User login
Women still missing from CV clinical trial leadership
Although women were well represented on panels, and chaired or cochaired sessions, thanks to the ACC’s ongoing efforts to promote gender diversity and inclusion, they rarely got to give the big talks.
“Unfortunately, women continue to be underrepresented among CV clinical trial leadership, leading to a lack of subject diversity,” Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., wrote in a review published online Feb. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
An analysis of cardiovascular trials published during the past 4 years showed that women comprised only 10.1% of clinical trial leadership committees, and more than half of the trials had no women at all as part of the trial leadership team. About 10% of the trials had a woman as first or senior author.
In an interview, Dr. Walsh said she was prompted to write her review because she found the absence of women presenters at ACC 21 so striking.
“ACC 21 was held virtually because of COVID. This gave me the opportunity to easily view all of the research sessions. I attended all of the late-breaking clinical trials and featured clinical research sessions live while they were being presented, and it slowly dawned on me as I was watching that the vast majority of the presenters were men,” she said.
“The ACC does what it can to ensure a good gender mix of panelists and session chairs, but what it cannot control is who presents the data. The fact that 93% of these talks were given by men was astonishing to me,” Dr. Walsh said.
Of the three trials presented by women, one was on sex-specific outcomes in high-risk patients receiving ticagrelor with or without aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (a subanalysis of the TWILIGHT study); one was on the impact of COVID-19 on the global cardiovascular workforce (the ACC 2020 Well Being Study); and one was on the prevention of cardiac dysfunction during adjuvanttherapy with candesartan and metoprolol (the PRADA study).
Most of the presenters were regulars at the ACC podium. As Dr. Walsh observed: “This was assuredly not the inaugural turn at the international podium for these male trial presenters.”
So why are women so noticeably absent among the leaders of cardiovascular clinical trials research?
The root cause for this underrepresentation begins with the low number of women who lead clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine and surgery, and the fact that there are fewer female cardiologists than male cardiologists to begin with.
Then there is the lack of mentorship, which, Dr. Walsh said, “really does occur along gendered lines, with men mentoring men.”
In addition, industry-funded trials tend to feed a nondiverse investigator pipeline and other research collaborations often encompass established networks, Dr. Walsh noted.
“When industry is embarking on a new trial of a drug or device, it tends to lean back on who they have had led before. It really gets down to who you know, so getting new people in is fairly difficult,” she said.
Several initiatives to increase diversity in CV clinical trial leadership are ongoing by the ACC and other organizations.
For example, Women as One gives “escalator awards” to boost or escalate the training of highly qualified female cardiologists through targeted funding, mentorship, and networking.
The ACC’s “Clinical Trial Research: Upping Your Game” program aims to develop and train the next generation of a diverse and inclusive clinical trials workforce, focusing not only on women but on other traditionally underrepresented groups.
“We’re now in our third cohort of investigators who are early in their careers. We’re arming them with the skills to become successful in becoming investigators and then going up the chain to trial leadership. We are focusing our efforts on those who are underrepresented in cardiology – women, native Americans, Latinx, and Black investigators. We are hoping to increase diversity through that way, but more still needs to be done,” she said.
Trial sponsors, whether federally funded or industry sponsored, need to insist on diversity of the trial steering committee, and principal investigators need to consider diversity.
“A rethinking of who is eligible to present important trial results is needed,” Dr. Walsh said.
“The informal, or formal, pecking order of CV trial leadership needs to be reworked. All members of the steering committee should be possible presenters, and women should not be asked to report late-breaking results of trials that are reporting sex-specific results or data that are pertinent only to a female population.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although women were well represented on panels, and chaired or cochaired sessions, thanks to the ACC’s ongoing efforts to promote gender diversity and inclusion, they rarely got to give the big talks.
“Unfortunately, women continue to be underrepresented among CV clinical trial leadership, leading to a lack of subject diversity,” Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., wrote in a review published online Feb. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
An analysis of cardiovascular trials published during the past 4 years showed that women comprised only 10.1% of clinical trial leadership committees, and more than half of the trials had no women at all as part of the trial leadership team. About 10% of the trials had a woman as first or senior author.
In an interview, Dr. Walsh said she was prompted to write her review because she found the absence of women presenters at ACC 21 so striking.
