Perspectives

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

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.

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

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.

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

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 6-month-old boy presented with 2 days of looser-than-normal stools without blood or mucous. Before the onset of diarrhea, he had been fed at least two bottles of an infant formula identified in a national recall. His mom requested testing for Cronobacter sakazakii.

In mid-February, Abbott Nutrition recalled specific lots of powdered formula produced at one Michigan manufacturing facility because of possible Cronobacter contamination. To date, a public health investigation has identified four infants in three states who developed Cronobacter infection after consuming formula that was part of the recall. Two of the infants died.

As media reports urged families to search their kitchens for containers of the implicated formula and return them for a refund, worried parents reached out to pediatric care providers for advice.

Cronobacter sakazakii and other Cronobacter species are Gram-negative environmental organisms that occasionally cause bacteremia and meningitis in young infants. Although these infections are not subject to mandatory reporting in most states, laboratory-based surveillance suggests that 18 cases occur annually in the United States (0.49 cases/100,00 infants).

While early reports in the literature described cases in hospitalized, preterm infants, infections also occur in the community and in children born at or near term. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention review of domestic and international cases identified 183 children <12 months of age between 1961 and 2018 described as diagnosed with Cronobacter bacteremia or meningitis.¹ Of the 79 U.S. cases, 34 occurred in term infants and 50 were community onset. Most cases occurred in the first month of life; the oldest child was 35 days of age at the onset of symptoms. Meningitis was more likely in infants born close to term and who were not hospitalized at the time of infection. The majority of infants for whom a feeding history was available had consumed powdered formula.

Back in the exam room, the 6-month-old was examined and found to be vigorous and well-appearing with normal vital signs and no signs of dehydration. The infant’s pediatrician found no clinical indication to perform a blood culture or lumbar puncture, the tests used to diagnose invasive Cronobacter infection. She explained that stool cultures are not recommended, as Cronobacter does not usually cause diarrhea in infants and finding the bacteria in the stool may represent colonization rather than infection.

The pediatrician did take the opportunity to talk to the mom about her formula preparation practices and shared a handout. Powdered formula isn’t sterile, but it is safe for most infants when prepared according to manufacturer’s directions. Contamination of formula during or after preparation can also result in Cronobacter infection in vulnerable infants.

The mom was surprised – and unhappy – to learn that Cronobacter could be lurking in her kitchen. More than a decade ago, investigators visited 78 households in Tennessee and cultured multiple kitchen surfaces.²C. sakazakii was recovered from 21 homes. Most of the positive cultures were from sinks, counter tops, and used dishcloths. Cronobacter has also been cultured from a variety of dried food items, including powdered milk, herbal tea, and starches.

According to the CDC, liquid formula, a product that is sterile until opened, is a safer choice for formula-fed infants who are less than 3 months of age, were born prematurely, or have a compromised immune system. When these infants must be fed powdered formula, preparing it with water heated to at least 158°F or 70°C can kill Cronobacter organisms. Parents should be instructed to boil water and let it cool for about 5 minutes before using it to mix formula.

While most cases of Cronobacter in infants have been epidemiologically linked to consumption of powdered formula, sporadic case reports describe infection in infants fed expressed breast milk. In one report, identical bacterial isolates were recovered from expressed milk fed to an infected infant and the breast pump used to express the milk.³

Moms who express milk should be instructed in proper breast pump hygiene, including washing hands thoroughly before handling breast pumps; disassembling and cleaning breast pumps kits after each use, either in hot soapy water with a dedicated brush and basin or in the dishwasher; air drying on a clean surface; and sanitizing at least daily by boiling, steaming, or using a dishwasher’s sanitize cycle.

Health care providers are encouraged to report Cronobacter cases to their state or local health departments.

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.

References

1. Strysko J et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):857-65.

2. Kilonzo-Nthenge A et al. J Food Protect 2012;75(8):1512-7.

3. Bowen A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:761-2.

A 6-month-old boy presented with 2 days of looser-than-normal stools without blood or mucous. Before the onset of diarrhea, he had been fed at least two bottles of an infant formula identified in a national recall. His mom requested testing for Cronobacter sakazakii.

In mid-February, Abbott Nutrition recalled specific lots of powdered formula produced at one Michigan manufacturing facility because of possible Cronobacter contamination. To date, a public health investigation has identified four infants in three states who developed Cronobacter infection after consuming formula that was part of the recall. Two of the infants died.

As media reports urged families to search their kitchens for containers of the implicated formula and return them for a refund, worried parents reached out to pediatric care providers for advice.

Cronobacter sakazakii and other Cronobacter species are Gram-negative environmental organisms that occasionally cause bacteremia and meningitis in young infants. Although these infections are not subject to mandatory reporting in most states, laboratory-based surveillance suggests that 18 cases occur annually in the United States (0.49 cases/100,00 infants).

While early reports in the literature described cases in hospitalized, preterm infants, infections also occur in the community and in children born at or near term. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention review of domestic and international cases identified 183 children <12 months of age between 1961 and 2018 described as diagnosed with Cronobacter bacteremia or meningitis.¹ Of the 79 U.S. cases, 34 occurred in term infants and 50 were community onset. Most cases occurred in the first month of life; the oldest child was 35 days of age at the onset of symptoms. Meningitis was more likely in infants born close to term and who were not hospitalized at the time of infection. The majority of infants for whom a feeding history was available had consumed powdered formula.

Back in the exam room, the 6-month-old was examined and found to be vigorous and well-appearing with normal vital signs and no signs of dehydration. The infant’s pediatrician found no clinical indication to perform a blood culture or lumbar puncture, the tests used to diagnose invasive Cronobacter infection. She explained that stool cultures are not recommended, as Cronobacter does not usually cause diarrhea in infants and finding the bacteria in the stool may represent colonization rather than infection.

The pediatrician did take the opportunity to talk to the mom about her formula preparation practices and shared a handout. Powdered formula isn’t sterile, but it is safe for most infants when prepared according to manufacturer’s directions. Contamination of formula during or after preparation can also result in Cronobacter infection in vulnerable infants.

The mom was surprised – and unhappy – to learn that Cronobacter could be lurking in her kitchen. More than a decade ago, investigators visited 78 households in Tennessee and cultured multiple kitchen surfaces.²C. sakazakii was recovered from 21 homes. Most of the positive cultures were from sinks, counter tops, and used dishcloths. Cronobacter has also been cultured from a variety of dried food items, including powdered milk, herbal tea, and starches.

According to the CDC, liquid formula, a product that is sterile until opened, is a safer choice for formula-fed infants who are less than 3 months of age, were born prematurely, or have a compromised immune system. When these infants must be fed powdered formula, preparing it with water heated to at least 158°F or 70°C can kill Cronobacter organisms. Parents should be instructed to boil water and let it cool for about 5 minutes before using it to mix formula.

While most cases of Cronobacter in infants have been epidemiologically linked to consumption of powdered formula, sporadic case reports describe infection in infants fed expressed breast milk. In one report, identical bacterial isolates were recovered from expressed milk fed to an infected infant and the breast pump used to express the milk.³

Moms who express milk should be instructed in proper breast pump hygiene, including washing hands thoroughly before handling breast pumps; disassembling and cleaning breast pumps kits after each use, either in hot soapy water with a dedicated brush and basin or in the dishwasher; air drying on a clean surface; and sanitizing at least daily by boiling, steaming, or using a dishwasher’s sanitize cycle.

Health care providers are encouraged to report Cronobacter cases to their state or local health departments.

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.

References

1. Strysko J et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):857-65.

2. Kilonzo-Nthenge A et al. J Food Protect 2012;75(8):1512-7.

3. Bowen A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:761-2.

A 6-month-old boy presented with 2 days of looser-than-normal stools without blood or mucous. Before the onset of diarrhea, he had been fed at least two bottles of an infant formula identified in a national recall. His mom requested testing for Cronobacter sakazakii.

In mid-February, Abbott Nutrition recalled specific lots of powdered formula produced at one Michigan manufacturing facility because of possible Cronobacter contamination. To date, a public health investigation has identified four infants in three states who developed Cronobacter infection after consuming formula that was part of the recall. Two of the infants died.

As media reports urged families to search their kitchens for containers of the implicated formula and return them for a refund, worried parents reached out to pediatric care providers for advice.

Cronobacter sakazakii and other Cronobacter species are Gram-negative environmental organisms that occasionally cause bacteremia and meningitis in young infants. Although these infections are not subject to mandatory reporting in most states, laboratory-based surveillance suggests that 18 cases occur annually in the United States (0.49 cases/100,00 infants).

While early reports in the literature described cases in hospitalized, preterm infants, infections also occur in the community and in children born at or near term. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention review of domestic and international cases identified 183 children <12 months of age between 1961 and 2018 described as diagnosed with Cronobacter bacteremia or meningitis.¹ Of the 79 U.S. cases, 34 occurred in term infants and 50 were community onset. Most cases occurred in the first month of life; the oldest child was 35 days of age at the onset of symptoms. Meningitis was more likely in infants born close to term and who were not hospitalized at the time of infection. The majority of infants for whom a feeding history was available had consumed powdered formula.

Back in the exam room, the 6-month-old was examined and found to be vigorous and well-appearing with normal vital signs and no signs of dehydration. The infant’s pediatrician found no clinical indication to perform a blood culture or lumbar puncture, the tests used to diagnose invasive Cronobacter infection. She explained that stool cultures are not recommended, as Cronobacter does not usually cause diarrhea in infants and finding the bacteria in the stool may represent colonization rather than infection.

The pediatrician did take the opportunity to talk to the mom about her formula preparation practices and shared a handout. Powdered formula isn’t sterile, but it is safe for most infants when prepared according to manufacturer’s directions. Contamination of formula during or after preparation can also result in Cronobacter infection in vulnerable infants.

The mom was surprised – and unhappy – to learn that Cronobacter could be lurking in her kitchen. More than a decade ago, investigators visited 78 households in Tennessee and cultured multiple kitchen surfaces.²C. sakazakii was recovered from 21 homes. Most of the positive cultures were from sinks, counter tops, and used dishcloths. Cronobacter has also been cultured from a variety of dried food items, including powdered milk, herbal tea, and starches.

According to the CDC, liquid formula, a product that is sterile until opened, is a safer choice for formula-fed infants who are less than 3 months of age, were born prematurely, or have a compromised immune system. When these infants must be fed powdered formula, preparing it with water heated to at least 158°F or 70°C can kill Cronobacter organisms. Parents should be instructed to boil water and let it cool for about 5 minutes before using it to mix formula.

While most cases of Cronobacter in infants have been epidemiologically linked to consumption of powdered formula, sporadic case reports describe infection in infants fed expressed breast milk. In one report, identical bacterial isolates were recovered from expressed milk fed to an infected infant and the breast pump used to express the milk.³

Moms who express milk should be instructed in proper breast pump hygiene, including washing hands thoroughly before handling breast pumps; disassembling and cleaning breast pumps kits after each use, either in hot soapy water with a dedicated brush and basin or in the dishwasher; air drying on a clean surface; and sanitizing at least daily by boiling, steaming, or using a dishwasher’s sanitize cycle.

Health care providers are encouraged to report Cronobacter cases to their state or local health departments.

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.

References

1. Strysko J et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):857-65.

2. Kilonzo-Nthenge A et al. J Food Protect 2012;75(8):1512-7.

3. Bowen A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:761-2.

In March, an unprecedented collaboration between the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) resulted in the development of the Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention. The blueprint comprises a consensus summary of expert recommendations, educational resources, and specific and practical strategies for pediatricians and other health care providers to support youth at risk for suicide in pediatric primary care settings. It is ambitious and far-reaching in scope and speaks to the growing understanding that suicide care pathways offer a clear ray of hope toward a shared “zero suicide” goal.

Following the declaration of a national emergency for child and adolescent mental health, the blueprint represents a resource to help us move forward during this national emergency. It offers practically focused suggestions at the clinic site and individual level, in addition to community and school levels, to tackle the deeply concerning and alarming increasing rate of emergency department visits by 30% in the last 2 pandemic years for youth suicide attempts. A reflexive visit for an emergency mental health evaluation in an emergency department after a disclosure of suicidal ideation isn’t always the next best step in a pathway to care, nor a sustainable community solution with the dearth of mental health and crisis resources nationally.

