Perspectives

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

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

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

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

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

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

The list of things to be ungrateful for last year is long. You’re not supposed to make this list, though. The best practice is to list what you’re grateful for, even when living in trying times. That’s a long list too, but I find making it similarly unfruitful.

Of course, I’m grateful I don’t have COVID-19, thankful my practice hasn’t been significantly impacted, grateful I got the vaccine. But simply repeating these gratitudes daily seems ineffective. I’ve learned a different “gratefulness practice” that perhaps works better.

AscentXmedia/E+

The last question is the best. We all spend time thinking about what others think of us. We should spend time thinking about what impact we’ve had on them. Like a cold shower, it’s both briskly awakening and easy to do. Go back through your day and reflect on what you did that made things difficult for others. It can be as simple as I started whining about how a patient waylaid me with her silly complaints. That led to my colleague’s joining in about difficult patients. Or I was late turning in my article, which made my editor have to work harder to get it completed in time.

There’s plenty of things we should be grateful for. In doing these exercises you’ll learn just how much others have cared for you and, I hope, how you might do things to make them grateful for you.

If you’re interested in learning more about Naikan, I discovered this from Brett McKay’s The Art of Manliness podcast and the teaching of Gregg Krech, summarized in his book, “Naikan: Gratitude, Grace, and the Japanese Art of Self-Reflection.”
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .

The list of things to be ungrateful for last year is long. You’re not supposed to make this list, though. The best practice is to list what you’re grateful for, even when living in trying times. That’s a long list too, but I find making it similarly unfruitful.

Of course, I’m grateful I don’t have COVID-19, thankful my practice hasn’t been significantly impacted, grateful I got the vaccine. But simply repeating these gratitudes daily seems ineffective. I’ve learned a different “gratefulness practice” that perhaps works better.

AscentXmedia/E+

The last question is the best. We all spend time thinking about what others think of us. We should spend time thinking about what impact we’ve had on them. Like a cold shower, it’s both briskly awakening and easy to do. Go back through your day and reflect on what you did that made things difficult for others. It can be as simple as I started whining about how a patient waylaid me with her silly complaints. That led to my colleague’s joining in about difficult patients. Or I was late turning in my article, which made my editor have to work harder to get it completed in time.

There’s plenty of things we should be grateful for. In doing these exercises you’ll learn just how much others have cared for you and, I hope, how you might do things to make them grateful for you.

If you’re interested in learning more about Naikan, I discovered this from Brett McKay’s The Art of Manliness podcast and the teaching of Gregg Krech, summarized in his book, “Naikan: Gratitude, Grace, and the Japanese Art of Self-Reflection.”
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .

The list of things to be ungrateful for last year is long. You’re not supposed to make this list, though. The best practice is to list what you’re grateful for, even when living in trying times. That’s a long list too, but I find making it similarly unfruitful.

Of course, I’m grateful I don’t have COVID-19, thankful my practice hasn’t been significantly impacted, grateful I got the vaccine. But simply repeating these gratitudes daily seems ineffective. I’ve learned a different “gratefulness practice” that perhaps works better.

AscentXmedia/E+

The last question is the best. We all spend time thinking about what others think of us. We should spend time thinking about what impact we’ve had on them. Like a cold shower, it’s both briskly awakening and easy to do. Go back through your day and reflect on what you did that made things difficult for others. It can be as simple as I started whining about how a patient waylaid me with her silly complaints. That led to my colleague’s joining in about difficult patients. Or I was late turning in my article, which made my editor have to work harder to get it completed in time.

There’s plenty of things we should be grateful for. In doing these exercises you’ll learn just how much others have cared for you and, I hope, how you might do things to make them grateful for you.

If you’re interested in learning more about Naikan, I discovered this from Brett McKay’s The Art of Manliness podcast and the teaching of Gregg Krech, summarized in his book, “Naikan: Gratitude, Grace, and the Japanese Art of Self-Reflection.”
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .

Several updates in the strategy for prevention of and treatment of sexually transmitted infections were recently published in the United States.

Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.

• Prevent New STIs.
• Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
• Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
• Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.¹

In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.

“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.² STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
 

Preventing new STIs

Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.

The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.²

The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.

Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.

The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.

In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
 

Treating STIs

Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.

In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.

This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.³

For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
 

Accelerating progress in STI research

Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.

Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities

Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.

If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.

By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
 

Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts

Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.

Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.

3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.

Several updates in the strategy for prevention of and treatment of sexually transmitted infections were recently published in the United States.

Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.

• Prevent New STIs.
• Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
• Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
• Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.¹

In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.

“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.² STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
 

Preventing new STIs

Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.

The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.²

The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.

Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.

The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.

In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
 

Treating STIs

Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.

In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.

This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.³

For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
 

Accelerating progress in STI research

Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.

Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities

Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.

If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.

By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
 

Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts

Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.

Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.

3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.

Several updates in the strategy for prevention of and treatment of sexually transmitted infections were recently published in the United States.

Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.

• Prevent New STIs.
• Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
• Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
• Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.¹

In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.

“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.² STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
 

Preventing new STIs

Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.

The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.²

The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.

Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.

The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.

In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
 

Treating STIs

Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.

In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.

This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.³

For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
 

Accelerating progress in STI research

Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.

Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities

Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.

If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.

By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
 

Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts

Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.

Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.

3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.

Nipple eczema is a dermatitis of the nipple and areola with clinical features such as erythema, fissures, scaling, pruritus, and crusting.^1,2 It is classically associated with atopic dermatitis (AD), though it may occur as an isolated condition less commonly. While it may affect female adolescents, nipple eczema has also been reported in boys and breastfeeding women.^3,4 The overall risk of incidence of nipple dermatitis has also been shown to increase with age.⁵ Nipple eczema is considered a cutaneous finding of AD, and is listed as a minor diagnostic criteria for AD in the Hanifin-Rajka criteria.⁶ The patient had not related his history of AD, which was elicited after finding typical antecubital eczematous dermatitis, and he had not been actively treating it.
 

Diagnosis and differential

Nipple eczema may be a challenging diagnosis for various reasons. For example, a unilateral presentation and the changes in the eczematous lesions overlying the nipple and areola’s varying textures and colors can make it difficult for clinicians to identify.³ Many children and adolescents, including our patient, are initially diagnosed as having impetigo and treated with antibiotics. The diagnosis of nipple eczema is made clinically, and management straightforward (see below). However, additional testing may be appropriate including patch testing for allergic contact dermatitis or bacterial cultures if bacterial infection or superinfection is considered.^7,8 The differential diagnosis for nipple eczema includes impetigo, gynecomastia, scabies, and allergic contact dermatitis.

Impetigo typically presents with honey-colored crusts or pustules caused by infection with Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus. Patients with AD have higher rates of colonization with S. aureus and impetiginized eczema in common. Impetigo of the nipple and areola is more common in breastfeeding women as skin cracking from lactation can lead to exposure to bacteria from the infant’s mouth.⁹ Treatments involve topical or oral antibiotics.

Gynecomastia is the development of male breast tissue with most cases hypothesized to be caused by an imbalance between androgens and estrogens.¹⁰ Some other causes include direct skin contact with topical estrogen sprays and recreational use of marijuana and heroin.¹¹ It is usually a benign exam finding in adolescent boys. However, clinical findings such as overlying skin changes, rapidly enlarging masses, and constitutional symptoms are concerning in the setting of gynecomastia and warrant further evaluation.

Scabies, which is caused by the infestation of scabies mites, is a common infectious skin disease. The classic presentation includes a rash that is intensely itchy, especially at night. Crusted scabies of the nipples may be difficult to distinguish from nipple eczema. Areas of frequent involvement of scabies include palms, between fingers, armpits, groin, between toes, and feet. Treatments include treating all household members with permethrin cream and washing all clothes and bedding in contact with a scabies-infected patient in high heat, or oral ivermectin in certain circumstances.¹²

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common cause of breast and nipple dermatitis and should be considered within the differential diagnosis of nipple eczema with atopic dermatitis, or as an exacerbator.^7,9 Patients in particular who present with bilateral involvement extending to the periareolar skin, or unusual bilateral focal patterns suggestive for contact allergy should be considered for allergic contact dermatitis evaluation with patch tests. A common causative agent for allergic contact dermatitis of the breast and nipple includes Cl+Me-isothiazolinone, commonly found in detergents and fabric softeners.⁷ Primary treatment includes avoidance of the offending agents.
 