“ACC 21 was held virtually because of COVID. This gave me the opportunity to easily view all of the research sessions. I attended all of the late-breaking clinical trials and featured clinical research sessions live while they were being presented, and it slowly dawned on me as I was watching that the vast majority of the presenters were men,” she said.
“The ACC does what it can to ensure a good gender mix of panelists and session chairs, but what it cannot control is who presents the data. The fact that 93% of these talks were given by men was astonishing to me,” Dr. Walsh said.
Of the three trials presented by women, one was on sex-specific outcomes in high-risk patients receiving ticagrelor with or without aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (a subanalysis of the TWILIGHT study); one was on the impact of COVID-19 on the global cardiovascular workforce (the ACC 2020 Well Being Study); and one was on the prevention of cardiac dysfunction during adjuvanttherapy with candesartan and metoprolol (the PRADA study).
Most of the presenters were regulars at the ACC podium. As Dr. Walsh observed: “This was assuredly not the inaugural turn at the international podium for these male trial presenters.”
So why are women so noticeably absent among the leaders of cardiovascular clinical trials research?
The root cause for this underrepresentation begins with the low number of women who lead clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine and surgery, and the fact that there are fewer female cardiologists than male cardiologists to begin with.
Then there is the lack of mentorship, which, Dr. Walsh said, “really does occur along gendered lines, with men mentoring men.”
In addition, industry-funded trials tend to feed a nondiverse investigator pipeline and other research collaborations often encompass established networks, Dr. Walsh noted.
“When industry is embarking on a new trial of a drug or device, it tends to lean back on who they have had led before. It really gets down to who you know, so getting new people in is fairly difficult,” she said.
Several initiatives to increase diversity in CV clinical trial leadership are ongoing by the ACC and other organizations.
For example, Women as One gives “escalator awards” to boost or escalate the training of highly qualified female cardiologists through targeted funding, mentorship, and networking.
The ACC’s “Clinical Trial Research: Upping Your Game” program aims to develop and train the next generation of a diverse and inclusive clinical trials workforce, focusing not only on women but on other traditionally underrepresented groups.
“We’re now in our third cohort of investigators who are early in their careers. We’re arming them with the skills to become successful in becoming investigators and then going up the chain to trial leadership. We are focusing our efforts on those who are underrepresented in cardiology – women, native Americans, Latinx, and Black investigators. We are hoping to increase diversity through that way, but more still needs to be done,” she said.
Trial sponsors, whether federally funded or industry sponsored, need to insist on diversity of the trial steering committee, and principal investigators need to consider diversity.
“A rethinking of who is eligible to present important trial results is needed,” Dr. Walsh said.
“The informal, or formal, pecking order of CV trial leadership needs to be reworked. All members of the steering committee should be possible presenters, and women should not be asked to report late-breaking results of trials that are reporting sex-specific results or data that are pertinent only to a female population.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although women were well represented on panels, and chaired or cochaired sessions, thanks to the ACC’s ongoing efforts to promote gender diversity and inclusion, they rarely got to give the big talks.
“Unfortunately, women continue to be underrepresented among CV clinical trial leadership, leading to a lack of subject diversity,” Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., wrote in a review published online Feb. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
An analysis of cardiovascular trials published during the past 4 years showed that women comprised only 10.1% of clinical trial leadership committees, and more than half of the trials had no women at all as part of the trial leadership team. About 10% of the trials had a woman as first or senior author.
In an interview, Dr. Walsh said she was prompted to write her review because she found the absence of women presenters at ACC 21 so striking.
“ACC 21 was held virtually because of COVID. This gave me the opportunity to easily view all of the research sessions. I attended all of the late-breaking clinical trials and featured clinical research sessions live while they were being presented, and it slowly dawned on me as I was watching that the vast majority of the presenters were men,” she said.
“The ACC does what it can to ensure a good gender mix of panelists and session chairs, but what it cannot control is who presents the data. The fact that 93% of these talks were given by men was astonishing to me,” Dr. Walsh said.
Of the three trials presented by women, one was on sex-specific outcomes in high-risk patients receiving ticagrelor with or without aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (a subanalysis of the TWILIGHT study); one was on the impact of COVID-19 on the global cardiovascular workforce (the ACC 2020 Well Being Study); and one was on the prevention of cardiac dysfunction during adjuvanttherapy with candesartan and metoprolol (the PRADA study).