With this new tool, let’s proceed through a case of how one would approach a patient in the office setting with a concerning disclosure.
 

Case

Emily is a 12-year-old girl who presents for a routine well-check in your practice. Her mother shared with you before your examination that she has wondered if Emily may need more support. Since the pandemic, Emily had increasingly spent time using social media and watching television. When you meet with Emily on her own, she says, “I know that life is getting back to normal, and I am supposed to be excited for that, but now I have some anxiety about doing what I used to do. I’ve had some thoughts that it would be better to sleep forever and not wake up ...”

Case discussion

The blueprint recommends universal screening for suicide in all youths aged 12 and over. Not all children, like Emily, will be as open about their inner thoughts. The blueprint provides a link to the ASQ, which comprises questions to ascertain suicide risk and takes 20 seconds to complete with a patient. It is recommended as a first-line screening tool by the NIMH: Suicide Risk Screening Tool. This tool can guide one’s clinical thinking beyond the question of whether or not a child feels “suicidal” after a disclosure such as Emily’s. The blueprint also provides a tip sheet on how to frame these screenings to ensure their thoroughness and interpersonal effectiveness.

Case continued

You go through the ASQ with Emily and she revealed that she has had thoughts about suicide but not currently and without further plans. According to the ASQ, this screening falls into the category of a “non-acute positive screen (potential risk identified),” and now the patient requires a brief suicide safety assessment to determine if an emergency mental health evaluation is needed.

Case discussion

An initial screen (ASQ) should be followed by a Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA). Two common ones are the ASQ-BSSA (created by the same group that created the ASQ) or the C-SSRS (Columbia suicide severity rating scale).

The blueprint suggests adding this level of depth to one’s investigation in a pediatrics office for a divulged concern with suicidal ideation and following the algorithm to ensure safety.

The complete screening process is also described, in detail, in this instructional video: Suicide Risk Screening Training: How to Manage Patients at Risk for Suicide.
 

Case continued

Following the ASQ-BSSA, you determine that a referral to more immediate mental health resources would be most helpful and discuss your concerns with Emily and her family. You connect her via a “warm handoff” to a therapist in the office available from the newly adopted primary care mental health integration model. Emily completes further screening for anxiety and depressive disorders and begins a course of cognitive-behavioral therapy. You feel reassured that the therapist can connect with the consulting psychiatrist in the model who can offer a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation if needed. A referral to the emergency department to complete this screening has been avoided. You also plan for a “caring contact” from the office in a day to check in on Emily and her family and, before they go, provide them with crisis services and resources.

The blueprint represents a thoughtful means to know when emergency department visits are necessary and when other forms of support such as robust safety planning, a connection to other nonemergency services, and “caring contacts” from the office within 24-48 hours are actually of more benefit. “Caring contacts,” in particular, have been lauded as having a significant impact in modifying the course of a patient with suicidal ideation. Data show that differences such as follow-up phone calls by any staff member or even postcards from the clinic over 6-12 months can affect suicide risk.

Beyond outlining suicide care pathways, the blueprint also shares clinical algorithms from the National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs (NNCPAP). These algorithms help clinicians assess common issues in pediatrics and reserve referrals to psychiatry and escalations of care to the emergency department for certain high-risk circumstances.

The blueprint seeks to provide a “one-stop-shop” for accessible and usable resources in the clinic workflow for suicide prevention. It is inspiring to see our professional organizations pursuing practical and practice-based solutions to our children’s mental health crisis in unison.
 

Dr. Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In March, an unprecedented collaboration between the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) resulted in the development of the Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention. The blueprint comprises a consensus summary of expert recommendations, educational resources, and specific and practical strategies for pediatricians and other health care providers to support youth at risk for suicide in pediatric primary care settings. It is ambitious and far-reaching in scope and speaks to the growing understanding that suicide care pathways offer a clear ray of hope toward a shared “zero suicide” goal.

Following the declaration of a national emergency for child and adolescent mental health, the blueprint represents a resource to help us move forward during this national emergency. It offers practically focused suggestions at the clinic site and individual level, in addition to community and school levels, to tackle the deeply concerning and alarming increasing rate of emergency department visits by 30% in the last 2 pandemic years for youth suicide attempts. A reflexive visit for an emergency mental health evaluation in an emergency department after a disclosure of suicidal ideation isn’t always the next best step in a pathway to care, nor a sustainable community solution with the dearth of mental health and crisis resources nationally.

With this new tool, let’s proceed through a case of how one would approach a patient in the office setting with a concerning disclosure.
 

Case

Emily is a 12-year-old girl who presents for a routine well-check in your practice. Her mother shared with you before your examination that she has wondered if Emily may need more support. Since the pandemic, Emily had increasingly spent time using social media and watching television. When you meet with Emily on her own, she says, “I know that life is getting back to normal, and I am supposed to be excited for that, but now I have some anxiety about doing what I used to do. I’ve had some thoughts that it would be better to sleep forever and not wake up ...”

Case discussion

The blueprint recommends universal screening for suicide in all youths aged 12 and over. Not all children, like Emily, will be as open about their inner thoughts. The blueprint provides a link to the ASQ, which comprises questions to ascertain suicide risk and takes 20 seconds to complete with a patient. It is recommended as a first-line screening tool by the NIMH: Suicide Risk Screening Tool. This tool can guide one’s clinical thinking beyond the question of whether or not a child feels “suicidal” after a disclosure such as Emily’s. The blueprint also provides a tip sheet on how to frame these screenings to ensure their thoroughness and interpersonal effectiveness.

Case continued

You go through the ASQ with Emily and she revealed that she has had thoughts about suicide but not currently and without further plans. According to the ASQ, this screening falls into the category of a “non-acute positive screen (potential risk identified),” and now the patient requires a brief suicide safety assessment to determine if an emergency mental health evaluation is needed.

Case discussion

An initial screen (ASQ) should be followed by a Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA). Two common ones are the ASQ-BSSA (created by the same group that created the ASQ) or the C-SSRS (Columbia suicide severity rating scale).

The blueprint suggests adding this level of depth to one’s investigation in a pediatrics office for a divulged concern with suicidal ideation and following the algorithm to ensure safety.

The complete screening process is also described, in detail, in this instructional video: Suicide Risk Screening Training: How to Manage Patients at Risk for Suicide.
 

Case continued

Following the ASQ-BSSA, you determine that a referral to more immediate mental health resources would be most helpful and discuss your concerns with Emily and her family. You connect her via a “warm handoff” to a therapist in the office available from the newly adopted primary care mental health integration model. Emily completes further screening for anxiety and depressive disorders and begins a course of cognitive-behavioral therapy. You feel reassured that the therapist can connect with the consulting psychiatrist in the model who can offer a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation if needed. A referral to the emergency department to complete this screening has been avoided. You also plan for a “caring contact” from the office in a day to check in on Emily and her family and, before they go, provide them with crisis services and resources.

The blueprint represents a thoughtful means to know when emergency department visits are necessary and when other forms of support such as robust safety planning, a connection to other nonemergency services, and “caring contacts” from the office within 24-48 hours are actually of more benefit. “Caring contacts,” in particular, have been lauded as having a significant impact in modifying the course of a patient with suicidal ideation. Data show that differences such as follow-up phone calls by any staff member or even postcards from the clinic over 6-12 months can affect suicide risk.

Beyond outlining suicide care pathways, the blueprint also shares clinical algorithms from the National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs (NNCPAP). These algorithms help clinicians assess common issues in pediatrics and reserve referrals to psychiatry and escalations of care to the emergency department for certain high-risk circumstances.

The blueprint seeks to provide a “one-stop-shop” for accessible and usable resources in the clinic workflow for suicide prevention. It is inspiring to see our professional organizations pursuing practical and practice-based solutions to our children’s mental health crisis in unison.
 

Dr. Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In March, an unprecedented collaboration between the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) resulted in the development of the Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention. The blueprint comprises a consensus summary of expert recommendations, educational resources, and specific and practical strategies for pediatricians and other health care providers to support youth at risk for suicide in pediatric primary care settings. It is ambitious and far-reaching in scope and speaks to the growing understanding that suicide care pathways offer a clear ray of hope toward a shared “zero suicide” goal.

Following the declaration of a national emergency for child and adolescent mental health, the blueprint represents a resource to help us move forward during this national emergency. It offers practically focused suggestions at the clinic site and individual level, in addition to community and school levels, to tackle the deeply concerning and alarming increasing rate of emergency department visits by 30% in the last 2 pandemic years for youth suicide attempts. A reflexive visit for an emergency mental health evaluation in an emergency department after a disclosure of suicidal ideation isn’t always the next best step in a pathway to care, nor a sustainable community solution with the dearth of mental health and crisis resources nationally.

With this new tool, let’s proceed through a case of how one would approach a patient in the office setting with a concerning disclosure.
 

Case

Emily is a 12-year-old girl who presents for a routine well-check in your practice. Her mother shared with you before your examination that she has wondered if Emily may need more support. Since the pandemic, Emily had increasingly spent time using social media and watching television. When you meet with Emily on her own, she says, “I know that life is getting back to normal, and I am supposed to be excited for that, but now I have some anxiety about doing what I used to do. I’ve had some thoughts that it would be better to sleep forever and not wake up ...”

Case discussion

The blueprint recommends universal screening for suicide in all youths aged 12 and over. Not all children, like Emily, will be as open about their inner thoughts. The blueprint provides a link to the ASQ, which comprises questions to ascertain suicide risk and takes 20 seconds to complete with a patient. It is recommended as a first-line screening tool by the NIMH: Suicide Risk Screening Tool. This tool can guide one’s clinical thinking beyond the question of whether or not a child feels “suicidal” after a disclosure such as Emily’s. The blueprint also provides a tip sheet on how to frame these screenings to ensure their thoroughness and interpersonal effectiveness.

Case continued

You go through the ASQ with Emily and she revealed that she has had thoughts about suicide but not currently and without further plans. According to the ASQ, this screening falls into the category of a “non-acute positive screen (potential risk identified),” and now the patient requires a brief suicide safety assessment to determine if an emergency mental health evaluation is needed.

Case discussion

An initial screen (ASQ) should be followed by a Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA). Two common ones are the ASQ-BSSA (created by the same group that created the ASQ) or the C-SSRS (Columbia suicide severity rating scale).

The blueprint suggests adding this level of depth to one’s investigation in a pediatrics office for a divulged concern with suicidal ideation and following the algorithm to ensure safety.

The complete screening process is also described, in detail, in this instructional video: Suicide Risk Screening Training: How to Manage Patients at Risk for Suicide.
 

Case continued

Following the ASQ-BSSA, you determine that a referral to more immediate mental health resources would be most helpful and discuss your concerns with Emily and her family. You connect her via a “warm handoff” to a therapist in the office available from the newly adopted primary care mental health integration model. Emily completes further screening for anxiety and depressive disorders and begins a course of cognitive-behavioral therapy. You feel reassured that the therapist can connect with the consulting psychiatrist in the model who can offer a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation if needed. A referral to the emergency department to complete this screening has been avoided. You also plan for a “caring contact” from the office in a day to check in on Emily and her family and, before they go, provide them with crisis services and resources.

The blueprint represents a thoughtful means to know when emergency department visits are necessary and when other forms of support such as robust safety planning, a connection to other nonemergency services, and “caring contacts” from the office within 24-48 hours are actually of more benefit. “Caring contacts,” in particular, have been lauded as having a significant impact in modifying the course of a patient with suicidal ideation. Data show that differences such as follow-up phone calls by any staff member or even postcards from the clinic over 6-12 months can affect suicide risk.

Beyond outlining suicide care pathways, the blueprint also shares clinical algorithms from the National Network of Child Psychiatry Access Programs (NNCPAP). These algorithms help clinicians assess common issues in pediatrics and reserve referrals to psychiatry and escalations of care to the emergency department for certain high-risk circumstances.

The blueprint seeks to provide a “one-stop-shop” for accessible and usable resources in the clinic workflow for suicide prevention. It is inspiring to see our professional organizations pursuing practical and practice-based solutions to our children’s mental health crisis in unison.
 