Treatment

Topical corticosteroids are first-line treatment for treating nipple eczema. Low-potency topical steroids can be used for maintenance and mild eczema while more potent steroids are useful for more severe cases. In addition to topical medication therapy, frequent emollient use to protect the skin barrier and the elimination of any irritants are essential to a successful treatment course. Unilateral nipple eczema can also be secondary to inadequate treatment of AD, demonstrating the importance of addressing the underlying AD with therapy.³

Our patient was diagnosed with nipple eczema based on clinical presentation of an eczematous left nipple in the setting of active atopic dermatitis and minimal improvement on topical antibiotic. He was started on a 3-week course of fluocinonide 0.05% topical ointment (a potent topical corticosteroid) twice daily for 2 weeks with plans to transition to triamcinolone 0.1% topical ointment several times a week.

Ms. Park is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital. Neither Ms. Park nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Pediatr Dermatol. 2005;22(1):64-6.

2. Am J Dermatopathol. 2015;37(4):284-8.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32(5):718-22.

4. J Cutan Med Surg. 2004;8(2):126-30.

5. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29(5):580-3.

6. Dermatologica. 1988;177(6):360-4.

7. Ann Dermatol. 2014;26(3):413-4.

8. BMJ Case Rep. 2020;13(8).

9. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(6):1483-94.

10. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2017;14(4):371-7.

11. JAMA. 2010;304(9):953.

12. JAMA. 2018;320(6):612.

Nipple eczema is a dermatitis of the nipple and areola with clinical features such as erythema, fissures, scaling, pruritus, and crusting.^1,2 It is classically associated with atopic dermatitis (AD), though it may occur as an isolated condition less commonly. While it may affect female adolescents, nipple eczema has also been reported in boys and breastfeeding women.^3,4 The overall risk of incidence of nipple dermatitis has also been shown to increase with age.⁵ Nipple eczema is considered a cutaneous finding of AD, and is listed as a minor diagnostic criteria for AD in the Hanifin-Rajka criteria.⁶ The patient had not related his history of AD, which was elicited after finding typical antecubital eczematous dermatitis, and he had not been actively treating it.
 

Diagnosis and differential

Nipple eczema may be a challenging diagnosis for various reasons. For example, a unilateral presentation and the changes in the eczematous lesions overlying the nipple and areola’s varying textures and colors can make it difficult for clinicians to identify.³ Many children and adolescents, including our patient, are initially diagnosed as having impetigo and treated with antibiotics. The diagnosis of nipple eczema is made clinically, and management straightforward (see below). However, additional testing may be appropriate including patch testing for allergic contact dermatitis or bacterial cultures if bacterial infection or superinfection is considered.^7,8 The differential diagnosis for nipple eczema includes impetigo, gynecomastia, scabies, and allergic contact dermatitis.

Impetigo typically presents with honey-colored crusts or pustules caused by infection with Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus. Patients with AD have higher rates of colonization with S. aureus and impetiginized eczema in common. Impetigo of the nipple and areola is more common in breastfeeding women as skin cracking from lactation can lead to exposure to bacteria from the infant’s mouth.⁹ Treatments involve topical or oral antibiotics.

Gynecomastia is the development of male breast tissue with most cases hypothesized to be caused by an imbalance between androgens and estrogens.¹⁰ Some other causes include direct skin contact with topical estrogen sprays and recreational use of marijuana and heroin.¹¹ It is usually a benign exam finding in adolescent boys. However, clinical findings such as overlying skin changes, rapidly enlarging masses, and constitutional symptoms are concerning in the setting of gynecomastia and warrant further evaluation.

Scabies, which is caused by the infestation of scabies mites, is a common infectious skin disease. The classic presentation includes a rash that is intensely itchy, especially at night. Crusted scabies of the nipples may be difficult to distinguish from nipple eczema. Areas of frequent involvement of scabies include palms, between fingers, armpits, groin, between toes, and feet. Treatments include treating all household members with permethrin cream and washing all clothes and bedding in contact with a scabies-infected patient in high heat, or oral ivermectin in certain circumstances.¹²

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common cause of breast and nipple dermatitis and should be considered within the differential diagnosis of nipple eczema with atopic dermatitis, or as an exacerbator.^7,9 Patients in particular who present with bilateral involvement extending to the periareolar skin, or unusual bilateral focal patterns suggestive for contact allergy should be considered for allergic contact dermatitis evaluation with patch tests. A common causative agent for allergic contact dermatitis of the breast and nipple includes Cl+Me-isothiazolinone, commonly found in detergents and fabric softeners.⁷ Primary treatment includes avoidance of the offending agents.
 

Treatment

Topical corticosteroids are first-line treatment for treating nipple eczema. Low-potency topical steroids can be used for maintenance and mild eczema while more potent steroids are useful for more severe cases. In addition to topical medication therapy, frequent emollient use to protect the skin barrier and the elimination of any irritants are essential to a successful treatment course. Unilateral nipple eczema can also be secondary to inadequate treatment of AD, demonstrating the importance of addressing the underlying AD with therapy.³

Our patient was diagnosed with nipple eczema based on clinical presentation of an eczematous left nipple in the setting of active atopic dermatitis and minimal improvement on topical antibiotic. He was started on a 3-week course of fluocinonide 0.05% topical ointment (a potent topical corticosteroid) twice daily for 2 weeks with plans to transition to triamcinolone 0.1% topical ointment several times a week.

Ms. Park is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital. Neither Ms. Park nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Pediatr Dermatol. 2005;22(1):64-6.

2. Am J Dermatopathol. 2015;37(4):284-8.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32(5):718-22.

4. J Cutan Med Surg. 2004;8(2):126-30.

5. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29(5):580-3.

6. Dermatologica. 1988;177(6):360-4.

7. Ann Dermatol. 2014;26(3):413-4.

8. BMJ Case Rep. 2020;13(8).

9. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(6):1483-94.

10. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2017;14(4):371-7.

11. JAMA. 2010;304(9):953.

12. JAMA. 2018;320(6):612.

Nipple eczema is a dermatitis of the nipple and areola with clinical features such as erythema, fissures, scaling, pruritus, and crusting.^1,2 It is classically associated with atopic dermatitis (AD), though it may occur as an isolated condition less commonly. While it may affect female adolescents, nipple eczema has also been reported in boys and breastfeeding women.^3,4 The overall risk of incidence of nipple dermatitis has also been shown to increase with age.⁵ Nipple eczema is considered a cutaneous finding of AD, and is listed as a minor diagnostic criteria for AD in the Hanifin-Rajka criteria.⁶ The patient had not related his history of AD, which was elicited after finding typical antecubital eczematous dermatitis, and he had not been actively treating it.
 

Diagnosis and differential

Nipple eczema may be a challenging diagnosis for various reasons. For example, a unilateral presentation and the changes in the eczematous lesions overlying the nipple and areola’s varying textures and colors can make it difficult for clinicians to identify.³ Many children and adolescents, including our patient, are initially diagnosed as having impetigo and treated with antibiotics. The diagnosis of nipple eczema is made clinically, and management straightforward (see below). However, additional testing may be appropriate including patch testing for allergic contact dermatitis or bacterial cultures if bacterial infection or superinfection is considered.^7,8 The differential diagnosis for nipple eczema includes impetigo, gynecomastia, scabies, and allergic contact dermatitis.

Impetigo typically presents with honey-colored crusts or pustules caused by infection with Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus. Patients with AD have higher rates of colonization with S. aureus and impetiginized eczema in common. Impetigo of the nipple and areola is more common in breastfeeding women as skin cracking from lactation can lead to exposure to bacteria from the infant’s mouth.⁹ Treatments involve topical or oral antibiotics.