Most of the presenters were regulars at the ACC podium. As Dr. Walsh observed: “This was assuredly not the inaugural turn at the international podium for these male trial presenters.”
So why are women so noticeably absent among the leaders of cardiovascular clinical trials research?
The root cause for this underrepresentation begins with the low number of women who lead clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine and surgery, and the fact that there are fewer female cardiologists than male cardiologists to begin with.
Then there is the lack of mentorship, which, Dr. Walsh said, “really does occur along gendered lines, with men mentoring men.”
In addition, industry-funded trials tend to feed a nondiverse investigator pipeline and other research collaborations often encompass established networks, Dr. Walsh noted.
“When industry is embarking on a new trial of a drug or device, it tends to lean back on who they have had led before. It really gets down to who you know, so getting new people in is fairly difficult,” she said.
Several initiatives to increase diversity in CV clinical trial leadership are ongoing by the ACC and other organizations.
For example, Women as One gives “escalator awards” to boost or escalate the training of highly qualified female cardiologists through targeted funding, mentorship, and networking.
The ACC’s “Clinical Trial Research: Upping Your Game” program aims to develop and train the next generation of a diverse and inclusive clinical trials workforce, focusing not only on women but on other traditionally underrepresented groups.
“We’re now in our third cohort of investigators who are early in their careers. We’re arming them with the skills to become successful in becoming investigators and then going up the chain to trial leadership. We are focusing our efforts on those who are underrepresented in cardiology – women, native Americans, Latinx, and Black investigators. We are hoping to increase diversity through that way, but more still needs to be done,” she said.
Trial sponsors, whether federally funded or industry sponsored, need to insist on diversity of the trial steering committee, and principal investigators need to consider diversity.
“A rethinking of who is eligible to present important trial results is needed,” Dr. Walsh said.
“The informal, or formal, pecking order of CV trial leadership needs to be reworked. All members of the steering committee should be possible presenters, and women should not be asked to report late-breaking results of trials that are reporting sex-specific results or data that are pertinent only to a female population.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Raise a glass to speed up the brain’s aging process
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
Wake Forest Cancer Center director fired, advisory board resigns
and withdrew their endorsement for renewal of the center’s National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer center support grant.
The move was prompted by the abrupt firing of center director Boris Pasche, MD, PhD, on February 10, one day after NCI renewed a multimillion dollar grant.
The Cancer Letter broke the story and published the resignation letter from the EAB. It was signed by board chair Gerold Bepler, MD, PhD, CEO and director of the Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, on behalf of the board.
The mass resignation of an EAB, a panel of outside experts that help shepherd cancer centers through the NCI grant process, is “highly unusual,” according to The Cancer Letter. It also raises concerns about the “immediate future” of Wake Forest’s cancer center, the publication added.
Numerous people involved with the situation did not respond or declined to comment when this news organization requested additional information and updates, including questions about the reason for Dr. Pasche’s termination; whether or not withdrawal of the endorsement puts Wake’s NCI designation in jeopardy; and if the EAB is being reconstituted.
A written statement from Wake Forest simply said that “the situation involving Dr. Pasche is an administrative decision. Various administrative changes occur regularly in organizations across the country. Dr. Pasche remains employed by Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist. We are very grateful to Dr. Pasche for his years of service and many contributions to the mission and vision of our NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem.”
Wake’s cancer center is in the process of combining with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Center, which is not NCI-designated, following Atrium Health system’s recent acquisition of the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.
The NCI renewal notice, dated February 9, states that Dr. Pasche “and his leadership team have built a robust, transdisciplinary center that includes 140 scientists.”
Dr. Pasche was fired a day later.
The EAB resignation letter states that during Wake Forest’s recent NCI review process, “leadership gave their glowing endorsement of Dr. Pasche...This endorsement included unequivocal statements of support for Dr. Pasche’s oversight of the combined Atrium-Wake Forest cancer program.”
“What followed was his rapid dismissal after the...notice of award was issued, following a period during which the approach to integration was apparently being revisited,” Dr. Bepler said on behalf of the board.
“It is with sadness and dismay that we witnessed the change in approach by the institutional leadership towards” the merger, he wrote.
The Cancer Letter quotes an unnamed board member as saying, “EABs for cancer centers can only provide value to the center when there is openness and transparency in the process. In the absence of such, I believe the members felt that there was no further utility in providing guidance to the organization.”