Dr. Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Pediatricians are increasingly expert in the assessment and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. But what do you do when adolescents present to your office saying they think they have ADHD? While ADHD is a common and treatable disorder of youth, it is important to take special care when assessing an adolescent. Difficulties with attention and concentration are common symptoms for many different challenges of adolescence, and for ADHD to be the underlying cause, those symptoms must have started prior to adolescence (according to DSM-5, prior to the age of 12). When your adolescent patients or their parents come to your office complaining of inattention, it is important to consider the full range of possible explanations.

Sleep

We have written in this column previously about the challenges that adolescents face in getting adequate sleep consistently. Teenagers, on average, need more than 9 hours of sleep nightly and American teenagers get fewer than 6. This mismatch is because of physiologic shifts that move their natural sleep onset time significantly later, while school still starts early. It’s often compounded by other demands on their time, including homework, extracurricular activities, and the gravitational pull of social connections. Independent teenagers make their own decisions about how to manage their time and may feel sleep is optional, or manage their fatigue with naps and caffeine, both of which will further compromise the quality and efficiency of sleep.

Chronic sleep deprivation will present with difficulties with focus, attention, memory, and cognitive performance. Treatment of this problem with stimulants is likely to make the underlying poor sleep habits even worse. When your patient presents complaining of difficulty concentrating and worsening school performance, be sure to start with a thorough sleep history, and always provide guidance about the body’s need for sleep and healthy sleep habits.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric illnesses of youth, with estimates of as many as 30% of children and adolescents experiencing one. The true prevalence of ADHD is estimated to be about 4% of the population. Whether social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, or even posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders interfere with attention as ruminative worry tends to distract those experiencing it. It can also affect attention and focus indirectly by interfering with restful sleep. Anxiety disorders can be difficult to identify, as the sufferers typically internalize their symptoms. But inquire about specific worries (such as speaking in front of others, meeting new people, or an illness or accident striking themselves or a loved one) and how much time they take up. Explore if worries fill their thoughts during quiet or downtime, and explore more about their worries. You may use a screening instrument such as the Pediatric Symptom Checklist or the SCARED, both of which will indicate a likely problem with anxiety. While it is possible to have comorbid ADHD with an anxiety disorder, the anxiety disorder will likely worsen with stimulants and should be treated first. These are usually curable illnesses and you may find that remission of anxiety symptoms resolves the attentional problems.

Depression

Mood disorders are less common than anxiety disorders in youth, but far more prevalent than ADHD. And depression is usually marked by serious difficulty concentrating across settings (including for things that were previously very interesting). A sullen teenager who is deeply self-critical about school performance would benefit from exploration of associated changes in mood, interests, energy, appetite, sleep, and for feelings of worthlessness, guilt, and suicidal thoughts. The PHQ9A is a simple, free screening instrument that is reasonable to use with every sick visit (and well-check) with your adolescent patients, given the risks of undetected and untreated depression. If your patient presents complaining of poor school performance, always screen for depression. As with anxiety disorders, comorbid ADHD is possible, but it is always recommended to treat the mood disorder first and then to assess for residual ADHD symptoms once the mood disorder is in remission.

Substance abuse

Adolescence is a time of exploration, and drug and alcohol use is common. While attentional impairment will happen with intoxication, occasional or rare use should not lead to consistent impairment in school. But when parents are more worried than their children about a significant change in school performance, it is important to screen for substance abuse. A child with a secret substance use disorder will often present with behavioral changes and deteriorating school performance and might deny any drug or alcohol use to parents. Indeed, stimulants have some street value and some patients may be seeking a stimulant prescription to sell or trade for other drugs. Regular marijuana use may present with only deteriorating school performance and no irritability or other noticeable behavioral changes. Marijuana is seen as safe and even healthy by many teenagers (and even many parents), and some youth may be using it recreationally or to manage difficulties with sleep, anxiety, or mood symptoms.

But there is compelling evidence that marijuana use causes cognitive impairment, including difficulty with sustaining attention, short-term memory, and processing speed, for as long as 24 hours after use. If a teenager is using marijuana daily after school, it is certainly going to interfere, in a dose-dependent manner, with attention and cognitive function. Sustained heavy use can lead to permanent cognitive deficits. It can also trigger or worsen anxiety or mood symptoms (contrary to much popular opinion).

Gathering a thorough substance use history is essential when assessing a teenager for difficulties with focus or attention, especially when these are accompanied by change in behavior and school performance. Remember, it is critical to interview these children without their parents present to invite them to be forthcoming with you.
 

History

While true ADHD should have been present throughout childhood, it is possible that the symptoms have become noticeable only in adolescence. For patients with very high intelligence and lower levels of impulsivity and hyperactivity, they might easily have “flown under the radar” during their elementary and even middle school years. Their difficulties with attention and focus might become apparent only when the volume and difficulty of schoolwork both are great enough that their intelligence is not enough to get good grades. That is, their problems with executive function, prioritizing, shifting sets, and completing tasks in a timely way make it impossible to keep up good grades when the work gets harder.

Your history should reveal a long history of dreaminess or distractibility, a tendency to lose and forget things, and the other symptoms of inattention. Did they often seem to not be listening when they were younger? Forget to hand in homework? Leave chores unfinished? Leave messes behind everywhere they went? These will not be definitive, but they do reassure that symptoms may have been present for a long time, even if school performance was considered fine until the workload got too large. If such problems were not present before puberty, consider whether a subtle learning disability could be impairing them as they face more challenging academic subjects.

If you have ruled out anxiety, mood, and substance use concerns, and helped them to address a sleep deficit, then you can proceed. It is worthwhile to get Vanderbilt Assessments as you would for a younger child. If they meet criteria, discuss the risks and benefits of medication, executive skills coaching, and environmental adjustments (extra time for tests, a less stimulating environment) that can help them explore academic challenges without the discouragement that ADHD can bring.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Pediatricians are increasingly expert in the assessment and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. But what do you do when adolescents present to your office saying they think they have ADHD? While ADHD is a common and treatable disorder of youth, it is important to take special care when assessing an adolescent. Difficulties with attention and concentration are common symptoms for many different challenges of adolescence, and for ADHD to be the underlying cause, those symptoms must have started prior to adolescence (according to DSM-5, prior to the age of 12). When your adolescent patients or their parents come to your office complaining of inattention, it is important to consider the full range of possible explanations.

Sleep

We have written in this column previously about the challenges that adolescents face in getting adequate sleep consistently. Teenagers, on average, need more than 9 hours of sleep nightly and American teenagers get fewer than 6. This mismatch is because of physiologic shifts that move their natural sleep onset time significantly later, while school still starts early. It’s often compounded by other demands on their time, including homework, extracurricular activities, and the gravitational pull of social connections. Independent teenagers make their own decisions about how to manage their time and may feel sleep is optional, or manage their fatigue with naps and caffeine, both of which will further compromise the quality and efficiency of sleep.

Chronic sleep deprivation will present with difficulties with focus, attention, memory, and cognitive performance. Treatment of this problem with stimulants is likely to make the underlying poor sleep habits even worse. When your patient presents complaining of difficulty concentrating and worsening school performance, be sure to start with a thorough sleep history, and always provide guidance about the body’s need for sleep and healthy sleep habits.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric illnesses of youth, with estimates of as many as 30% of children and adolescents experiencing one. The true prevalence of ADHD is estimated to be about 4% of the population. Whether social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, or even posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders interfere with attention as ruminative worry tends to distract those experiencing it. It can also affect attention and focus indirectly by interfering with restful sleep. Anxiety disorders can be difficult to identify, as the sufferers typically internalize their symptoms. But inquire about specific worries (such as speaking in front of others, meeting new people, or an illness or accident striking themselves or a loved one) and how much time they take up. Explore if worries fill their thoughts during quiet or downtime, and explore more about their worries. You may use a screening instrument such as the Pediatric Symptom Checklist or the SCARED, both of which will indicate a likely problem with anxiety. While it is possible to have comorbid ADHD with an anxiety disorder, the anxiety disorder will likely worsen with stimulants and should be treated first. These are usually curable illnesses and you may find that remission of anxiety symptoms resolves the attentional problems.

Depression

Mood disorders are less common than anxiety disorders in youth, but far more prevalent than ADHD. And depression is usually marked by serious difficulty concentrating across settings (including for things that were previously very interesting). A sullen teenager who is deeply self-critical about school performance would benefit from exploration of associated changes in mood, interests, energy, appetite, sleep, and for feelings of worthlessness, guilt, and suicidal thoughts. The PHQ9A is a simple, free screening instrument that is reasonable to use with every sick visit (and well-check) with your adolescent patients, given the risks of undetected and untreated depression. If your patient presents complaining of poor school performance, always screen for depression. As with anxiety disorders, comorbid ADHD is possible, but it is always recommended to treat the mood disorder first and then to assess for residual ADHD symptoms once the mood disorder is in remission.

Substance abuse

Adolescence is a time of exploration, and drug and alcohol use is common. While attentional impairment will happen with intoxication, occasional or rare use should not lead to consistent impairment in school. But when parents are more worried than their children about a significant change in school performance, it is important to screen for substance abuse. A child with a secret substance use disorder will often present with behavioral changes and deteriorating school performance and might deny any drug or alcohol use to parents. Indeed, stimulants have some street value and some patients may be seeking a stimulant prescription to sell or trade for other drugs. Regular marijuana use may present with only deteriorating school performance and no irritability or other noticeable behavioral changes. Marijuana is seen as safe and even healthy by many teenagers (and even many parents), and some youth may be using it recreationally or to manage difficulties with sleep, anxiety, or mood symptoms.

But there is compelling evidence that marijuana use causes cognitive impairment, including difficulty with sustaining attention, short-term memory, and processing speed, for as long as 24 hours after use. If a teenager is using marijuana daily after school, it is certainly going to interfere, in a dose-dependent manner, with attention and cognitive function. Sustained heavy use can lead to permanent cognitive deficits. It can also trigger or worsen anxiety or mood symptoms (contrary to much popular opinion).

Gathering a thorough substance use history is essential when assessing a teenager for difficulties with focus or attention, especially when these are accompanied by change in behavior and school performance. Remember, it is critical to interview these children without their parents present to invite them to be forthcoming with you.
 

History

While true ADHD should have been present throughout childhood, it is possible that the symptoms have become noticeable only in adolescence. For patients with very high intelligence and lower levels of impulsivity and hyperactivity, they might easily have “flown under the radar” during their elementary and even middle school years. Their difficulties with attention and focus might become apparent only when the volume and difficulty of schoolwork both are great enough that their intelligence is not enough to get good grades. That is, their problems with executive function, prioritizing, shifting sets, and completing tasks in a timely way make it impossible to keep up good grades when the work gets harder.

Your history should reveal a long history of dreaminess or distractibility, a tendency to lose and forget things, and the other symptoms of inattention. Did they often seem to not be listening when they were younger? Forget to hand in homework? Leave chores unfinished? Leave messes behind everywhere they went? These will not be definitive, but they do reassure that symptoms may have been present for a long time, even if school performance was considered fine until the workload got too large. If such problems were not present before puberty, consider whether a subtle learning disability could be impairing them as they face more challenging academic subjects.

If you have ruled out anxiety, mood, and substance use concerns, and helped them to address a sleep deficit, then you can proceed. It is worthwhile to get Vanderbilt Assessments as you would for a younger child. If they meet criteria, discuss the risks and benefits of medication, executive skills coaching, and environmental adjustments (extra time for tests, a less stimulating environment) that can help them explore academic challenges without the discouragement that ADHD can bring.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Pediatricians are increasingly expert in the assessment and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. But what do you do when adolescents present to your office saying they think they have ADHD? While ADHD is a common and treatable disorder of youth, it is important to take special care when assessing an adolescent. Difficulties with attention and concentration are common symptoms for many different challenges of adolescence, and for ADHD to be the underlying cause, those symptoms must have started prior to adolescence (according to DSM-5, prior to the age of 12). When your adolescent patients or their parents come to your office complaining of inattention, it is important to consider the full range of possible explanations.

Sleep

We have written in this column previously about the challenges that adolescents face in getting adequate sleep consistently. Teenagers, on average, need more than 9 hours of sleep nightly and American teenagers get fewer than 6. This mismatch is because of physiologic shifts that move their natural sleep onset time significantly later, while school still starts early. It’s often compounded by other demands on their time, including homework, extracurricular activities, and the gravitational pull of social connections. Independent teenagers make their own decisions about how to manage their time and may feel sleep is optional, or manage their fatigue with naps and caffeine, both of which will further compromise the quality and efficiency of sleep.