Gynecomastia is the development of male breast tissue with most cases hypothesized to be caused by an imbalance between androgens and estrogens.¹⁰ Some other causes include direct skin contact with topical estrogen sprays and recreational use of marijuana and heroin.¹¹ It is usually a benign exam finding in adolescent boys. However, clinical findings such as overlying skin changes, rapidly enlarging masses, and constitutional symptoms are concerning in the setting of gynecomastia and warrant further evaluation.

Scabies, which is caused by the infestation of scabies mites, is a common infectious skin disease. The classic presentation includes a rash that is intensely itchy, especially at night. Crusted scabies of the nipples may be difficult to distinguish from nipple eczema. Areas of frequent involvement of scabies include palms, between fingers, armpits, groin, between toes, and feet. Treatments include treating all household members with permethrin cream and washing all clothes and bedding in contact with a scabies-infected patient in high heat, or oral ivermectin in certain circumstances.¹²

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common cause of breast and nipple dermatitis and should be considered within the differential diagnosis of nipple eczema with atopic dermatitis, or as an exacerbator.^7,9 Patients in particular who present with bilateral involvement extending to the periareolar skin, or unusual bilateral focal patterns suggestive for contact allergy should be considered for allergic contact dermatitis evaluation with patch tests. A common causative agent for allergic contact dermatitis of the breast and nipple includes Cl+Me-isothiazolinone, commonly found in detergents and fabric softeners.⁷ Primary treatment includes avoidance of the offending agents.
 

Treatment

Topical corticosteroids are first-line treatment for treating nipple eczema. Low-potency topical steroids can be used for maintenance and mild eczema while more potent steroids are useful for more severe cases. In addition to topical medication therapy, frequent emollient use to protect the skin barrier and the elimination of any irritants are essential to a successful treatment course. Unilateral nipple eczema can also be secondary to inadequate treatment of AD, demonstrating the importance of addressing the underlying AD with therapy.³

Our patient was diagnosed with nipple eczema based on clinical presentation of an eczematous left nipple in the setting of active atopic dermatitis and minimal improvement on topical antibiotic. He was started on a 3-week course of fluocinonide 0.05% topical ointment (a potent topical corticosteroid) twice daily for 2 weeks with plans to transition to triamcinolone 0.1% topical ointment several times a week.

Ms. Park is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital. Neither Ms. Park nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Pediatr Dermatol. 2005;22(1):64-6.

2. Am J Dermatopathol. 2015;37(4):284-8.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32(5):718-22.

4. J Cutan Med Surg. 2004;8(2):126-30.

5. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29(5):580-3.

6. Dermatologica. 1988;177(6):360-4.

7. Ann Dermatol. 2014;26(3):413-4.

8. BMJ Case Rep. 2020;13(8).

9. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(6):1483-94.

10. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2017;14(4):371-7.

11. JAMA. 2010;304(9):953.

12. JAMA. 2018;320(6):612.

Do you accept new families into your practice who have already chosen to not have their children immunized? What about families who have been in your practice for several months or years? In 2016 the American Academy of Pediatrics published a clinical report in which it stated that, under some circumstances, dismissing families who refuse to vaccinate is permissible. Have you felt sufficiently supported by that statement and dismissed any families after multiple attempts at education on your part?

In a Pediatrics Perspective article in the December issue of Pediatrics, two philosophers and a physician make the argument that, while in some situations dismissing a family who refuses vaccines may be “an ethically acceptable option” refusing to accept a family with the same philosophy is not. It is an interesting paper and worth reading regardless of whether or not you already accept and continue to tolerate vaccine deniers in your practice.

The Pediatrics Perspective is certainly not the last word on the ethics of caring for families who deny their children care that we believe is critical to their health and the welfare of the community at large. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue but little has been written about how we as the physicians on the front line are coping emotionally with what the authors of the paper call the “burdens associated with treating” families who refuse to follow our guidance.

It is hard not to feel angry when a family you have invested valuable office time in discussing the benefits and safety of vaccines continues to disregard what you see as the facts. The time you have spent with them is not just income-generating time for your practice, it is time stolen from other families who are more willing to follow your recommendations. In how many visits will you continue to raise the issue? Unless I saw a glimmer of hope I would usually stop after two wasted encounters. But, the issue would still linger as the elephant in the examination room for as long as I continued to see the patient.

How have you expressed your anger? Have you been argumentative or rude? You may have been able maintain your composure and remain civil and appear caring, but I suspect the anger is still gnawing at you. And, there is still the frustration and feeling of impotence. You may have questioned your ability as an educator. You should get over that notion quickly. There is ample evidence that most vaccine deniers are not going to be convinced by even the most carefully presented information. I suggest you leave it to others to try their hands at education. Let them invest their time while you tend to the needs of your other patients. You can try being a fear monger and, while fear can be effective, you have better ways to spend your office day than telling horror stories.

If vaccine denial makes you feel powerless, you should get over that pretty quickly as well and accept the fact that you are simply an advisor. If you believe that most of the families in your practice are following your recommendations as though you had presented them on stone tablets, it is time for a wakeup call.

Finally, there is the most troubling emotion associated with vaccine refusal and that is fear, the fear of being sued. Establishing a relationship with a family is one that requires mutual trust and certainly vaccine refusal will put that trust in question, particularly if you have done a less than adequate job of hiding your anger and frustration with their unfortunate decision.

For now, vaccine refusal is just another one of those crosses that those of us in primary care must bear together wearing the best face we can put forward. That doesn’t mean we can’t share those emotions with our peers. Misery does love company.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Do you accept new families into your practice who have already chosen to not have their children immunized? What about families who have been in your practice for several months or years? In 2016 the American Academy of Pediatrics published a clinical report in which it stated that, under some circumstances, dismissing families who refuse to vaccinate is permissible. Have you felt sufficiently supported by that statement and dismissed any families after multiple attempts at education on your part?

In a Pediatrics Perspective article in the December issue of Pediatrics, two philosophers and a physician make the argument that, while in some situations dismissing a family who refuses vaccines may be “an ethically acceptable option” refusing to accept a family with the same philosophy is not. It is an interesting paper and worth reading regardless of whether or not you already accept and continue to tolerate vaccine deniers in your practice.

The Pediatrics Perspective is certainly not the last word on the ethics of caring for families who deny their children care that we believe is critical to their health and the welfare of the community at large. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue but little has been written about how we as the physicians on the front line are coping emotionally with what the authors of the paper call the “burdens associated with treating” families who refuse to follow our guidance.

It is hard not to feel angry when a family you have invested valuable office time in discussing the benefits and safety of vaccines continues to disregard what you see as the facts. The time you have spent with them is not just income-generating time for your practice, it is time stolen from other families who are more willing to follow your recommendations. In how many visits will you continue to raise the issue? Unless I saw a glimmer of hope I would usually stop after two wasted encounters. But, the issue would still linger as the elephant in the examination room for as long as I continued to see the patient.

How have you expressed your anger? Have you been argumentative or rude? You may have been able maintain your composure and remain civil and appear caring, but I suspect the anger is still gnawing at you. And, there is still the frustration and feeling of impotence. You may have questioned your ability as an educator. You should get over that notion quickly. There is ample evidence that most vaccine deniers are not going to be convinced by even the most carefully presented information. I suggest you leave it to others to try their hands at education. Let them invest their time while you tend to the needs of your other patients. You can try being a fear monger and, while fear can be effective, you have better ways to spend your office day than telling horror stories.

If vaccine denial makes you feel powerless, you should get over that pretty quickly as well and accept the fact that you are simply an advisor. If you believe that most of the families in your practice are following your recommendations as though you had presented them on stone tablets, it is time for a wakeup call.

Finally, there is the most troubling emotion associated with vaccine refusal and that is fear, the fear of being sued. Establishing a relationship with a family is one that requires mutual trust and certainly vaccine refusal will put that trust in question, particularly if you have done a less than adequate job of hiding your anger and frustration with their unfortunate decision.