The resignation letter was sent to the interim director of Wake’s cancer center, radiation oncologist William Blackstock, Jr, MD, and also copied to Atrium-Wake and NCI leadership.
The resignation letter endorsed Dr. Blackstock’s qualifications to run the center, and noted that as the board is reconstituted, “some of us would be honored to discuss participation...if there is unequivocal evidence from the health system’s senior management for support of a single, academically driven, comprehensive, and integrated cancer center.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and withdrew their endorsement for renewal of the center’s National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer center support grant.
The move was prompted by the abrupt firing of center director Boris Pasche, MD, PhD, on February 10, one day after NCI renewed a multimillion dollar grant.
The Cancer Letter broke the story and published the resignation letter from the EAB. It was signed by board chair Gerold Bepler, MD, PhD, CEO and director of the Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, on behalf of the board.
The mass resignation of an EAB, a panel of outside experts that help shepherd cancer centers through the NCI grant process, is “highly unusual,” according to The Cancer Letter. It also raises concerns about the “immediate future” of Wake Forest’s cancer center, the publication added.
Numerous people involved with the situation did not respond or declined to comment when this news organization requested additional information and updates, including questions about the reason for Dr. Pasche’s termination; whether or not withdrawal of the endorsement puts Wake’s NCI designation in jeopardy; and if the EAB is being reconstituted.
A written statement from Wake Forest simply said that “the situation involving Dr. Pasche is an administrative decision. Various administrative changes occur regularly in organizations across the country. Dr. Pasche remains employed by Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist. We are very grateful to Dr. Pasche for his years of service and many contributions to the mission and vision of our NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem.”
Wake’s cancer center is in the process of combining with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Center, which is not NCI-designated, following Atrium Health system’s recent acquisition of the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.
The NCI renewal notice, dated February 9, states that Dr. Pasche “and his leadership team have built a robust, transdisciplinary center that includes 140 scientists.”
Dr. Pasche was fired a day later.
The EAB resignation letter states that during Wake Forest’s recent NCI review process, “leadership gave their glowing endorsement of Dr. Pasche...This endorsement included unequivocal statements of support for Dr. Pasche’s oversight of the combined Atrium-Wake Forest cancer program.”
“What followed was his rapid dismissal after the...notice of award was issued, following a period during which the approach to integration was apparently being revisited,” Dr. Bepler said on behalf of the board.
“It is with sadness and dismay that we witnessed the change in approach by the institutional leadership towards” the merger, he wrote.
The Cancer Letter quotes an unnamed board member as saying, “EABs for cancer centers can only provide value to the center when there is openness and transparency in the process. In the absence of such, I believe the members felt that there was no further utility in providing guidance to the organization.”
The resignation letter was sent to the interim director of Wake’s cancer center, radiation oncologist William Blackstock, Jr, MD, and also copied to Atrium-Wake and NCI leadership.
The resignation letter endorsed Dr. Blackstock’s qualifications to run the center, and noted that as the board is reconstituted, “some of us would be honored to discuss participation...if there is unequivocal evidence from the health system’s senior management for support of a single, academically driven, comprehensive, and integrated cancer center.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and withdrew their endorsement for renewal of the center’s National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer center support grant.
The move was prompted by the abrupt firing of center director Boris Pasche, MD, PhD, on February 10, one day after NCI renewed a multimillion dollar grant.
The Cancer Letter broke the story and published the resignation letter from the EAB. It was signed by board chair Gerold Bepler, MD, PhD, CEO and director of the Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, on behalf of the board.
The mass resignation of an EAB, a panel of outside experts that help shepherd cancer centers through the NCI grant process, is “highly unusual,” according to The Cancer Letter. It also raises concerns about the “immediate future” of Wake Forest’s cancer center, the publication added.
Numerous people involved with the situation did not respond or declined to comment when this news organization requested additional information and updates, including questions about the reason for Dr. Pasche’s termination; whether or not withdrawal of the endorsement puts Wake’s NCI designation in jeopardy; and if the EAB is being reconstituted.
A written statement from Wake Forest simply said that “the situation involving Dr. Pasche is an administrative decision. Various administrative changes occur regularly in organizations across the country. Dr. Pasche remains employed by Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist. We are very grateful to Dr. Pasche for his years of service and many contributions to the mission and vision of our NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem.”
Wake’s cancer center is in the process of combining with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Center, which is not NCI-designated, following Atrium Health system’s recent acquisition of the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.