Chronic sleep deprivation will present with difficulties with focus, attention, memory, and cognitive performance. Treatment of this problem with stimulants is likely to make the underlying poor sleep habits even worse. When your patient presents complaining of difficulty concentrating and worsening school performance, be sure to start with a thorough sleep history, and always provide guidance about the body’s need for sleep and healthy sleep habits.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric illnesses of youth, with estimates of as many as 30% of children and adolescents experiencing one. The true prevalence of ADHD is estimated to be about 4% of the population. Whether social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, or even posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders interfere with attention as ruminative worry tends to distract those experiencing it. It can also affect attention and focus indirectly by interfering with restful sleep. Anxiety disorders can be difficult to identify, as the sufferers typically internalize their symptoms. But inquire about specific worries (such as speaking in front of others, meeting new people, or an illness or accident striking themselves or a loved one) and how much time they take up. Explore if worries fill their thoughts during quiet or downtime, and explore more about their worries. You may use a screening instrument such as the Pediatric Symptom Checklist or the SCARED, both of which will indicate a likely problem with anxiety. While it is possible to have comorbid ADHD with an anxiety disorder, the anxiety disorder will likely worsen with stimulants and should be treated first. These are usually curable illnesses and you may find that remission of anxiety symptoms resolves the attentional problems.

Depression

Mood disorders are less common than anxiety disorders in youth, but far more prevalent than ADHD. And depression is usually marked by serious difficulty concentrating across settings (including for things that were previously very interesting). A sullen teenager who is deeply self-critical about school performance would benefit from exploration of associated changes in mood, interests, energy, appetite, sleep, and for feelings of worthlessness, guilt, and suicidal thoughts. The PHQ9A is a simple, free screening instrument that is reasonable to use with every sick visit (and well-check) with your adolescent patients, given the risks of undetected and untreated depression. If your patient presents complaining of poor school performance, always screen for depression. As with anxiety disorders, comorbid ADHD is possible, but it is always recommended to treat the mood disorder first and then to assess for residual ADHD symptoms once the mood disorder is in remission.

Substance abuse

Adolescence is a time of exploration, and drug and alcohol use is common. While attentional impairment will happen with intoxication, occasional or rare use should not lead to consistent impairment in school. But when parents are more worried than their children about a significant change in school performance, it is important to screen for substance abuse. A child with a secret substance use disorder will often present with behavioral changes and deteriorating school performance and might deny any drug or alcohol use to parents. Indeed, stimulants have some street value and some patients may be seeking a stimulant prescription to sell or trade for other drugs. Regular marijuana use may present with only deteriorating school performance and no irritability or other noticeable behavioral changes. Marijuana is seen as safe and even healthy by many teenagers (and even many parents), and some youth may be using it recreationally or to manage difficulties with sleep, anxiety, or mood symptoms.

But there is compelling evidence that marijuana use causes cognitive impairment, including difficulty with sustaining attention, short-term memory, and processing speed, for as long as 24 hours after use. If a teenager is using marijuana daily after school, it is certainly going to interfere, in a dose-dependent manner, with attention and cognitive function. Sustained heavy use can lead to permanent cognitive deficits. It can also trigger or worsen anxiety or mood symptoms (contrary to much popular opinion).

Gathering a thorough substance use history is essential when assessing a teenager for difficulties with focus or attention, especially when these are accompanied by change in behavior and school performance. Remember, it is critical to interview these children without their parents present to invite them to be forthcoming with you.
 

History

While true ADHD should have been present throughout childhood, it is possible that the symptoms have become noticeable only in adolescence. For patients with very high intelligence and lower levels of impulsivity and hyperactivity, they might easily have “flown under the radar” during their elementary and even middle school years. Their difficulties with attention and focus might become apparent only when the volume and difficulty of schoolwork both are great enough that their intelligence is not enough to get good grades. That is, their problems with executive function, prioritizing, shifting sets, and completing tasks in a timely way make it impossible to keep up good grades when the work gets harder.

Your history should reveal a long history of dreaminess or distractibility, a tendency to lose and forget things, and the other symptoms of inattention. Did they often seem to not be listening when they were younger? Forget to hand in homework? Leave chores unfinished? Leave messes behind everywhere they went? These will not be definitive, but they do reassure that symptoms may have been present for a long time, even if school performance was considered fine until the workload got too large. If such problems were not present before puberty, consider whether a subtle learning disability could be impairing them as they face more challenging academic subjects.

If you have ruled out anxiety, mood, and substance use concerns, and helped them to address a sleep deficit, then you can proceed. It is worthwhile to get Vanderbilt Assessments as you would for a younger child. If they meet criteria, discuss the risks and benefits of medication, executive skills coaching, and environmental adjustments (extra time for tests, a less stimulating environment) that can help them explore academic challenges without the discouragement that ADHD can bring.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Psychiatry may be emerging from the era of psychopharmacology and entering the era of the brain, but these reductionist, jingoistic labels do little justice to the need to acknowledge and incorporate the context of our lives into our theories and treatments. Yet psychiatrists who embrace context have much to celebrate in evolving neuroscience research.

One aptly named article – ’Families that fire together smile together’ – illustrates the fundamental connection between parent and child.¹ In the functional MRIs (fMRIs) taken of these parent-child dyads (n = 76), the dyads with similar resting state connectomes also have similar day-to-day emotional states, as reflected in their diary entries. Their empathic states were identified in the multivoxel patterns in the fusiform face area of the brain.² Another study of fMRIs and parent-child dyads (n = 93) found that the parental functional connectomes (fbc) predicted their children’s externalizing and internalizing problems. The maternal fbcs were correlated with the daughter-mother relationship, and to the daughter’s internalizing problems, suggesting a potential future focus on gendered relationships.³

The implications for psychotherapy are clear: These studies show that empathic connection between parent and child results in a better outcome for the child. Patient and psychotherapist can choose from a range of psychotherapeutic interventions that promote empathy, from providing behavioral tasks that support connection between parent and child to more in-depth family interventions. Family interventions that promote empathy include increasing the family’s understanding of the importance of empathic connection and providing a safe space to help establish empathic connection.

Studying prosocial behavior, Lukas Lengersdorff and colleagues found that fMRIs of male participants (n = 96) reflected stronger activity when they were acting on behalf of the other, rather than when acting for themselves.⁴ During this prosocial learning fMRI study, there was stronger engagement of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and higher connectivity between the ventromedial PFC and the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ). Protecting others from harm appears to be associated with neural mechanisms that support self-relevant learning, but with the added recruitment of structures associated with the social brain. This study shows what we already know – that our brains are wired for social context. This research supports psychotherapeutic interventions aimed at creating interpersonal connection, not just at an intimate level, but also at the prosocial level, such as caring and helping others.

When social interactions are coded, the default mode network (DMN) shows increased activity. Participants (n = 11) in another study had heightened medial PFC–rTPJ connectivity, not only during rest that followed the experimental social encoding, but also during rest that followed a subsequent, nonsocial task.⁵ Engaging portions of the DMN during live social interactions when actively decoding the social environment, and later engaging these regions when relaxing after the social interaction, appears to facilitate social functioning. Our brains are wired to respond to context. This research underscores the positive impact of interventions such as group therapy and support groups, two underutilized modalities.

Neuroscience evaluation of our relationships provides depth to studies that fall under the medical paradigm of the gene/environment interaction. One of the most elegant in psychiatry is the Finnish study of a sample of offspring of mothers with schizophrenia who gave their children up for adoption.⁶ This sample of index offspring (n = 155) was compared blindly with matched controls (n = 186) of adopted/away offspring of parents without schizophrenia. The genetic effect manifested only as a psychiatric disorder in the presence of a disturbed family environment. We can now extrapolate certain possible mechanisms from the studies mentioned above: That the deficits lie in the activity or lack of activity in the DMN and associated areas, and in the generation of connectomes responsible for empathic connections.

Neuroscience expands our knowledge of our relational and social worlds, but can psychiatry make the case for inclusion of context in our conceptualization of psychiatric distress? From time to time, inroads are made, for example, the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning was incorporated into the DSM-IV-R and the Cultural Formulation Interview is in the DSM-5. However, without a sustained paradigm shift that places the gene/environment paradigm at the core of psychiatry, these efforts will rise and fall as the pioneers in these fields rise and fall.

A major barrier to moving the gene/environment paradigm more centrally in psychiatry is the prominence of individualism as an American ideal. As the neuroscience of context develops, we will be able to argue more robustly for a contextual approach to patient care.

A second barrier is the difficulty of teaching and learning about complexity. It is easy to learn how to use the DSM to make a diagnosis, to understand when and how to prescribe medications, but it is much more difficult to understand how to incorporate the complexity of life and the context within which we live, into our lexicon of psychiatric theories and treatments. As Tanya Luhrmann, PhD, points out in her study of the process of psychiatric training, residents are intimidated by the need to learn the many psychological theories and their practice; learning about medications is much simpler and takes much less time and effort.⁷

Nevertheless, context is embraced by several psychiatric subspecialties. Family psychiatrists recognize the power of relational dynamics in the family, and their role in shaping the individual. From understanding family communication patterns, to understanding how roles in the family get allocated, family psychiatry has well established tools for assessment and many evidence-based treatments that focus on changing relational dynamics. Social and community psychiatrists emphasize the role of race, poverty, and access, and support the assessment and treatment of the underprivileged. Cultural psychiatrists recognize that each culture has its own way of constructing identities and shaping our experiences, its own conceptualization of illness and specific idioms of distress. Cultural psychiatrists focus on sensitizing the general psychiatrist to these nuances. Child psychiatrists involve parents, and geriatric psychiatrists involve guardians. General psychiatrists understand context when, for example, understanding the role of trauma in the development of an individual, recognizing that its impact is contingent on the context within which the trauma occurs.

Neuroscience clarifies the neural pathways involved in the development of empathic and social behaviors. Our psychological theories and practice must reflect this advancement. We can teach the relevant neuroscience along with basic concepts such as child-parent relationships. We must assess an individual’s degree of fit within their family and community. Apart from asking relational questions, such as who in your world is important to you, we can use well recognized tools to help us bring context to the forefront. An easy tool is the three generational genogram, or an ecomap, which allows each individual to see where they sit in the context of their world.⁸ Cultural influences, societal, religious, and family influences can be drawn on the genogram, highlighting both formal and hidden family narratives. In addition, we can share how the brain works with our patients; the science of empathy and social behaviors shows us that our need for interpersonal connection is hardwired.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at alison.heru@ucdenver.edu.

References

1. Lee TH et al. Families that fire together smile together: Resting state connectome similarity and daily emotional synchrony in parent-child dyads. Neuroimage. 2017 May 15;152:31-37. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.078.

2. Lee TH et al. Love flows downstream: Mothers’ and children’s neural representation similarity in perceiving distress of self and family. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 Dec 1;12(12):1916-27. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx125.

3. Itahashi T et al. Functional connectomes linking child-parent relationships with psychological problems in adolescence. Neuroimage. 2020 Oct 1;219:117013. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117013.

4. Lengersdorff LL et al. When implicit prosociality trumps selfishness: The neural valuation system underpins more optimal choices when learning to avoid harm to others than to oneself. J Neurosci. 2020 Sep 16;40(38):7286-99. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0842-20.2020.

5. Meyer ML et al. Evidence that default network connectivity during rest consolidates social information. Cereb Cortex. 2019 May 1;29(5):1910-20. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhy071.

6. Tienari P et al. The Finnish adoptive family study of schizophrenia. Implications for family research. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1994 Apr;(23):20-6.

7. Luhrmann, TM. Of two minds: The growing disorder in American psychiatry. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

8. Libbon R et al. Family skills for the resident toolbox: The 10-min. Genogram, Ecomap, and Prescribing Homework. Acad Psychiatry. 2019 Aug;43(4):435-439. doi: 10.1007/s40596-019-01054-6.

Psychiatry may be emerging from the era of psychopharmacology and entering the era of the brain, but these reductionist, jingoistic labels do little justice to the need to acknowledge and incorporate the context of our lives into our theories and treatments. Yet psychiatrists who embrace context have much to celebrate in evolving neuroscience research.