For now, vaccine refusal is just another one of those crosses that those of us in primary care must bear together wearing the best face we can put forward. That doesn’t mean we can’t share those emotions with our peers. Misery does love company.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Do you accept new families into your practice who have already chosen to not have their children immunized? What about families who have been in your practice for several months or years? In 2016 the American Academy of Pediatrics published a clinical report in which it stated that, under some circumstances, dismissing families who refuse to vaccinate is permissible. Have you felt sufficiently supported by that statement and dismissed any families after multiple attempts at education on your part?

In a Pediatrics Perspective article in the December issue of Pediatrics, two philosophers and a physician make the argument that, while in some situations dismissing a family who refuses vaccines may be “an ethically acceptable option” refusing to accept a family with the same philosophy is not. It is an interesting paper and worth reading regardless of whether or not you already accept and continue to tolerate vaccine deniers in your practice.

The Pediatrics Perspective is certainly not the last word on the ethics of caring for families who deny their children care that we believe is critical to their health and the welfare of the community at large. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue but little has been written about how we as the physicians on the front line are coping emotionally with what the authors of the paper call the “burdens associated with treating” families who refuse to follow our guidance.

It is hard not to feel angry when a family you have invested valuable office time in discussing the benefits and safety of vaccines continues to disregard what you see as the facts. The time you have spent with them is not just income-generating time for your practice, it is time stolen from other families who are more willing to follow your recommendations. In how many visits will you continue to raise the issue? Unless I saw a glimmer of hope I would usually stop after two wasted encounters. But, the issue would still linger as the elephant in the examination room for as long as I continued to see the patient.

How have you expressed your anger? Have you been argumentative or rude? You may have been able maintain your composure and remain civil and appear caring, but I suspect the anger is still gnawing at you. And, there is still the frustration and feeling of impotence. You may have questioned your ability as an educator. You should get over that notion quickly. There is ample evidence that most vaccine deniers are not going to be convinced by even the most carefully presented information. I suggest you leave it to others to try their hands at education. Let them invest their time while you tend to the needs of your other patients. You can try being a fear monger and, while fear can be effective, you have better ways to spend your office day than telling horror stories.

If vaccine denial makes you feel powerless, you should get over that pretty quickly as well and accept the fact that you are simply an advisor. If you believe that most of the families in your practice are following your recommendations as though you had presented them on stone tablets, it is time for a wakeup call.

Finally, there is the most troubling emotion associated with vaccine refusal and that is fear, the fear of being sued. Establishing a relationship with a family is one that requires mutual trust and certainly vaccine refusal will put that trust in question, particularly if you have done a less than adequate job of hiding your anger and frustration with their unfortunate decision.

For now, vaccine refusal is just another one of those crosses that those of us in primary care must bear together wearing the best face we can put forward. That doesn’t mean we can’t share those emotions with our peers. Misery does love company.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

When results of the TAILORx trial were presented at ASCO 2018, many oncologists thought it seemed too simple that a single number from a genomic assay could separate patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy.

Those oncologists were right to be skeptical. Subsequent data indicated that better predictive tools were needed.

A new tool called “RSClin” may fit the bill. RSClin integrates the prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) with the additional prognostic information conveyed by patient age, tumor grade, and tumor size.

RSClin provides individualized estimates of distant relapse risk for women with node-negative, endocrine sensitive, HER2/neu oncogene-negative early breast cancer – and a quantification of the additive freedom from distant relapse if that patient receives adjuvant chemotherapy. The tool is now available via a tab on the professional portal at https://online.genomichealth.com/.

Details on RSClin, including how the tool was developed and validated, were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Joseph A. Sparano, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
 

Beyond the initial publication of TAILORx

Results from the TAILORx trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2018 offered the potential for genomic risk assessment to guide the choice of postoperative therapy for many women with the most common type of primary breast cancer. The relative risk reduction with chemotherapy increased with increasing RS result.

Subsequent analyses of the TAILORx dataset, published in The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA Oncology in 2019, examined the added effect of parameters of clinical risk (tumor size and grade) and patient age for patients with known genomic risk.

In these analyses, clinical risk was prognostic for recurrence but did not predict the absolute magnitude of chemotherapy benefit, regardless of age. There was a trend toward chemotherapy benefit in women who were younger than 50 years of age who had RS 21-15, but it was irrespective of clinical risk.
 

The development of RSClin

RSClin was derived from a patient-specific meta-analysis of 10,004 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, of whom 9,427 participated in the TAILORx trial.

In TAILORx, which ran from 2006 to 2015, women with RS 0-11 received contemporary hormone therapy alone. Women with RS 12-25 were randomized to receive hormone therapy alone or with conventional combination chemotherapy. Women with RS above 26 received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The other patients in the meta-analysis participated in NSABP studies B-14 (tamoxifen versus placebo) and B-20 (tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen).

Cox regression models were fit separately to each study with covariates of the continuous variables of RS result, tumor size, and patient age and the discrete variable of histologic tumor grade (assessed centrally in B-14 and in local laboratories in TAILORx). The prespecified endpoint was time to first distant recurrence.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence risk were generated using baseline risk with TAILORx event rates to reflect current medical practice.

Model estimates were calculated for specified endocrine therapy with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors utilizing the treatment effect hazard ratio from an Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group meta-analysis.

Patient-specific absolute benefit of chemotherapy was estimated by combining patient-specific meta-analysis risk estimates for distant recurrence and for relative chemotherapy benefit using the B-20 and TAILORx trials.
 

RSClin results and external validation

Among all patients in the meta-analysis cohort, RSClin provided a significantly more accurate prediction of distant recurrence events, in comparison with RS alone or clinical-pathologic factors alone.

External validation was performed using data from real-world outcomes from the 1,098 evaluable node-negative patients in the Clalit Health Services registry, of whom 876 received endocrine therapy alone and 222 received endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence closely approximated the observed risk in the registry (standardized hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.15; P < .001). Within each RSClin risk quintile, the average 10-year risk estimate approached the observed Kaplan-Meier estimates in the cohort (Lin concordance correlation = 0.962).
 

Shared decision-making

For many years, the dilemma of whether to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy to a patient with early breast cancer has prompted the generation of tools to quantify a patient’s risk of recurrence and the magnitude of benefit for endocrine therapy and/or chemotherapy.

When the original Adjuvant! Online program was developed, genomic risk profiling was in its infancy. Genomic tools such as the 21-gene RS have subsequently demonstrated that they can help optimize the adjuvant treatment we recommend.

The RSClin tool provides more precise, individualized information than does clinical-pathological or genomic data alone. It prognosticates the risk of distant recurrence of breast cancer, which patients and providers fervently wish to minimize.

RSClin estimates the incremental benefit of contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy over modern endocrine therapy alone, in absolute values, for individual patients. This transparent, discrete, easily explained information is vital for counseling patients.

However, as highlighted in an editorial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, RSClin is not without its potential drawbacks. These include:

• Tumor heterogeneity leading to misleading results.
• Variable patient adherence to endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.
• The influence of comorbid conditions on the risk/benefit ratio.
• The potential of ovarian function suppression in young women to approach the magnitude of benefit associated with chemotherapy.

Accordingly, RSClin may be the latest and best available tool, but it will not be the last.

For patients with RS above 26, for older women with intermediate RS, and for younger women with a low RS and low clinical-pathologic features, RSClin may not influence treatment recommendations.

However, for the common scenario of an intermediate-risk RS and a mix of pathologic features, the accurate prognostication for distant recurrence risk and estimate of absolute benefit from chemotherapy will be terrifically helpful to oncology caregivers.

Dr. Sparano disclosed funding from the National Cancer Institute and travel support from Rhenium.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

When results of the TAILORx trial were presented at ASCO 2018, many oncologists thought it seemed too simple that a single number from a genomic assay could separate patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy.

Those oncologists were right to be skeptical. Subsequent data indicated that better predictive tools were needed.

A new tool called “RSClin” may fit the bill. RSClin integrates the prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) with the additional prognostic information conveyed by patient age, tumor grade, and tumor size.

RSClin provides individualized estimates of distant relapse risk for women with node-negative, endocrine sensitive, HER2/neu oncogene-negative early breast cancer – and a quantification of the additive freedom from distant relapse if that patient receives adjuvant chemotherapy. The tool is now available via a tab on the professional portal at https://online.genomichealth.com/.