The NCI renewal notice, dated February 9, states that Dr. Pasche “and his leadership team have built a robust, transdisciplinary center that includes 140 scientists.”
Dr. Pasche was fired a day later.
The EAB resignation letter states that during Wake Forest’s recent NCI review process, “leadership gave their glowing endorsement of Dr. Pasche...This endorsement included unequivocal statements of support for Dr. Pasche’s oversight of the combined Atrium-Wake Forest cancer program.”
“What followed was his rapid dismissal after the...notice of award was issued, following a period during which the approach to integration was apparently being revisited,” Dr. Bepler said on behalf of the board.
“It is with sadness and dismay that we witnessed the change in approach by the institutional leadership towards” the merger, he wrote.
The Cancer Letter quotes an unnamed board member as saying, “EABs for cancer centers can only provide value to the center when there is openness and transparency in the process. In the absence of such, I believe the members felt that there was no further utility in providing guidance to the organization.”
The resignation letter was sent to the interim director of Wake’s cancer center, radiation oncologist William Blackstock, Jr, MD, and also copied to Atrium-Wake and NCI leadership.
The resignation letter endorsed Dr. Blackstock’s qualifications to run the center, and noted that as the board is reconstituted, “some of us would be honored to discuss participation...if there is unequivocal evidence from the health system’s senior management for support of a single, academically driven, comprehensive, and integrated cancer center.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The struggle for insurance coverage
Mr. Jones has had multiple sclerosis (MS) since 2008. Initially it was pretty active, though I was able to bring it under control with drug A. He didn’t like the side effects, or the shots, but at that time options for MS treatment were kind of limited.
When the oral agents came out he switched to drug B. He still had some side effects on it, which he didn’t like, but his insurance didn’t cover the other oral agent that was available. So he soldiered on.
Then, in late 2019, he had an episode of optic neuritis, and a repeat MRI showed that in the last 2 years he’d had an uptick in demyelinating plaques. So, in early 2020, he switched to drug C.
Drug C has, to date, been pretty good. He’s had no side effects or relapses, and a recent brain MRI was stable.
Of course, drug C ain’t cheap. Its price isn’t even listed on ePocrates or GoodRx. So my staff and I have to do all kinds of paperwork and hoop-jumping to get it covered each year.
So in late 2021 we started the annual process, which doesn’t happen overnight. We finally received notice he’d been approved – until March 1, 2022. Only 3 months.
Given the alacrity with which these companies seem to work, we began the new authorization paperwork almost as soon as we got the last one in mid-January. This time we didn’t hear back, and every time we called they told us the application was “under review.” In the meantime, Mr. Jones’ supply of pills, which are pretty critical to his health and well-being, was gradually decreasing.
Recently, out of the blue, a 1-month supply of drug C showed up in his mailbox, along with a bill for $3,000. Mr. Jones is a career waiter at a local restaurant, and had no way to pay for this. So my staff went to work on the phones, and after a few hours got it in writing that it was being covered as a bridging supply under the manufacturer’s assistance program. Okay. That crises was averted. (I have no idea if the insurance really pays $3,000/month. Like buying a car, there can be a big difference between a drug’s asking price and what’s really paid for it).
The next morning, however, we got a note from his insurance company saying the medical reviewer had decided he didn’t need drug C, and wanted him to go back to drug B. After all, it was cheaper. I called the reviewer and argued with him. I told him he’d clinically worsened on drug B, not to mention the side effects. The reviewer said I should have mentioned that in my notes. I pointed out that it was in my notes, which had been sent along with the forms I’d filled out. He didn’t answer that, just said he’d have them fax me an appeal form.
The appeal form showed up about an hour later, so I took some time out of my weekend to fill it out. Then I faxed it back, along with (as they requested) chart notes and MRI reports dating back to 2008. Which was a lot.
So now we’ll see what happens.
Do other countries have this sort of thing? Or is this a product of the bizarre patchwork that makes up the American health care system? Different insurance companies, different subplans, and regional sub-subplans, and so on, each with a different set of rules, forms, and obstacle courses to navigate.