One aptly named article – ’Families that fire together smile together’ – illustrates the fundamental connection between parent and child.¹ In the functional MRIs (fMRIs) taken of these parent-child dyads (n = 76), the dyads with similar resting state connectomes also have similar day-to-day emotional states, as reflected in their diary entries. Their empathic states were identified in the multivoxel patterns in the fusiform face area of the brain.² Another study of fMRIs and parent-child dyads (n = 93) found that the parental functional connectomes (fbc) predicted their children’s externalizing and internalizing problems. The maternal fbcs were correlated with the daughter-mother relationship, and to the daughter’s internalizing problems, suggesting a potential future focus on gendered relationships.³

The implications for psychotherapy are clear: These studies show that empathic connection between parent and child results in a better outcome for the child. Patient and psychotherapist can choose from a range of psychotherapeutic interventions that promote empathy, from providing behavioral tasks that support connection between parent and child to more in-depth family interventions. Family interventions that promote empathy include increasing the family’s understanding of the importance of empathic connection and providing a safe space to help establish empathic connection.

Studying prosocial behavior, Lukas Lengersdorff and colleagues found that fMRIs of male participants (n = 96) reflected stronger activity when they were acting on behalf of the other, rather than when acting for themselves.⁴ During this prosocial learning fMRI study, there was stronger engagement of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and higher connectivity between the ventromedial PFC and the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ). Protecting others from harm appears to be associated with neural mechanisms that support self-relevant learning, but with the added recruitment of structures associated with the social brain. This study shows what we already know – that our brains are wired for social context. This research supports psychotherapeutic interventions aimed at creating interpersonal connection, not just at an intimate level, but also at the prosocial level, such as caring and helping others.

When social interactions are coded, the default mode network (DMN) shows increased activity. Participants (n = 11) in another study had heightened medial PFC–rTPJ connectivity, not only during rest that followed the experimental social encoding, but also during rest that followed a subsequent, nonsocial task.⁵ Engaging portions of the DMN during live social interactions when actively decoding the social environment, and later engaging these regions when relaxing after the social interaction, appears to facilitate social functioning. Our brains are wired to respond to context. This research underscores the positive impact of interventions such as group therapy and support groups, two underutilized modalities.

Neuroscience evaluation of our relationships provides depth to studies that fall under the medical paradigm of the gene/environment interaction. One of the most elegant in psychiatry is the Finnish study of a sample of offspring of mothers with schizophrenia who gave their children up for adoption.⁶ This sample of index offspring (n = 155) was compared blindly with matched controls (n = 186) of adopted/away offspring of parents without schizophrenia. The genetic effect manifested only as a psychiatric disorder in the presence of a disturbed family environment. We can now extrapolate certain possible mechanisms from the studies mentioned above: That the deficits lie in the activity or lack of activity in the DMN and associated areas, and in the generation of connectomes responsible for empathic connections.

Neuroscience expands our knowledge of our relational and social worlds, but can psychiatry make the case for inclusion of context in our conceptualization of psychiatric distress? From time to time, inroads are made, for example, the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning was incorporated into the DSM-IV-R and the Cultural Formulation Interview is in the DSM-5. However, without a sustained paradigm shift that places the gene/environment paradigm at the core of psychiatry, these efforts will rise and fall as the pioneers in these fields rise and fall.

A major barrier to moving the gene/environment paradigm more centrally in psychiatry is the prominence of individualism as an American ideal. As the neuroscience of context develops, we will be able to argue more robustly for a contextual approach to patient care.

A second barrier is the difficulty of teaching and learning about complexity. It is easy to learn how to use the DSM to make a diagnosis, to understand when and how to prescribe medications, but it is much more difficult to understand how to incorporate the complexity of life and the context within which we live, into our lexicon of psychiatric theories and treatments. As Tanya Luhrmann, PhD, points out in her study of the process of psychiatric training, residents are intimidated by the need to learn the many psychological theories and their practice; learning about medications is much simpler and takes much less time and effort.⁷

Nevertheless, context is embraced by several psychiatric subspecialties. Family psychiatrists recognize the power of relational dynamics in the family, and their role in shaping the individual. From understanding family communication patterns, to understanding how roles in the family get allocated, family psychiatry has well established tools for assessment and many evidence-based treatments that focus on changing relational dynamics. Social and community psychiatrists emphasize the role of race, poverty, and access, and support the assessment and treatment of the underprivileged. Cultural psychiatrists recognize that each culture has its own way of constructing identities and shaping our experiences, its own conceptualization of illness and specific idioms of distress. Cultural psychiatrists focus on sensitizing the general psychiatrist to these nuances. Child psychiatrists involve parents, and geriatric psychiatrists involve guardians. General psychiatrists understand context when, for example, understanding the role of trauma in the development of an individual, recognizing that its impact is contingent on the context within which the trauma occurs.

Neuroscience clarifies the neural pathways involved in the development of empathic and social behaviors. Our psychological theories and practice must reflect this advancement. We can teach the relevant neuroscience along with basic concepts such as child-parent relationships. We must assess an individual’s degree of fit within their family and community. Apart from asking relational questions, such as who in your world is important to you, we can use well recognized tools to help us bring context to the forefront. An easy tool is the three generational genogram, or an ecomap, which allows each individual to see where they sit in the context of their world.⁸ Cultural influences, societal, religious, and family influences can be drawn on the genogram, highlighting both formal and hidden family narratives. In addition, we can share how the brain works with our patients; the science of empathy and social behaviors shows us that our need for interpersonal connection is hardwired.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at alison.heru@ucdenver.edu.

References

1. Lee TH et al. Families that fire together smile together: Resting state connectome similarity and daily emotional synchrony in parent-child dyads. Neuroimage. 2017 May 15;152:31-37. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.078.

2. Lee TH et al. Love flows downstream: Mothers’ and children’s neural representation similarity in perceiving distress of self and family. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 Dec 1;12(12):1916-27. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx125.

3. Itahashi T et al. Functional connectomes linking child-parent relationships with psychological problems in adolescence. Neuroimage. 2020 Oct 1;219:117013. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117013.

4. Lengersdorff LL et al. When implicit prosociality trumps selfishness: The neural valuation system underpins more optimal choices when learning to avoid harm to others than to oneself. J Neurosci. 2020 Sep 16;40(38):7286-99. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0842-20.2020.

5. Meyer ML et al. Evidence that default network connectivity during rest consolidates social information. Cereb Cortex. 2019 May 1;29(5):1910-20. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhy071.

6. Tienari P et al. The Finnish adoptive family study of schizophrenia. Implications for family research. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1994 Apr;(23):20-6.

7. Luhrmann, TM. Of two minds: The growing disorder in American psychiatry. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

8. Libbon R et al. Family skills for the resident toolbox: The 10-min. Genogram, Ecomap, and Prescribing Homework. Acad Psychiatry. 2019 Aug;43(4):435-439. doi: 10.1007/s40596-019-01054-6.

Psychiatry may be emerging from the era of psychopharmacology and entering the era of the brain, but these reductionist, jingoistic labels do little justice to the need to acknowledge and incorporate the context of our lives into our theories and treatments. Yet psychiatrists who embrace context have much to celebrate in evolving neuroscience research.

One aptly named article – ’Families that fire together smile together’ – illustrates the fundamental connection between parent and child.¹ In the functional MRIs (fMRIs) taken of these parent-child dyads (n = 76), the dyads with similar resting state connectomes also have similar day-to-day emotional states, as reflected in their diary entries. Their empathic states were identified in the multivoxel patterns in the fusiform face area of the brain.² Another study of fMRIs and parent-child dyads (n = 93) found that the parental functional connectomes (fbc) predicted their children’s externalizing and internalizing problems. The maternal fbcs were correlated with the daughter-mother relationship, and to the daughter’s internalizing problems, suggesting a potential future focus on gendered relationships.³

The implications for psychotherapy are clear: These studies show that empathic connection between parent and child results in a better outcome for the child. Patient and psychotherapist can choose from a range of psychotherapeutic interventions that promote empathy, from providing behavioral tasks that support connection between parent and child to more in-depth family interventions. Family interventions that promote empathy include increasing the family’s understanding of the importance of empathic connection and providing a safe space to help establish empathic connection.

Studying prosocial behavior, Lukas Lengersdorff and colleagues found that fMRIs of male participants (n = 96) reflected stronger activity when they were acting on behalf of the other, rather than when acting for themselves.⁴ During this prosocial learning fMRI study, there was stronger engagement of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and higher connectivity between the ventromedial PFC and the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ). Protecting others from harm appears to be associated with neural mechanisms that support self-relevant learning, but with the added recruitment of structures associated with the social brain. This study shows what we already know – that our brains are wired for social context. This research supports psychotherapeutic interventions aimed at creating interpersonal connection, not just at an intimate level, but also at the prosocial level, such as caring and helping others.

When social interactions are coded, the default mode network (DMN) shows increased activity. Participants (n = 11) in another study had heightened medial PFC–rTPJ connectivity, not only during rest that followed the experimental social encoding, but also during rest that followed a subsequent, nonsocial task.⁵ Engaging portions of the DMN during live social interactions when actively decoding the social environment, and later engaging these regions when relaxing after the social interaction, appears to facilitate social functioning. Our brains are wired to respond to context. This research underscores the positive impact of interventions such as group therapy and support groups, two underutilized modalities.

Neuroscience evaluation of our relationships provides depth to studies that fall under the medical paradigm of the gene/environment interaction. One of the most elegant in psychiatry is the Finnish study of a sample of offspring of mothers with schizophrenia who gave their children up for adoption.⁶ This sample of index offspring (n = 155) was compared blindly with matched controls (n = 186) of adopted/away offspring of parents without schizophrenia. The genetic effect manifested only as a psychiatric disorder in the presence of a disturbed family environment. We can now extrapolate certain possible mechanisms from the studies mentioned above: That the deficits lie in the activity or lack of activity in the DMN and associated areas, and in the generation of connectomes responsible for empathic connections.

Neuroscience expands our knowledge of our relational and social worlds, but can psychiatry make the case for inclusion of context in our conceptualization of psychiatric distress? From time to time, inroads are made, for example, the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning was incorporated into the DSM-IV-R and the Cultural Formulation Interview is in the DSM-5. However, without a sustained paradigm shift that places the gene/environment paradigm at the core of psychiatry, these efforts will rise and fall as the pioneers in these fields rise and fall.

A major barrier to moving the gene/environment paradigm more centrally in psychiatry is the prominence of individualism as an American ideal. As the neuroscience of context develops, we will be able to argue more robustly for a contextual approach to patient care.

A second barrier is the difficulty of teaching and learning about complexity. It is easy to learn how to use the DSM to make a diagnosis, to understand when and how to prescribe medications, but it is much more difficult to understand how to incorporate the complexity of life and the context within which we live, into our lexicon of psychiatric theories and treatments. As Tanya Luhrmann, PhD, points out in her study of the process of psychiatric training, residents are intimidated by the need to learn the many psychological theories and their practice; learning about medications is much simpler and takes much less time and effort.⁷

Nevertheless, context is embraced by several psychiatric subspecialties. Family psychiatrists recognize the power of relational dynamics in the family, and their role in shaping the individual. From understanding family communication patterns, to understanding how roles in the family get allocated, family psychiatry has well established tools for assessment and many evidence-based treatments that focus on changing relational dynamics. Social and community psychiatrists emphasize the role of race, poverty, and access, and support the assessment and treatment of the underprivileged. Cultural psychiatrists recognize that each culture has its own way of constructing identities and shaping our experiences, its own conceptualization of illness and specific idioms of distress. Cultural psychiatrists focus on sensitizing the general psychiatrist to these nuances. Child psychiatrists involve parents, and geriatric psychiatrists involve guardians. General psychiatrists understand context when, for example, understanding the role of trauma in the development of an individual, recognizing that its impact is contingent on the context within which the trauma occurs.

Neuroscience clarifies the neural pathways involved in the development of empathic and social behaviors. Our psychological theories and practice must reflect this advancement. We can teach the relevant neuroscience along with basic concepts such as child-parent relationships. We must assess an individual’s degree of fit within their family and community. Apart from asking relational questions, such as who in your world is important to you, we can use well recognized tools to help us bring context to the forefront. An easy tool is the three generational genogram, or an ecomap, which allows each individual to see where they sit in the context of their world.⁸ Cultural influences, societal, religious, and family influences can be drawn on the genogram, highlighting both formal and hidden family narratives. In addition, we can share how the brain works with our patients; the science of empathy and social behaviors shows us that our need for interpersonal connection is hardwired.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at alison.heru@ucdenver.edu.