Details on RSClin, including how the tool was developed and validated, were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Joseph A. Sparano, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
 

Beyond the initial publication of TAILORx

Results from the TAILORx trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2018 offered the potential for genomic risk assessment to guide the choice of postoperative therapy for many women with the most common type of primary breast cancer. The relative risk reduction with chemotherapy increased with increasing RS result.

Subsequent analyses of the TAILORx dataset, published in The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA Oncology in 2019, examined the added effect of parameters of clinical risk (tumor size and grade) and patient age for patients with known genomic risk.

In these analyses, clinical risk was prognostic for recurrence but did not predict the absolute magnitude of chemotherapy benefit, regardless of age. There was a trend toward chemotherapy benefit in women who were younger than 50 years of age who had RS 21-15, but it was irrespective of clinical risk.
 

The development of RSClin

RSClin was derived from a patient-specific meta-analysis of 10,004 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, of whom 9,427 participated in the TAILORx trial.

In TAILORx, which ran from 2006 to 2015, women with RS 0-11 received contemporary hormone therapy alone. Women with RS 12-25 were randomized to receive hormone therapy alone or with conventional combination chemotherapy. Women with RS above 26 received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The other patients in the meta-analysis participated in NSABP studies B-14 (tamoxifen versus placebo) and B-20 (tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen).

Cox regression models were fit separately to each study with covariates of the continuous variables of RS result, tumor size, and patient age and the discrete variable of histologic tumor grade (assessed centrally in B-14 and in local laboratories in TAILORx). The prespecified endpoint was time to first distant recurrence.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence risk were generated using baseline risk with TAILORx event rates to reflect current medical practice.

Model estimates were calculated for specified endocrine therapy with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors utilizing the treatment effect hazard ratio from an Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group meta-analysis.

Patient-specific absolute benefit of chemotherapy was estimated by combining patient-specific meta-analysis risk estimates for distant recurrence and for relative chemotherapy benefit using the B-20 and TAILORx trials.
 

RSClin results and external validation

Among all patients in the meta-analysis cohort, RSClin provided a significantly more accurate prediction of distant recurrence events, in comparison with RS alone or clinical-pathologic factors alone.

External validation was performed using data from real-world outcomes from the 1,098 evaluable node-negative patients in the Clalit Health Services registry, of whom 876 received endocrine therapy alone and 222 received endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence closely approximated the observed risk in the registry (standardized hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.15; P < .001). Within each RSClin risk quintile, the average 10-year risk estimate approached the observed Kaplan-Meier estimates in the cohort (Lin concordance correlation = 0.962).
 

Shared decision-making

For many years, the dilemma of whether to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy to a patient with early breast cancer has prompted the generation of tools to quantify a patient’s risk of recurrence and the magnitude of benefit for endocrine therapy and/or chemotherapy.

When the original Adjuvant! Online program was developed, genomic risk profiling was in its infancy. Genomic tools such as the 21-gene RS have subsequently demonstrated that they can help optimize the adjuvant treatment we recommend.

The RSClin tool provides more precise, individualized information than does clinical-pathological or genomic data alone. It prognosticates the risk of distant recurrence of breast cancer, which patients and providers fervently wish to minimize.

RSClin estimates the incremental benefit of contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy over modern endocrine therapy alone, in absolute values, for individual patients. This transparent, discrete, easily explained information is vital for counseling patients.

However, as highlighted in an editorial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, RSClin is not without its potential drawbacks. These include:

• Tumor heterogeneity leading to misleading results.
• Variable patient adherence to endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.
• The influence of comorbid conditions on the risk/benefit ratio.
• The potential of ovarian function suppression in young women to approach the magnitude of benefit associated with chemotherapy.

Accordingly, RSClin may be the latest and best available tool, but it will not be the last.

For patients with RS above 26, for older women with intermediate RS, and for younger women with a low RS and low clinical-pathologic features, RSClin may not influence treatment recommendations.

However, for the common scenario of an intermediate-risk RS and a mix of pathologic features, the accurate prognostication for distant recurrence risk and estimate of absolute benefit from chemotherapy will be terrifically helpful to oncology caregivers.

Dr. Sparano disclosed funding from the National Cancer Institute and travel support from Rhenium.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

When results of the TAILORx trial were presented at ASCO 2018, many oncologists thought it seemed too simple that a single number from a genomic assay could separate patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy.

Those oncologists were right to be skeptical. Subsequent data indicated that better predictive tools were needed.

A new tool called “RSClin” may fit the bill. RSClin integrates the prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) with the additional prognostic information conveyed by patient age, tumor grade, and tumor size.

RSClin provides individualized estimates of distant relapse risk for women with node-negative, endocrine sensitive, HER2/neu oncogene-negative early breast cancer – and a quantification of the additive freedom from distant relapse if that patient receives adjuvant chemotherapy. The tool is now available via a tab on the professional portal at https://online.genomichealth.com/.

Details on RSClin, including how the tool was developed and validated, were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Joseph A. Sparano, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
 

Beyond the initial publication of TAILORx

Results from the TAILORx trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2018 offered the potential for genomic risk assessment to guide the choice of postoperative therapy for many women with the most common type of primary breast cancer. The relative risk reduction with chemotherapy increased with increasing RS result.

Subsequent analyses of the TAILORx dataset, published in The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA Oncology in 2019, examined the added effect of parameters of clinical risk (tumor size and grade) and patient age for patients with known genomic risk.

In these analyses, clinical risk was prognostic for recurrence but did not predict the absolute magnitude of chemotherapy benefit, regardless of age. There was a trend toward chemotherapy benefit in women who were younger than 50 years of age who had RS 21-15, but it was irrespective of clinical risk.
 

The development of RSClin

RSClin was derived from a patient-specific meta-analysis of 10,004 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, of whom 9,427 participated in the TAILORx trial.

In TAILORx, which ran from 2006 to 2015, women with RS 0-11 received contemporary hormone therapy alone. Women with RS 12-25 were randomized to receive hormone therapy alone or with conventional combination chemotherapy. Women with RS above 26 received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The other patients in the meta-analysis participated in NSABP studies B-14 (tamoxifen versus placebo) and B-20 (tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen).

Cox regression models were fit separately to each study with covariates of the continuous variables of RS result, tumor size, and patient age and the discrete variable of histologic tumor grade (assessed centrally in B-14 and in local laboratories in TAILORx). The prespecified endpoint was time to first distant recurrence.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence risk were generated using baseline risk with TAILORx event rates to reflect current medical practice.

Model estimates were calculated for specified endocrine therapy with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors utilizing the treatment effect hazard ratio from an Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group meta-analysis.

Patient-specific absolute benefit of chemotherapy was estimated by combining patient-specific meta-analysis risk estimates for distant recurrence and for relative chemotherapy benefit using the B-20 and TAILORx trials.
 

RSClin results and external validation

Among all patients in the meta-analysis cohort, RSClin provided a significantly more accurate prediction of distant recurrence events, in comparison with RS alone or clinical-pathologic factors alone.

External validation was performed using data from real-world outcomes from the 1,098 evaluable node-negative patients in the Clalit Health Services registry, of whom 876 received endocrine therapy alone and 222 received endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence closely approximated the observed risk in the registry (standardized hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.15; P < .001). Within each RSClin risk quintile, the average 10-year risk estimate approached the observed Kaplan-Meier estimates in the cohort (Lin concordance correlation = 0.962).
 

Shared decision-making

For many years, the dilemma of whether to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy to a patient with early breast cancer has prompted the generation of tools to quantify a patient’s risk of recurrence and the magnitude of benefit for endocrine therapy and/or chemotherapy.

When the original Adjuvant! Online program was developed, genomic risk profiling was in its infancy. Genomic tools such as the 21-gene RS have subsequently demonstrated that they can help optimize the adjuvant treatment we recommend.

The RSClin tool provides more precise, individualized information than does clinical-pathological or genomic data alone. It prognosticates the risk of distant recurrence of breast cancer, which patients and providers fervently wish to minimize.

