. It also suggested that their presence was representative of a decline in standards in cardiology programs that take underrepresented minorities (URMs).   
 

Standard arguments against affirmative action

According to Dr. Wang, who did not respond to a request to comment for this article, allowing minority students into medical school with academic records that are weaker than their classmates sets them up for failure.

“Many do not complete their intended programs or do not attain academic success to be attractive candidates for subsequent educational programs or employment,” he wrote.

This is a standard argument of opponents to affirmative action, said Quinn Capers IV, MD. Dr. Capers, a longtime advocate for diversity in medicine, acknowledges that, “on average,” test scores for Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans tend to be lower than for White applicants for a wide range of reasons, many of which are related to systemic racism.

“This is the strongest weapon opponents to affirmative action have, and they keep coming back to it, but it’s out of step with how many in academic medicine feel,” said Dr. Capers, who is an interventional cardiologist and the vice dean for faculty affairs at Ohio State University, Columbus.

This is why, he added, most medical schools have embraced the Association of American Medical Colleges’ concept of “holistic review,” which judges potential physicians on their academic records, their personal experiences, and their individual attributes.

“Standardized tests and academic records are important, but so are the experiences one has gone through and the individual attributes they may have. How resilient are you? How compassionate? Our embrace of this more holistic approach, I believe, is helping many medical schools move toward having a more diverse class that is closer to reflecting the needs of our multicultural and multiracial society,” Dr. Capers said. 

To be clear, Dr. Capers is not afraid of having a discussion on this topic and denies that the uproar against this article represents “cancel culture.”

“Hey, I love to debate and I’m not against hearing divisive voices, but then let’s have a debate and hear both sides. But there are several problems with the way they did this. No. 1, they called it a ‘white paper,’ which to most people means it reflects the views of the organization, not a specific individual, and, secondly, it’s more than an opinion piece in that he manipulates facts to make his points, with no chance for rebuttal.”

Several have also questioned how this paper, which is written by a nonexpert in the field, passed peer review.

The article contains some accurate historical references, said Dr. Capers, but intertwined with this history the author editorializes in a fashion that is “charged with racism.” In other places, Dr. Wang is just outright wrong, he added. 

“I can also tell you that, in one place where he quotes me specifically, what he says is quite damaging and completely wrong. He quotes something we wrote but cuts off the final sentence, making it seem as though we acknowledged that we had to artificially rank minority applicants high, just so we could say we have a diverse fellowship program.

“It’s frankly very hard to believe that was an accident,” Dr. Capers added.
 

AHA backs away, promises investigation

The article has been disowned by all levels of the AHA leadership – past, present, and future.

In an Editor’s Note, Barry London, MD, PhD, the Editor in chief of the Journal of the American Heart Association, apologized for his role and the role of his staff in publishing the article.

“JAHA will support all efforts to correct this error, including but not limited to the publication of alternate viewpoints, which we solicited at the time of publication but have not yet been submitted to the journal. In addition, we will work to improve our peer review system to prevent future missteps of this type,” Dr. London wrote. “I can only hope that igniting a discussion around diversity in cardiology will ultimately fuel new ideas and lead to real advances.”

“I want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that this paper does not represent the views of the AHA as an organization or its leadership. This paper should never have been published. A thorough investigation is rightly being conducted,” tweeted Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MPhil, who took over the AHA presidency last month.

“Author’s views are racist and not consistent with my values nor AHA,” tweeted Robert Harrington, MD, immediate past president of the AHA. ‘Investigation is underway into how it made it through the editorial process. Like you, I want to know what happened. I am angry, frustrated and disappointed that this piece was published; expect review soon.’

“Agree with @HeartBobH. It is impossible not to hear and feel the hurt and pain out there on a very personal level, especially among our young colleagues. You are valued, and worthy. Please stay tuned and then help all of us work to be better,” tweeted Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of AHA.

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