References

1. Lee TH et al. Families that fire together smile together: Resting state connectome similarity and daily emotional synchrony in parent-child dyads. Neuroimage. 2017 May 15;152:31-37. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.078.

2. Lee TH et al. Love flows downstream: Mothers’ and children’s neural representation similarity in perceiving distress of self and family. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 Dec 1;12(12):1916-27. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx125.

3. Itahashi T et al. Functional connectomes linking child-parent relationships with psychological problems in adolescence. Neuroimage. 2020 Oct 1;219:117013. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117013.

4. Lengersdorff LL et al. When implicit prosociality trumps selfishness: The neural valuation system underpins more optimal choices when learning to avoid harm to others than to oneself. J Neurosci. 2020 Sep 16;40(38):7286-99. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0842-20.2020.

5. Meyer ML et al. Evidence that default network connectivity during rest consolidates social information. Cereb Cortex. 2019 May 1;29(5):1910-20. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhy071.

6. Tienari P et al. The Finnish adoptive family study of schizophrenia. Implications for family research. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1994 Apr;(23):20-6.

7. Luhrmann, TM. Of two minds: The growing disorder in American psychiatry. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

8. Libbon R et al. Family skills for the resident toolbox: The 10-min. Genogram, Ecomap, and Prescribing Homework. Acad Psychiatry. 2019 Aug;43(4):435-439. doi: 10.1007/s40596-019-01054-6.

It has become increasingly apparent that our health care system is suffering from a severe case of “transparency gap.” There is a lack of transparency at every level of care in the system. Whether it is the hidden rebate/fee kickbacks from drug manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), or the variability in pricing of imaging and procedures based on site of care, the need for transparency has become acute. The health insurance sector seems to specialize in opaqueness. The vertical integration of the three largest insurance companies with the three largest PBMs seems to have trapped the flow of money and services in one big black box. It can be difficult to decide if this transparency gap is a case of missing information, misinformation, or a deliberate hiding of information … or maybe a combination of all three.

Recently, I testified before a Wisconsin State Senate committee about the consequences and potential harm to patients and physician offices caused by mandated “white bagging,” which refers to the process whereby provider-administered drugs are shipped to the provider by a specialty pharmacy, as opposed to the provider buying the drug and billing the insurance company. I was very surprised to hear the large employers testifying against our position.

As I listened to the employer groups, it was clear that their protestations were predominantly focused on hospital billing, where markups on the administered medications can be 500% and upward. It made sense that if a business has a “self-funded” health plan, where the employer pays for the cost of care of the employees, those very high markups on the hospital administered medications would eventually become unsustainable. In addition to paying for the care of employees, employers also pay the health insurance company/PBMs to administer the plan. It is obvious that self-funded businesses are being overwhelmed by all these rising costs. What is not so clear is how much information employers get from their plan administrators on their policies and pricing.

An Employee Benefit Research Institute (ERBI) study examined the difference in prices of health care procedures, labs, and imaging based on site of care. It clearly shows that physicians’ offices are the least expensive overall for infusion therapy, even when compared with home infusion in most cases.

Here is where the missing information and the white-bagging issue intersect. When insurance administrators tell employers that letting the provider “buy and bill” costs an outrageous amount, they fail to tell the employers that physicians’ office prices are comparable, or, in some cases, less than what the employer would pay with white bagging. In addition, the possible harm to patients and to the physicians’ practices are never mentioned to the employer. Here is a list of some of the problems associated with white bagging:

• Delays in patient care when dosages or treatment plans are modified during the patient visit.
• Significant waste of drugs when patients’ treatments change or appointments are rescheduled.
• Unnecessary administrative burden for both the patient and physician, including inventory nightmares.

We see the transparency gap again when formularies are created with higher-priced, branded drugs in place of lower-priced generics and alternatives. How can a PBM explain that a formulary that prefers a $10,000 prostate cancer drug but excludes the $400 generic of that drug actually saves money? If the employer doesn’t know about the generic, no explanation is needed.

When physician offices attempt to override some of these harmful policies, the PBM or insurance company often points the finger at the employer as the culprit responsible for the policy. Often, the employers have no idea of the ramifications of the contracts that they have signed. As health care costs continue to rise, it is important that employers are educated on how they can save money and improve patient care by directly contracting with independent physician practices.

In addition, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2020-21 (CAA) “seeks to enforce good value from providers and vendors, and forbids hidden contracting terms that disfavor employers and their employees.” This year and next, the employers will become responsible for transparency reporting and demonstrating cost effectiveness of therapies for their employees. In theory, this should uncover many of the hidden policies that favor only the health plans and not the patients or their employers. Many employers are unaware of the CAA, and vendors are in no hurry to inform them of it.

Not only will the CAA help to eliminate much of the transparency gap in the system, but it may encourage employers to work directly with independent physicians’ offices to provide more cost effective and transparent services for their patients. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is working on a framework to enable practicing rheumatologists to do exactly this.

In the meantime, we must continue educating employers on white bagging and other policies that harm both their patients and their “bottom line.” This education is just one of the steps needed to rid the health care system of the transparency gap that leads to higher prices and poorer care for all patients.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is president of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

It has become increasingly apparent that our health care system is suffering from a severe case of “transparency gap.” There is a lack of transparency at every level of care in the system. Whether it is the hidden rebate/fee kickbacks from drug manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), or the variability in pricing of imaging and procedures based on site of care, the need for transparency has become acute. The health insurance sector seems to specialize in opaqueness. The vertical integration of the three largest insurance companies with the three largest PBMs seems to have trapped the flow of money and services in one big black box. It can be difficult to decide if this transparency gap is a case of missing information, misinformation, or a deliberate hiding of information … or maybe a combination of all three.

Recently, I testified before a Wisconsin State Senate committee about the consequences and potential harm to patients and physician offices caused by mandated “white bagging,” which refers to the process whereby provider-administered drugs are shipped to the provider by a specialty pharmacy, as opposed to the provider buying the drug and billing the insurance company. I was very surprised to hear the large employers testifying against our position.

As I listened to the employer groups, it was clear that their protestations were predominantly focused on hospital billing, where markups on the administered medications can be 500% and upward. It made sense that if a business has a “self-funded” health plan, where the employer pays for the cost of care of the employees, those very high markups on the hospital administered medications would eventually become unsustainable. In addition to paying for the care of employees, employers also pay the health insurance company/PBMs to administer the plan. It is obvious that self-funded businesses are being overwhelmed by all these rising costs. What is not so clear is how much information employers get from their plan administrators on their policies and pricing.

An Employee Benefit Research Institute (ERBI) study examined the difference in prices of health care procedures, labs, and imaging based on site of care. It clearly shows that physicians’ offices are the least expensive overall for infusion therapy, even when compared with home infusion in most cases.

Here is where the missing information and the white-bagging issue intersect. When insurance administrators tell employers that letting the provider “buy and bill” costs an outrageous amount, they fail to tell the employers that physicians’ office prices are comparable, or, in some cases, less than what the employer would pay with white bagging. In addition, the possible harm to patients and to the physicians’ practices are never mentioned to the employer. Here is a list of some of the problems associated with white bagging:

• Delays in patient care when dosages or treatment plans are modified during the patient visit.
• Significant waste of drugs when patients’ treatments change or appointments are rescheduled.
• Unnecessary administrative burden for both the patient and physician, including inventory nightmares.

We see the transparency gap again when formularies are created with higher-priced, branded drugs in place of lower-priced generics and alternatives. How can a PBM explain that a formulary that prefers a $10,000 prostate cancer drug but excludes the $400 generic of that drug actually saves money? If the employer doesn’t know about the generic, no explanation is needed.

When physician offices attempt to override some of these harmful policies, the PBM or insurance company often points the finger at the employer as the culprit responsible for the policy. Often, the employers have no idea of the ramifications of the contracts that they have signed. As health care costs continue to rise, it is important that employers are educated on how they can save money and improve patient care by directly contracting with independent physician practices.

In addition, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2020-21 (CAA) “seeks to enforce good value from providers and vendors, and forbids hidden contracting terms that disfavor employers and their employees.” This year and next, the employers will become responsible for transparency reporting and demonstrating cost effectiveness of therapies for their employees. In theory, this should uncover many of the hidden policies that favor only the health plans and not the patients or their employers. Many employers are unaware of the CAA, and vendors are in no hurry to inform them of it.

Not only will the CAA help to eliminate much of the transparency gap in the system, but it may encourage employers to work directly with independent physicians’ offices to provide more cost effective and transparent services for their patients. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is working on a framework to enable practicing rheumatologists to do exactly this.

In the meantime, we must continue educating employers on white bagging and other policies that harm both their patients and their “bottom line.” This education is just one of the steps needed to rid the health care system of the transparency gap that leads to higher prices and poorer care for all patients.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is president of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

It has become increasingly apparent that our health care system is suffering from a severe case of “transparency gap.” There is a lack of transparency at every level of care in the system. Whether it is the hidden rebate/fee kickbacks from drug manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), or the variability in pricing of imaging and procedures based on site of care, the need for transparency has become acute. The health insurance sector seems to specialize in opaqueness. The vertical integration of the three largest insurance companies with the three largest PBMs seems to have trapped the flow of money and services in one big black box. It can be difficult to decide if this transparency gap is a case of missing information, misinformation, or a deliberate hiding of information … or maybe a combination of all three.

Recently, I testified before a Wisconsin State Senate committee about the consequences and potential harm to patients and physician offices caused by mandated “white bagging,” which refers to the process whereby provider-administered drugs are shipped to the provider by a specialty pharmacy, as opposed to the provider buying the drug and billing the insurance company. I was very surprised to hear the large employers testifying against our position.

As I listened to the employer groups, it was clear that their protestations were predominantly focused on hospital billing, where markups on the administered medications can be 500% and upward. It made sense that if a business has a “self-funded” health plan, where the employer pays for the cost of care of the employees, those very high markups on the hospital administered medications would eventually become unsustainable. In addition to paying for the care of employees, employers also pay the health insurance company/PBMs to administer the plan. It is obvious that self-funded businesses are being overwhelmed by all these rising costs. What is not so clear is how much information employers get from their plan administrators on their policies and pricing.

An Employee Benefit Research Institute (ERBI) study examined the difference in prices of health care procedures, labs, and imaging based on site of care. It clearly shows that physicians’ offices are the least expensive overall for infusion therapy, even when compared with home infusion in most cases.

Here is where the missing information and the white-bagging issue intersect. When insurance administrators tell employers that letting the provider “buy and bill” costs an outrageous amount, they fail to tell the employers that physicians’ office prices are comparable, or, in some cases, less than what the employer would pay with white bagging. In addition, the possible harm to patients and to the physicians’ practices are never mentioned to the employer. Here is a list of some of the problems associated with white bagging:

• Delays in patient care when dosages or treatment plans are modified during the patient visit.
• Significant waste of drugs when patients’ treatments change or appointments are rescheduled.
• Unnecessary administrative burden for both the patient and physician, including inventory nightmares.

We see the transparency gap again when formularies are created with higher-priced, branded drugs in place of lower-priced generics and alternatives. How can a PBM explain that a formulary that prefers a $10,000 prostate cancer drug but excludes the $400 generic of that drug actually saves money? If the employer doesn’t know about the generic, no explanation is needed.

When physician offices attempt to override some of these harmful policies, the PBM or insurance company often points the finger at the employer as the culprit responsible for the policy. Often, the employers have no idea of the ramifications of the contracts that they have signed. As health care costs continue to rise, it is important that employers are educated on how they can save money and improve patient care by directly contracting with independent physician practices.

In addition, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2020-21 (CAA) “seeks to enforce good value from providers and vendors, and forbids hidden contracting terms that disfavor employers and their employees.” This year and next, the employers will become responsible for transparency reporting and demonstrating cost effectiveness of therapies for their employees. In theory, this should uncover many of the hidden policies that favor only the health plans and not the patients or their employers. Many employers are unaware of the CAA, and vendors are in no hurry to inform them of it.