RSClin estimates the incremental benefit of contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy over modern endocrine therapy alone, in absolute values, for individual patients. This transparent, discrete, easily explained information is vital for counseling patients.

However, as highlighted in an editorial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, RSClin is not without its potential drawbacks. These include:

• Tumor heterogeneity leading to misleading results.
• Variable patient adherence to endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.
• The influence of comorbid conditions on the risk/benefit ratio.
• The potential of ovarian function suppression in young women to approach the magnitude of benefit associated with chemotherapy.

Accordingly, RSClin may be the latest and best available tool, but it will not be the last.

For patients with RS above 26, for older women with intermediate RS, and for younger women with a low RS and low clinical-pathologic features, RSClin may not influence treatment recommendations.

However, for the common scenario of an intermediate-risk RS and a mix of pathologic features, the accurate prognostication for distant recurrence risk and estimate of absolute benefit from chemotherapy will be terrifically helpful to oncology caregivers.

Dr. Sparano disclosed funding from the National Cancer Institute and travel support from Rhenium.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Many scientific problems are complex. Finding the solution can require the concerted efforts of a team. Producing a vaccine for COVID-19 involved a multidisciplinary team with a variety of highly specialized expertises, extensive technological resources, and a history of previous scientific discoveries upon whose shoulders today’s scientists can stand.

Many ethical problems are also complex. Finding the ideal, multifaceted answer that addresses all the nuances of a social problem requires brilliant minds, a refined ability for logical analysis and rhetoric, the empowerment of the voices of all stakeholders, and attention to social values such as diversity and justice.

In both endeavors, the typical scientists and ethicists involved tend to presume that if they can determine an ideal solution, it will be rapidly and enthusiastically adopted and implemented for the betterment of society. That is, after all, exactly how those researchers would choose to act. Scientists see moral actions as having two steps. The hard part is deciding what is right. Doing the right thing is the easier task. This delusion is ubiquitous. Many scientists and ethicists recognize the delusion of the existence of a rational society, but proceed anyhow as if one exists.

There is a chorus of voices capable of debunking this delusion. Any priest who hears confessions will testify that the vast majority of harm comes from the failure to do what people already know is right, not from uncertainty, confusion, or ignorance. Psychologists and substance abuse counselors are inundated with people who are stuck doing harmful and self-destructive acts. Internists discuss diet and exercise with their patients, but find the advice is infrequently adopted. Master in business administration programs are devoted to training graduates in methods of motivating people to do what is right.

The response of the scientific establishment to the COVID-19 pandemic was imperfect. There were gaps in knowledge and some early information from China was misleading. The initial CDC test kit production was flawed. The early appeal for the public not to buy masks was strongly driven by a desire to preserve supplies for health care workers. Despite these missteps, the overall advice of scientists was wildly successful and beneficial. The goal was to flatten the curve, and a comparison of the April-June time frame with the November-January period shows markedly fewer COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Confronted with the pandemic of the century, my assessment is that scientific establishment has performed well.

I am far more negative in my assessment of the institutions that support morality, form the social order, establish justice, and promote the general welfare. For instance, misinformation on social media is rampant, including conspiracy theories and outright denials of the pandemic. Scientific advice has been undercut and impugned. Policy recommendations of esteemed scientific institutions have been ignored. The public’s cooperation has fatigued. Laws on public gatherings, quarantines, and social distancing have been broken. Communitarian ethics and devotion to the common good have been left in a trash heap. The consequences have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost in 2020 and some states are on the brink of much worse.

Medical ethicists have debated in fine detail how to triage ventilators, ration antibody treatments, and prioritize vaccinations. Those policy recommendations have had limited influence. Medical ethics has inadequately addressed the age old problem of morality, which is getting people to behave as they know they ought. Modern medical ethics may have exacerbated the deviancy. Medical ethics for 50 years has emphasized replacing paternalism with autonomy, but it has not adequately promoted communitarian virtues, self-regulation, and personal integrity.

There were many accomplishments and many people to admire in 2020 when compared to historical actions by the health care professionals during crises. Doctors, confronted with the COVID-19 plague, have not abandoned the cities as happened in prior centuries. Patients have not been shunned like lepers, though the total-body protective equipment and the no-visitor policies come very close. Nurses have heroically provided bedside care, though I am haunted by one dissident nurse during a protest carrying a sign saying “Don’t call me a hero. I am being martyred against my will.”

As a scientist, I am prone to the delusion that, if I can build a better mouse trap, people will use it. I’ve lived with that delusion for decades. It carries over into my medical ethics work. Yet I see hospitals in California being overwhelmed by the surge on top of a surge due to unwise and unsafe holiday travel. I can see that optimized solutions aren’t the answer – it is better behavior by the public. I recall when I was a child, my mother would simply command, “Behave yourself.” And never, in any of those recollections, was I in doubt about which correct behavior she meant.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Many scientific problems are complex. Finding the solution can require the concerted efforts of a team. Producing a vaccine for COVID-19 involved a multidisciplinary team with a variety of highly specialized expertises, extensive technological resources, and a history of previous scientific discoveries upon whose shoulders today’s scientists can stand.

Many ethical problems are also complex. Finding the ideal, multifaceted answer that addresses all the nuances of a social problem requires brilliant minds, a refined ability for logical analysis and rhetoric, the empowerment of the voices of all stakeholders, and attention to social values such as diversity and justice.

In both endeavors, the typical scientists and ethicists involved tend to presume that if they can determine an ideal solution, it will be rapidly and enthusiastically adopted and implemented for the betterment of society. That is, after all, exactly how those researchers would choose to act. Scientists see moral actions as having two steps. The hard part is deciding what is right. Doing the right thing is the easier task. This delusion is ubiquitous. Many scientists and ethicists recognize the delusion of the existence of a rational society, but proceed anyhow as if one exists.

There is a chorus of voices capable of debunking this delusion. Any priest who hears confessions will testify that the vast majority of harm comes from the failure to do what people already know is right, not from uncertainty, confusion, or ignorance. Psychologists and substance abuse counselors are inundated with people who are stuck doing harmful and self-destructive acts. Internists discuss diet and exercise with their patients, but find the advice is infrequently adopted. Master in business administration programs are devoted to training graduates in methods of motivating people to do what is right.

The response of the scientific establishment to the COVID-19 pandemic was imperfect. There were gaps in knowledge and some early information from China was misleading. The initial CDC test kit production was flawed. The early appeal for the public not to buy masks was strongly driven by a desire to preserve supplies for health care workers. Despite these missteps, the overall advice of scientists was wildly successful and beneficial. The goal was to flatten the curve, and a comparison of the April-June time frame with the November-January period shows markedly fewer COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Confronted with the pandemic of the century, my assessment is that scientific establishment has performed well.

I am far more negative in my assessment of the institutions that support morality, form the social order, establish justice, and promote the general welfare. For instance, misinformation on social media is rampant, including conspiracy theories and outright denials of the pandemic. Scientific advice has been undercut and impugned. Policy recommendations of esteemed scientific institutions have been ignored. The public’s cooperation has fatigued. Laws on public gatherings, quarantines, and social distancing have been broken. Communitarian ethics and devotion to the common good have been left in a trash heap. The consequences have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost in 2020 and some states are on the brink of much worse.

Medical ethicists have debated in fine detail how to triage ventilators, ration antibody treatments, and prioritize vaccinations. Those policy recommendations have had limited influence. Medical ethics has inadequately addressed the age old problem of morality, which is getting people to behave as they know they ought. Modern medical ethics may have exacerbated the deviancy. Medical ethics for 50 years has emphasized replacing paternalism with autonomy, but it has not adequately promoted communitarian virtues, self-regulation, and personal integrity.

There were many accomplishments and many people to admire in 2020 when compared to historical actions by the health care professionals during crises. Doctors, confronted with the COVID-19 plague, have not abandoned the cities as happened in prior centuries. Patients have not been shunned like lepers, though the total-body protective equipment and the no-visitor policies come very close. Nurses have heroically provided bedside care, though I am haunted by one dissident nurse during a protest carrying a sign saying “Don’t call me a hero. I am being martyred against my will.”