Not only will the CAA help to eliminate much of the transparency gap in the system, but it may encourage employers to work directly with independent physicians’ offices to provide more cost effective and transparent services for their patients. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is working on a framework to enable practicing rheumatologists to do exactly this.

In the meantime, we must continue educating employers on white bagging and other policies that harm both their patients and their “bottom line.” This education is just one of the steps needed to rid the health care system of the transparency gap that leads to higher prices and poorer care for all patients.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is president of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

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.

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

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.

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

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 standard management for early-stage endometrial cancer involves surgery with hysterectomy, salpingectomy with or without oophorectomy, and staging lymph node sampling. Surgery serves as both a therapeutic and diagnostic intervention because surgical pathology results are in turn used to predict the likelihood of relapse and guide adjuvant therapy decisions. However, in some cases, surgical intervention is not feasible or desired, particularly if fertility preservation is a goal. Fortunately, there are nonsurgical options that are associated with favorable outcomes to offer these patients.

Endometrial cancer is associated with obesity attributable to causative mechanisms that promote endometrial hyperplasia, cellular proliferation, and heightened hormonal and growth factor signaling. Not only does obesity drive the development of endometrial cancer, but it also complicates the treatment of the disease. For example, endometrial cancer staging surgery is less successfully completed through a minimally invasive route as body mass index increases, primarily because of limitations in surgical exposure.¹ In fact, obesity can prevent surgery from being offered through any route. In addition to body habitus, determination of inoperability is also significantly influenced by the presence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes.² Given that these comorbidities are more commonly experienced by women who are overweight, obesity creates a perfect storm of causative and complicating factors for optimal treatment.

While surgeons may determine the candidacy of patients for hysterectomy, patients themselves also drive this decision-making, particularly in the case of young patients who desire fertility preservation. Approximately 10% of patients with endometrial cancer are premenopausal, a number that is increasing over time. These women may have experienced infertility prior to their diagnosis, yet still strongly desire the attempt to conceive, particularly if they have suffered from anovulatory menstrual cycles or polycystic ovarian disease. Women with Lynch syndrome are at a higher risk for developing their cancer in premenopausal years. Therefore, it is critical that gynecologic oncologists consider nonsurgical remedies for these women and understand their potential for success.

Certain criteria should be met for women undergoing nonsurgical management of endometrial cancer, particularly if chosen electively for fertility preservation. Diagnosis should be obtained with a curettage specimen (rather than a pipelle) to optimize the accuracy of establishing tumor grade and to “debulk” the endometrial tissue. Pretreatment imaging is necessary to rule out distant metastatic disease. MRI is particularly helpful in approximating the depth of myometrial invasion of the malignancy and is recommended for patients desiring fertility preservation. Patients who have an endometrial cancer that is deeply invasive into the myometrium are poor candidates for fertility preservation and have a higher risk for metastatic disease, particularly to lymph nodes, and treatment decisions (such as surgery, or, if inoperable, radiation which treats nodal basins) should be considered for these women.

Hormonal therapy has long been identified as a highly effective systemic therapy for endometrial cancers, particularly those that are low grade and express estrogen and progesterone receptors. Progesterone can be administered orally in preparations such as megestrol or medroxyprogesterone or “locally” with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Oral preparations are straightforward, typically low-cost agents. Likelihood of success is 50%-75%. However, the systemic side effects of these agents, which include increased venous thromboembolism risk and appetite stimulation, are particularly problematic in this population. Therefore, many providers prefer to place progestin-releasing intrauterine devices to “bypass” these side effects, avoid issues with adherence to dosing, and provide some preventative endometrial coverage after resolution of the cancer. Recent trials have observed elimination of endometrial cancer on repeat sampling in 67%-76% of cases.^3-5 This strategy may be more successful when it is paired with the addition of GnRH agonists.⁴

When hormonal therapy is chosen for primary endometrial cancer treatment, it is typically monitored for efficacy with repeat endometrial samplings, most commonly with pipelle biopsies to avoid displacement of an intrauterine device, though repeat D&C may be more effective in achieving a complete pathologic response to treatment. Most providers recommend resampling the endometrium at 3-month intervals until resolution of the malignancy has been documented, and thereafter if any new bleeding events develop. For women who have demonstrated resolution of carcinoma on repeat sampling, data are lacking to guide decision-making regarding resumption of conception efforts, ongoing surveillance, and completion hysterectomy after they finish childbearing. If malignancy continues to be identified after 6 months of hormonal therapy, consideration should be made of a more definitive treatment (such as surgery, if feasible, or radiation if not). Continued hormonal therapy can also be considered, as delayed responses remain common even 1 year after starting therapy.⁶ If hormonal therapy is prolonged for persistent disease, repeat MRI is recommended at 6 months to document lack of progression.

Radiation, preferably with both intracavitary and external beam treatment, is the most definitive intervention for inoperable early-stage endometrial cancer. Unfortunately, fertility is not preserved with this approach. However, for patients with high-grade tumors that are less likely to express hormone receptors or respond to hormonal therapies, this may be the only treatment option available. Typical treatment courses include 5 weeks of external beam radiation treatments, focused on treating the pelvis as a whole, including occult metastases not identified on imaging. Optimal therapy also includes placement of intracavitary radiation implants, such as Heymans capsules, to concentrate the dose at the uterine fundus, while minimizing toxicity to the adjacent bladder and bowel structures. While definitive radiation is considered inferior to a primary surgical effort, disease-specific survival can be observed in more than 80% of patients treated this way.⁷

While surgery remains the standard intervention for women with early-stage endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy or radiation remain viable options with high rates of success for women who are not surgical candidates or who desire fertility preservation.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Walker JL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-6.

2. Ertel M et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(13):8987-95.

3. Janda M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):143-51.

4. Novikova OV et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):152-9.

5. Westin SN et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):191.e1-15.

6. Cho A et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;160(2):413-17.

7. Dutta SW et al. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(3):526-33.

The standard management for early-stage endometrial cancer involves surgery with hysterectomy, salpingectomy with or without oophorectomy, and staging lymph node sampling. Surgery serves as both a therapeutic and diagnostic intervention because surgical pathology results are in turn used to predict the likelihood of relapse and guide adjuvant therapy decisions. However, in some cases, surgical intervention is not feasible or desired, particularly if fertility preservation is a goal. Fortunately, there are nonsurgical options that are associated with favorable outcomes to offer these patients.

Endometrial cancer is associated with obesity attributable to causative mechanisms that promote endometrial hyperplasia, cellular proliferation, and heightened hormonal and growth factor signaling. Not only does obesity drive the development of endometrial cancer, but it also complicates the treatment of the disease. For example, endometrial cancer staging surgery is less successfully completed through a minimally invasive route as body mass index increases, primarily because of limitations in surgical exposure.¹ In fact, obesity can prevent surgery from being offered through any route. In addition to body habitus, determination of inoperability is also significantly influenced by the presence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes.² Given that these comorbidities are more commonly experienced by women who are overweight, obesity creates a perfect storm of causative and complicating factors for optimal treatment.

While surgeons may determine the candidacy of patients for hysterectomy, patients themselves also drive this decision-making, particularly in the case of young patients who desire fertility preservation. Approximately 10% of patients with endometrial cancer are premenopausal, a number that is increasing over time. These women may have experienced infertility prior to their diagnosis, yet still strongly desire the attempt to conceive, particularly if they have suffered from anovulatory menstrual cycles or polycystic ovarian disease. Women with Lynch syndrome are at a higher risk for developing their cancer in premenopausal years. Therefore, it is critical that gynecologic oncologists consider nonsurgical remedies for these women and understand their potential for success.

Certain criteria should be met for women undergoing nonsurgical management of endometrial cancer, particularly if chosen electively for fertility preservation. Diagnosis should be obtained with a curettage specimen (rather than a pipelle) to optimize the accuracy of establishing tumor grade and to “debulk” the endometrial tissue. Pretreatment imaging is necessary to rule out distant metastatic disease. MRI is particularly helpful in approximating the depth of myometrial invasion of the malignancy and is recommended for patients desiring fertility preservation. Patients who have an endometrial cancer that is deeply invasive into the myometrium are poor candidates for fertility preservation and have a higher risk for metastatic disease, particularly to lymph nodes, and treatment decisions (such as surgery, or, if inoperable, radiation which treats nodal basins) should be considered for these women.

Hormonal therapy has long been identified as a highly effective systemic therapy for endometrial cancers, particularly those that are low grade and express estrogen and progesterone receptors. Progesterone can be administered orally in preparations such as megestrol or medroxyprogesterone or “locally” with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Oral preparations are straightforward, typically low-cost agents. Likelihood of success is 50%-75%. However, the systemic side effects of these agents, which include increased venous thromboembolism risk and appetite stimulation, are particularly problematic in this population. Therefore, many providers prefer to place progestin-releasing intrauterine devices to “bypass” these side effects, avoid issues with adherence to dosing, and provide some preventative endometrial coverage after resolution of the cancer. Recent trials have observed elimination of endometrial cancer on repeat sampling in 67%-76% of cases.^3-5 This strategy may be more successful when it is paired with the addition of GnRH agonists.⁴

When hormonal therapy is chosen for primary endometrial cancer treatment, it is typically monitored for efficacy with repeat endometrial samplings, most commonly with pipelle biopsies to avoid displacement of an intrauterine device, though repeat D&C may be more effective in achieving a complete pathologic response to treatment. Most providers recommend resampling the endometrium at 3-month intervals until resolution of the malignancy has been documented, and thereafter if any new bleeding events develop. For women who have demonstrated resolution of carcinoma on repeat sampling, data are lacking to guide decision-making regarding resumption of conception efforts, ongoing surveillance, and completion hysterectomy after they finish childbearing. If malignancy continues to be identified after 6 months of hormonal therapy, consideration should be made of a more definitive treatment (such as surgery, if feasible, or radiation if not). Continued hormonal therapy can also be considered, as delayed responses remain common even 1 year after starting therapy.⁶ If hormonal therapy is prolonged for persistent disease, repeat MRI is recommended at 6 months to document lack of progression.

Radiation, preferably with both intracavitary and external beam treatment, is the most definitive intervention for inoperable early-stage endometrial cancer. Unfortunately, fertility is not preserved with this approach. However, for patients with high-grade tumors that are less likely to express hormone receptors or respond to hormonal therapies, this may be the only treatment option available. Typical treatment courses include 5 weeks of external beam radiation treatments, focused on treating the pelvis as a whole, including occult metastases not identified on imaging. Optimal therapy also includes placement of intracavitary radiation implants, such as Heymans capsules, to concentrate the dose at the uterine fundus, while minimizing toxicity to the adjacent bladder and bowel structures. While definitive radiation is considered inferior to a primary surgical effort, disease-specific survival can be observed in more than 80% of patients treated this way.⁷

While surgery remains the standard intervention for women with early-stage endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy or radiation remain viable options with high rates of success for women who are not surgical candidates or who desire fertility preservation.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Walker JL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-6.

2. Ertel M et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(13):8987-95.

3. Janda M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):143-51.

4. Novikova OV et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):152-9.

5. Westin SN et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):191.e1-15.

6. Cho A et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;160(2):413-17.

7. Dutta SW et al. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(3):526-33.

The standard management for early-stage endometrial cancer involves surgery with hysterectomy, salpingectomy with or without oophorectomy, and staging lymph node sampling. Surgery serves as both a therapeutic and diagnostic intervention because surgical pathology results are in turn used to predict the likelihood of relapse and guide adjuvant therapy decisions. However, in some cases, surgical intervention is not feasible or desired, particularly if fertility preservation is a goal. Fortunately, there are nonsurgical options that are associated with favorable outcomes to offer these patients.

Endometrial cancer is associated with obesity attributable to causative mechanisms that promote endometrial hyperplasia, cellular proliferation, and heightened hormonal and growth factor signaling. Not only does obesity drive the development of endometrial cancer, but it also complicates the treatment of the disease. For example, endometrial cancer staging surgery is less successfully completed through a minimally invasive route as body mass index increases, primarily because of limitations in surgical exposure.¹ In fact, obesity can prevent surgery from being offered through any route. In addition to body habitus, determination of inoperability is also significantly influenced by the presence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes.² Given that these comorbidities are more commonly experienced by women who are overweight, obesity creates a perfect storm of causative and complicating factors for optimal treatment.

While surgeons may determine the candidacy of patients for hysterectomy, patients themselves also drive this decision-making, particularly in the case of young patients who desire fertility preservation. Approximately 10% of patients with endometrial cancer are premenopausal, a number that is increasing over time. These women may have experienced infertility prior to their diagnosis, yet still strongly desire the attempt to conceive, particularly if they have suffered from anovulatory menstrual cycles or polycystic ovarian disease. Women with Lynch syndrome are at a higher risk for developing their cancer in premenopausal years. Therefore, it is critical that gynecologic oncologists consider nonsurgical remedies for these women and understand their potential for success.

Certain criteria should be met for women undergoing nonsurgical management of endometrial cancer, particularly if chosen electively for fertility preservation. Diagnosis should be obtained with a curettage specimen (rather than a pipelle) to optimize the accuracy of establishing tumor grade and to “debulk” the endometrial tissue. Pretreatment imaging is necessary to rule out distant metastatic disease. MRI is particularly helpful in approximating the depth of myometrial invasion of the malignancy and is recommended for patients desiring fertility preservation. Patients who have an endometrial cancer that is deeply invasive into the myometrium are poor candidates for fertility preservation and have a higher risk for metastatic disease, particularly to lymph nodes, and treatment decisions (such as surgery, or, if inoperable, radiation which treats nodal basins) should be considered for these women.

Hormonal therapy has long been identified as a highly effective systemic therapy for endometrial cancers, particularly those that are low grade and express estrogen and progesterone receptors. Progesterone can be administered orally in preparations such as megestrol or medroxyprogesterone or “locally” with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Oral preparations are straightforward, typically low-cost agents. Likelihood of success is 50%-75%. However, the systemic side effects of these agents, which include increased venous thromboembolism risk and appetite stimulation, are particularly problematic in this population. Therefore, many providers prefer to place progestin-releasing intrauterine devices to “bypass” these side effects, avoid issues with adherence to dosing, and provide some preventative endometrial coverage after resolution of the cancer. Recent trials have observed elimination of endometrial cancer on repeat sampling in 67%-76% of cases.^3-5 This strategy may be more successful when it is paired with the addition of GnRH agonists.⁴

When hormonal therapy is chosen for primary endometrial cancer treatment, it is typically monitored for efficacy with repeat endometrial samplings, most commonly with pipelle biopsies to avoid displacement of an intrauterine device, though repeat D&C may be more effective in achieving a complete pathologic response to treatment. Most providers recommend resampling the endometrium at 3-month intervals until resolution of the malignancy has been documented, and thereafter if any new bleeding events develop. For women who have demonstrated resolution of carcinoma on repeat sampling, data are lacking to guide decision-making regarding resumption of conception efforts, ongoing surveillance, and completion hysterectomy after they finish childbearing. If malignancy continues to be identified after 6 months of hormonal therapy, consideration should be made of a more definitive treatment (such as surgery, if feasible, or radiation if not). Continued hormonal therapy can also be considered, as delayed responses remain common even 1 year after starting therapy.⁶ If hormonal therapy is prolonged for persistent disease, repeat MRI is recommended at 6 months to document lack of progression.

Radiation, preferably with both intracavitary and external beam treatment, is the most definitive intervention for inoperable early-stage endometrial cancer. Unfortunately, fertility is not preserved with this approach. However, for patients with high-grade tumors that are less likely to express hormone receptors or respond to hormonal therapies, this may be the only treatment option available. Typical treatment courses include 5 weeks of external beam radiation treatments, focused on treating the pelvis as a whole, including occult metastases not identified on imaging. Optimal therapy also includes placement of intracavitary radiation implants, such as Heymans capsules, to concentrate the dose at the uterine fundus, while minimizing toxicity to the adjacent bladder and bowel structures. While definitive radiation is considered inferior to a primary surgical effort, disease-specific survival can be observed in more than 80% of patients treated this way.⁷

While surgery remains the standard intervention for women with early-stage endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy or radiation remain viable options with high rates of success for women who are not surgical candidates or who desire fertility preservation.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Walker JL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-6.

2. Ertel M et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(13):8987-95.

3. Janda M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):143-51.

4. Novikova OV et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):152-9.

5. Westin SN et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):191.e1-15.

6. Cho A et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;160(2):413-17.

7. Dutta SW et al. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(3):526-33.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

This has been an unfortunate, but not an atypical year, for the children in Maine whose lives have intersected with the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. In 2021, 25 children died of abuse and neglect or in homes with prior involvement with the child protective system. Four cases not included in that number are currently listed as homicides. At a recent legislative hearing the grandmother of one of those victims told her story to the lawmaker.

Her grandson was removed from his mother’s custody at 3 months of age after a 2-year-old sibling overdosed on methadone. Father and grandmother became his caregivers but when the father was arrested the child was returned to the mother’s custody by a judge despite the pleas of the child’s court-appointed guardian. The child eventually returned to the care of his paternal aunt and father, but when the father was arrested again the then 3-year-old was returned to his mother. Within months he was dead with multiple fractures, including to his spine and with internal and intracranial bleeding (Overton P. Maine’s child welfare system failed a 3-year old who died, grandmother tells lawmakers. 2022 Feb 11. Portland Press Herald).

The grandmother questioned the legislators why a vulnerable child would be returned to the care of a woman with such an extensive history of involvement with the Department of Health and Human Services. While there may have been errors of judgment on the part of department staff, in large part the answer lies in the system’s emphasis on reunification. Like apple pie, motherhood, and more recently fatherhood, have been viewed as something deserving of our unquestioning efforts to preserve.

This is not a recent trend. Some of the most frustrating cases over my 40 years of practice involved the failure of the courts and in some cases social workers to place a child’s welfare in the proper perspective as court schedules and custody decisions were made. Too often the reunification of “the family” seemed to trump the needs of the child. Fortunately, I’m unaware of any of my patients who died as the result of these untimely and poorly made decisions. However, many of my patients lived in unsettled conditions never sure what the next week would bring while the system focused on giving an adult whose life was a mess one more chance to demonstrate his or her ability to parent.

Of course, there are occasions in which child protective workers have been too hasty in pulling a child from his or her parents. But, in my experience those cases pale next to the number of times in which children were exposed to home environments that threatened their psychological health and development. Yes, there are bad foster homes. Many foster homes might do a better job if they were working in a system that put a higher value on the emotional needs and safety of the children in making its custody decisions.

We have a governor here in Maine who has worked hard to do the right thing during the pandemic and has made child health a focus. However, her recent proposed appropriations bill appears to continue the focus on reunification by funneling money into programs such as family reunion training and coaching as well as a parent mentorship program. Certainly, one can’t argue that these kind of programs might be helpful to some families. On the other hand, we can’t let these programs create the impression that an intact family is our primary goal. Not every family is repairable, at least on a time schedule compatible with the emotional and health needs of the children.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of you have experienced a similar frustration when decisions based on an unrealistic goal of family reunification have put your patients at risk.

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.

This has been an unfortunate, but not an atypical year, for the children in Maine whose lives have intersected with the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. In 2021, 25 children died of abuse and neglect or in homes with prior involvement with the child protective system. Four cases not included in that number are currently listed as homicides. At a recent legislative hearing the grandmother of one of those victims told her story to the lawmaker.

Her grandson was removed from his mother’s custody at 3 months of age after a 2-year-old sibling overdosed on methadone. Father and grandmother became his caregivers but when the father was arrested the child was returned to the mother’s custody by a judge despite the pleas of the child’s court-appointed guardian. The child eventually returned to the care of his paternal aunt and father, but when the father was arrested again the then 3-year-old was returned to his mother. Within months he was dead with multiple fractures, including to his spine and with internal and intracranial bleeding (Overton P. Maine’s child welfare system failed a 3-year old who died, grandmother tells lawmakers. 2022 Feb 11. Portland Press Herald).

The grandmother questioned the legislators why a vulnerable child would be returned to the care of a woman with such an extensive history of involvement with the Department of Health and Human Services. While there may have been errors of judgment on the part of department staff, in large part the answer lies in the system’s emphasis on reunification. Like apple pie, motherhood, and more recently fatherhood, have been viewed as something deserving of our unquestioning efforts to preserve.

This is not a recent trend. Some of the most frustrating cases over my 40 years of practice involved the failure of the courts and in some cases social workers to place a child’s welfare in the proper perspective as court schedules and custody decisions were made. Too often the reunification of “the family” seemed to trump the needs of the child. Fortunately, I’m unaware of any of my patients who died as the result of these untimely and poorly made decisions. However, many of my patients lived in unsettled conditions never sure what the next week would bring while the system focused on giving an adult whose life was a mess one more chance to demonstrate his or her ability to parent.

Of course, there are occasions in which child protective workers have been too hasty in pulling a child from his or her parents. But, in my experience those cases pale next to the number of times in which children were exposed to home environments that threatened their psychological health and development. Yes, there are bad foster homes. Many foster homes might do a better job if they were working in a system that put a higher value on the emotional needs and safety of the children in making its custody decisions.

We have a governor here in Maine who has worked hard to do the right thing during the pandemic and has made child health a focus. However, her recent proposed appropriations bill appears to continue the focus on reunification by funneling money into programs such as family reunion training and coaching as well as a parent mentorship program. Certainly, one can’t argue that these kind of programs might be helpful to some families. On the other hand, we can’t let these programs create the impression that an intact family is our primary goal. Not every family is repairable, at least on a time schedule compatible with the emotional and health needs of the children.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of you have experienced a similar frustration when decisions based on an unrealistic goal of family reunification have put your patients at risk.

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.

This has been an unfortunate, but not an atypical year, for the children in Maine whose lives have intersected with the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. In 2021, 25 children died of abuse and neglect or in homes with prior involvement with the child protective system. Four cases not included in that number are currently listed as homicides. At a recent legislative hearing the grandmother of one of those victims told her story to the lawmaker.

Her grandson was removed from his mother’s custody at 3 months of age after a 2-year-old sibling overdosed on methadone. Father and grandmother became his caregivers but when the father was arrested the child was returned to the mother’s custody by a judge despite the pleas of the child’s court-appointed guardian. The child eventually returned to the care of his paternal aunt and father, but when the father was arrested again the then 3-year-old was returned to his mother. Within months he was dead with multiple fractures, including to his spine and with internal and intracranial bleeding (Overton P. Maine’s child welfare system failed a 3-year old who died, grandmother tells lawmakers. 2022 Feb 11. Portland Press Herald).

The grandmother questioned the legislators why a vulnerable child would be returned to the care of a woman with such an extensive history of involvement with the Department of Health and Human Services. While there may have been errors of judgment on the part of department staff, in large part the answer lies in the system’s emphasis on reunification. Like apple pie, motherhood, and more recently fatherhood, have been viewed as something deserving of our unquestioning efforts to preserve.

This is not a recent trend. Some of the most frustrating cases over my 40 years of practice involved the failure of the courts and in some cases social workers to place a child’s welfare in the proper perspective as court schedules and custody decisions were made. Too often the reunification of “the family” seemed to trump the needs of the child. Fortunately, I’m unaware of any of my patients who died as the result of these untimely and poorly made decisions. However, many of my patients lived in unsettled conditions never sure what the next week would bring while the system focused on giving an adult whose life was a mess one more chance to demonstrate his or her ability to parent.

Of course, there are occasions in which child protective workers have been too hasty in pulling a child from his or her parents. But, in my experience those cases pale next to the number of times in which children were exposed to home environments that threatened their psychological health and development. Yes, there are bad foster homes. Many foster homes might do a better job if they were working in a system that put a higher value on the emotional needs and safety of the children in making its custody decisions.

We have a governor here in Maine who has worked hard to do the right thing during the pandemic and has made child health a focus. However, her recent proposed appropriations bill appears to continue the focus on reunification by funneling money into programs such as family reunion training and coaching as well as a parent mentorship program. Certainly, one can’t argue that these kind of programs might be helpful to some families. On the other hand, we can’t let these programs create the impression that an intact family is our primary goal. Not every family is repairable, at least on a time schedule compatible with the emotional and health needs of the children.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of you have experienced a similar frustration when decisions based on an unrealistic goal of family reunification have put your patients at risk.

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.