As a scientist, I am prone to the delusion that, if I can build a better mouse trap, people will use it. I’ve lived with that delusion for decades. It carries over into my medical ethics work. Yet I see hospitals in California being overwhelmed by the surge on top of a surge due to unwise and unsafe holiday travel. I can see that optimized solutions aren’t the answer – it is better behavior by the public. I recall when I was a child, my mother would simply command, “Behave yourself.” And never, in any of those recollections, was I in doubt about which correct behavior she meant.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Many scientific problems are complex. Finding the solution can require the concerted efforts of a team. Producing a vaccine for COVID-19 involved a multidisciplinary team with a variety of highly specialized expertises, extensive technological resources, and a history of previous scientific discoveries upon whose shoulders today’s scientists can stand.

Many ethical problems are also complex. Finding the ideal, multifaceted answer that addresses all the nuances of a social problem requires brilliant minds, a refined ability for logical analysis and rhetoric, the empowerment of the voices of all stakeholders, and attention to social values such as diversity and justice.

In both endeavors, the typical scientists and ethicists involved tend to presume that if they can determine an ideal solution, it will be rapidly and enthusiastically adopted and implemented for the betterment of society. That is, after all, exactly how those researchers would choose to act. Scientists see moral actions as having two steps. The hard part is deciding what is right. Doing the right thing is the easier task. This delusion is ubiquitous. Many scientists and ethicists recognize the delusion of the existence of a rational society, but proceed anyhow as if one exists.

There is a chorus of voices capable of debunking this delusion. Any priest who hears confessions will testify that the vast majority of harm comes from the failure to do what people already know is right, not from uncertainty, confusion, or ignorance. Psychologists and substance abuse counselors are inundated with people who are stuck doing harmful and self-destructive acts. Internists discuss diet and exercise with their patients, but find the advice is infrequently adopted. Master in business administration programs are devoted to training graduates in methods of motivating people to do what is right.

The response of the scientific establishment to the COVID-19 pandemic was imperfect. There were gaps in knowledge and some early information from China was misleading. The initial CDC test kit production was flawed. The early appeal for the public not to buy masks was strongly driven by a desire to preserve supplies for health care workers. Despite these missteps, the overall advice of scientists was wildly successful and beneficial. The goal was to flatten the curve, and a comparison of the April-June time frame with the November-January period shows markedly fewer COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Confronted with the pandemic of the century, my assessment is that scientific establishment has performed well.

I am far more negative in my assessment of the institutions that support morality, form the social order, establish justice, and promote the general welfare. For instance, misinformation on social media is rampant, including conspiracy theories and outright denials of the pandemic. Scientific advice has been undercut and impugned. Policy recommendations of esteemed scientific institutions have been ignored. The public’s cooperation has fatigued. Laws on public gatherings, quarantines, and social distancing have been broken. Communitarian ethics and devotion to the common good have been left in a trash heap. The consequences have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost in 2020 and some states are on the brink of much worse.

Medical ethicists have debated in fine detail how to triage ventilators, ration antibody treatments, and prioritize vaccinations. Those policy recommendations have had limited influence. Medical ethics has inadequately addressed the age old problem of morality, which is getting people to behave as they know they ought. Modern medical ethics may have exacerbated the deviancy. Medical ethics for 50 years has emphasized replacing paternalism with autonomy, but it has not adequately promoted communitarian virtues, self-regulation, and personal integrity.

There were many accomplishments and many people to admire in 2020 when compared to historical actions by the health care professionals during crises. Doctors, confronted with the COVID-19 plague, have not abandoned the cities as happened in prior centuries. Patients have not been shunned like lepers, though the total-body protective equipment and the no-visitor policies come very close. Nurses have heroically provided bedside care, though I am haunted by one dissident nurse during a protest carrying a sign saying “Don’t call me a hero. I am being martyred against my will.”

As a scientist, I am prone to the delusion that, if I can build a better mouse trap, people will use it. I’ve lived with that delusion for decades. It carries over into my medical ethics work. Yet I see hospitals in California being overwhelmed by the surge on top of a surge due to unwise and unsafe holiday travel. I can see that optimized solutions aren’t the answer – it is better behavior by the public. I recall when I was a child, my mother would simply command, “Behave yourself.” And never, in any of those recollections, was I in doubt about which correct behavior she meant.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

“My census is too high.”

“I don’t have enough time to talk to patients.”

“These are outside our scope of practice.”

What is Lean and how can it help us?

The ‘Toyota Production System’-based philosophy has 14 core principles that help eliminate waste in systems in pursuit of efficiency. These principles are the “Toyota Way.” They center around two pillars: continuous improvement and respect for people. The cornerstone of this management methodology is based on efficient processes, developing employees to add value to the organization and continuous improvement through problem-solving and organizational learning.

Lean is often implemented with Six Sigma methodology. Six Sigma has its origins in Motorola. While Lean cuts waste in our systems to provide value, Six Sigma uses DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) to reduce variation in our processes. When done in its entirety, Lean Six Sigma methodology adds value by increasing efficiency, reducing cost, and improving our everyday work.

Statistical principles suggest that 80% of consequences comes from 20% of causes. Lean methodology and tools allow us to systematically identify root causes for the problems we face and help narrow it down to the ‘vital few.’ In other words, fixing these would give us the most bang for our buck. As hospitalists, we are able to do this better than most because we work in these hospital processes everyday – we truly know the strengths and weaknesses of our systems.

As a hospitalist, I would love for the process of seeing patients in hospitals to be more efficient, less variable, and be more cost-effective for my institution. By eliminating the time wasted performing unnecessary and redundant tasks in my everyday work, I can reallocate that time to patient care – the very reason I chose a career in medicine.
 

We, the people

There are two common rebuttals I hear for adopting Lean Six Sigma methodology in health care. A frequent misconception is that Lean is all about reducing staff or time with patients. The second is that manufacturing methodologies do not work for a service profession. For instance, an article published on Reuters Events (www.reutersevents.com/supplychain/supply-chain/end-just-time) talks about Lean JIT (Just In Time) inventory as a culprit for creating a supply chain deficit during COVID-19. It is not entirely without merit. However, if done the correct way, Lean is all about involving the frontline worker to create a workflow that would work best for them.

Reducing the waste in our processes and empowering our frontline doctors to be creative in finding solutions naturally leads to cost reduction. The cornerstone of Lean is creating a continuously learning organization and putting your employees at the forefront. I think it is important that Lean principles be utilized within health care – but we cannot push to fix every problem in our systems to perfection at a significant expense to the physician and other health care staff.
 

Why HM can benefit from Lean

There is no hard and fast rule about the way health care should adopt Lean thinking. It is a way of thinking that aims to balance purpose, people, and process – extremes of inventory management may not be necessary to be successful in health care. Lean tools alone would not create results. John Shook, chairman of Lean Global Network, has said that the social side of Lean needs to be in balance with the technical side. In other words, rigidity and efficiency is good, but so is encouraging creativity and flexibility in thinking within the workforce.

In the crisis created by the novel coronavirus, many hospitals in New York state, including my own, turned to Lean to respond quickly and effectively to the challenges. Lean principles helped them problem-solve and develop strategies to both recover from the pandemic surge and adapt to future problems that could occur. Geographic clustering of patients, PPE supply, OR shut down and ramp up, emergency management offices at the peak of the pandemic, telehealth streamlining, and post-COVID-19 care planning are some areas where the application of Lean resulted in successful responses to the challenges that 2020 brought to our work.

As Warren Bennis said, ‘The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.’ As hospitalists, we can lead the way our hospitals provide care. Lean is not just a way for hospitals to cut costs (although it helps quite a bit there). Its processes and philosophies could enable hospitalists to maximize potential, efficiency, quality of care, and allow for a balanced work environment. When applied in a manner that focuses on continuous improvement (and is cognizant of its limitations), it has the potential to increase the capability of our service lines and streamline our processes and workday for greater efficiency. As a specialty, we stand to benefit by taking the lead role in choosing how best to improve how we work. We should think outside the box. What better time to do this than now?

Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany (N.Y) Medical College. She is a former hospitalist medical director and has served on SHM’s national committees, and is a certified Lean Six Sigma black belt and MBA candidate.

“My census is too high.”

“I don’t have enough time to talk to patients.”

“These are outside our scope of practice.”

What is Lean and how can it help us?

The ‘Toyota Production System’-based philosophy has 14 core principles that help eliminate waste in systems in pursuit of efficiency. These principles are the “Toyota Way.” They center around two pillars: continuous improvement and respect for people. The cornerstone of this management methodology is based on efficient processes, developing employees to add value to the organization and continuous improvement through problem-solving and organizational learning.

Lean is often implemented with Six Sigma methodology. Six Sigma has its origins in Motorola. While Lean cuts waste in our systems to provide value, Six Sigma uses DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) to reduce variation in our processes. When done in its entirety, Lean Six Sigma methodology adds value by increasing efficiency, reducing cost, and improving our everyday work.

Statistical principles suggest that 80% of consequences comes from 20% of causes. Lean methodology and tools allow us to systematically identify root causes for the problems we face and help narrow it down to the ‘vital few.’ In other words, fixing these would give us the most bang for our buck. As hospitalists, we are able to do this better than most because we work in these hospital processes everyday – we truly know the strengths and weaknesses of our systems.

As a hospitalist, I would love for the process of seeing patients in hospitals to be more efficient, less variable, and be more cost-effective for my institution. By eliminating the time wasted performing unnecessary and redundant tasks in my everyday work, I can reallocate that time to patient care – the very reason I chose a career in medicine.
 

We, the people

There are two common rebuttals I hear for adopting Lean Six Sigma methodology in health care. A frequent misconception is that Lean is all about reducing staff or time with patients. The second is that manufacturing methodologies do not work for a service profession. For instance, an article published on Reuters Events (www.reutersevents.com/supplychain/supply-chain/end-just-time) talks about Lean JIT (Just In Time) inventory as a culprit for creating a supply chain deficit during COVID-19. It is not entirely without merit. However, if done the correct way, Lean is all about involving the frontline worker to create a workflow that would work best for them.

Reducing the waste in our processes and empowering our frontline doctors to be creative in finding solutions naturally leads to cost reduction. The cornerstone of Lean is creating a continuously learning organization and putting your employees at the forefront. I think it is important that Lean principles be utilized within health care – but we cannot push to fix every problem in our systems to perfection at a significant expense to the physician and other health care staff.
 

Why HM can benefit from Lean

There is no hard and fast rule about the way health care should adopt Lean thinking. It is a way of thinking that aims to balance purpose, people, and process – extremes of inventory management may not be necessary to be successful in health care. Lean tools alone would not create results. John Shook, chairman of Lean Global Network, has said that the social side of Lean needs to be in balance with the technical side. In other words, rigidity and efficiency is good, but so is encouraging creativity and flexibility in thinking within the workforce.

In the crisis created by the novel coronavirus, many hospitals in New York state, including my own, turned to Lean to respond quickly and effectively to the challenges. Lean principles helped them problem-solve and develop strategies to both recover from the pandemic surge and adapt to future problems that could occur. Geographic clustering of patients, PPE supply, OR shut down and ramp up, emergency management offices at the peak of the pandemic, telehealth streamlining, and post-COVID-19 care planning are some areas where the application of Lean resulted in successful responses to the challenges that 2020 brought to our work.

As Warren Bennis said, ‘The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.’ As hospitalists, we can lead the way our hospitals provide care. Lean is not just a way for hospitals to cut costs (although it helps quite a bit there). Its processes and philosophies could enable hospitalists to maximize potential, efficiency, quality of care, and allow for a balanced work environment. When applied in a manner that focuses on continuous improvement (and is cognizant of its limitations), it has the potential to increase the capability of our service lines and streamline our processes and workday for greater efficiency. As a specialty, we stand to benefit by taking the lead role in choosing how best to improve how we work. We should think outside the box. What better time to do this than now?

Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany (N.Y) Medical College. She is a former hospitalist medical director and has served on SHM’s national committees, and is a certified Lean Six Sigma black belt and MBA candidate.

“My census is too high.”

“I don’t have enough time to talk to patients.”

“These are outside our scope of practice.”

What is Lean and how can it help us?

The ‘Toyota Production System’-based philosophy has 14 core principles that help eliminate waste in systems in pursuit of efficiency. These principles are the “Toyota Way.” They center around two pillars: continuous improvement and respect for people. The cornerstone of this management methodology is based on efficient processes, developing employees to add value to the organization and continuous improvement through problem-solving and organizational learning.

Lean is often implemented with Six Sigma methodology. Six Sigma has its origins in Motorola. While Lean cuts waste in our systems to provide value, Six Sigma uses DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) to reduce variation in our processes. When done in its entirety, Lean Six Sigma methodology adds value by increasing efficiency, reducing cost, and improving our everyday work.

Statistical principles suggest that 80% of consequences comes from 20% of causes. Lean methodology and tools allow us to systematically identify root causes for the problems we face and help narrow it down to the ‘vital few.’ In other words, fixing these would give us the most bang for our buck. As hospitalists, we are able to do this better than most because we work in these hospital processes everyday – we truly know the strengths and weaknesses of our systems.

As a hospitalist, I would love for the process of seeing patients in hospitals to be more efficient, less variable, and be more cost-effective for my institution. By eliminating the time wasted performing unnecessary and redundant tasks in my everyday work, I can reallocate that time to patient care – the very reason I chose a career in medicine.
 

We, the people

There are two common rebuttals I hear for adopting Lean Six Sigma methodology in health care. A frequent misconception is that Lean is all about reducing staff or time with patients. The second is that manufacturing methodologies do not work for a service profession. For instance, an article published on Reuters Events (www.reutersevents.com/supplychain/supply-chain/end-just-time) talks about Lean JIT (Just In Time) inventory as a culprit for creating a supply chain deficit during COVID-19. It is not entirely without merit. However, if done the correct way, Lean is all about involving the frontline worker to create a workflow that would work best for them.

Reducing the waste in our processes and empowering our frontline doctors to be creative in finding solutions naturally leads to cost reduction. The cornerstone of Lean is creating a continuously learning organization and putting your employees at the forefront. I think it is important that Lean principles be utilized within health care – but we cannot push to fix every problem in our systems to perfection at a significant expense to the physician and other health care staff.
 

Why HM can benefit from Lean

There is no hard and fast rule about the way health care should adopt Lean thinking. It is a way of thinking that aims to balance purpose, people, and process – extremes of inventory management may not be necessary to be successful in health care. Lean tools alone would not create results. John Shook, chairman of Lean Global Network, has said that the social side of Lean needs to be in balance with the technical side. In other words, rigidity and efficiency is good, but so is encouraging creativity and flexibility in thinking within the workforce.

In the crisis created by the novel coronavirus, many hospitals in New York state, including my own, turned to Lean to respond quickly and effectively to the challenges. Lean principles helped them problem-solve and develop strategies to both recover from the pandemic surge and adapt to future problems that could occur. Geographic clustering of patients, PPE supply, OR shut down and ramp up, emergency management offices at the peak of the pandemic, telehealth streamlining, and post-COVID-19 care planning are some areas where the application of Lean resulted in successful responses to the challenges that 2020 brought to our work.

As Warren Bennis said, ‘The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.’ As hospitalists, we can lead the way our hospitals provide care. Lean is not just a way for hospitals to cut costs (although it helps quite a bit there). Its processes and philosophies could enable hospitalists to maximize potential, efficiency, quality of care, and allow for a balanced work environment. When applied in a manner that focuses on continuous improvement (and is cognizant of its limitations), it has the potential to increase the capability of our service lines and streamline our processes and workday for greater efficiency. As a specialty, we stand to benefit by taking the lead role in choosing how best to improve how we work. We should think outside the box. What better time to do this than now?

Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany (N.Y) Medical College. She is a former hospitalist medical director and has served on SHM’s national committees, and is a certified Lean Six Sigma black belt and MBA candidate.

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.