For all their glitzy TV commercials showing smiling, happy, multigenerational families, all looking to be in glowing health from the medical care they’re receiving, they seem to be pretty determined to keep Mr. Jones from receiving a drug that’s allowing him to continue working as a waiter 50-60 hours per week. Without it, he’d likely be unable to work and, at some point, would have to file for disability. Probably would eventually need increasingly high-cost items, going to a cane, then a walker, then a wheelchair, then a power wheelchair. ER visits, things that. In the long run, those would cost a helluva lot more than drug C.
Of course, that may be part of their game, too. Maybe they figure he’ll end up dropping off their insurance as he worsens, and then their shareholders don’t have to pay for his bad luck. I hope I’m wrong in thinking that, but such is the nature of business. And health insurance is a HUGE business.
So now I’ve faxed in the appeal forms, and can move on, for the time being, to the needs of other patients (not to mention spending time with my family). But Mr. Jones’ pill supply will run out on April 1, 2022, and I still have no idea what will happen then.
Neither does he. And for him, that’s pretty scary.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Mr. Jones has had multiple sclerosis (MS) since 2008. Initially it was pretty active, though I was able to bring it under control with drug A. He didn’t like the side effects, or the shots, but at that time options for MS treatment were kind of limited.
When the oral agents came out he switched to drug B. He still had some side effects on it, which he didn’t like, but his insurance didn’t cover the other oral agent that was available. So he soldiered on.
Then, in late 2019, he had an episode of optic neuritis, and a repeat MRI showed that in the last 2 years he’d had an uptick in demyelinating plaques. So, in early 2020, he switched to drug C.
Drug C has, to date, been pretty good. He’s had no side effects or relapses, and a recent brain MRI was stable.
Of course, drug C ain’t cheap. Its price isn’t even listed on ePocrates or GoodRx. So my staff and I have to do all kinds of paperwork and hoop-jumping to get it covered each year.
So in late 2021 we started the annual process, which doesn’t happen overnight. We finally received notice he’d been approved – until March 1, 2022. Only 3 months.
Given the alacrity with which these companies seem to work, we began the new authorization paperwork almost as soon as we got the last one in mid-January. This time we didn’t hear back, and every time we called they told us the application was “under review.” In the meantime, Mr. Jones’ supply of pills, which are pretty critical to his health and well-being, was gradually decreasing.
Recently, out of the blue, a 1-month supply of drug C showed up in his mailbox, along with a bill for $3,000. Mr. Jones is a career waiter at a local restaurant, and had no way to pay for this. So my staff went to work on the phones, and after a few hours got it in writing that it was being covered as a bridging supply under the manufacturer’s assistance program. Okay. That crises was averted. (I have no idea if the insurance really pays $3,000/month. Like buying a car, there can be a big difference between a drug’s asking price and what’s really paid for it).
The next morning, however, we got a note from his insurance company saying the medical reviewer had decided he didn’t need drug C, and wanted him to go back to drug B. After all, it was cheaper. I called the reviewer and argued with him. I told him he’d clinically worsened on drug B, not to mention the side effects. The reviewer said I should have mentioned that in my notes. I pointed out that it was in my notes, which had been sent along with the forms I’d filled out. He didn’t answer that, just said he’d have them fax me an appeal form.
The appeal form showed up about an hour later, so I took some time out of my weekend to fill it out. Then I faxed it back, along with (as they requested) chart notes and MRI reports dating back to 2008. Which was a lot.
So now we’ll see what happens.
Do other countries have this sort of thing? Or is this a product of the bizarre patchwork that makes up the American health care system? Different insurance companies, different subplans, and regional sub-subplans, and so on, each with a different set of rules, forms, and obstacle courses to navigate.
For all their glitzy TV commercials showing smiling, happy, multigenerational families, all looking to be in glowing health from the medical care they’re receiving, they seem to be pretty determined to keep Mr. Jones from receiving a drug that’s allowing him to continue working as a waiter 50-60 hours per week. Without it, he’d likely be unable to work and, at some point, would have to file for disability. Probably would eventually need increasingly high-cost items, going to a cane, then a walker, then a wheelchair, then a power wheelchair. ER visits, things that. In the long run, those would cost a helluva lot more than drug C.
Of course, that may be part of their game, too. Maybe they figure he’ll end up dropping off their insurance as he worsens, and then their shareholders don’t have to pay for his bad luck. I hope I’m wrong in thinking that, but such is the nature of business. And health insurance is a HUGE business.
So now I’ve faxed in the appeal forms, and can move on, for the time being, to the needs of other patients (not to mention spending time with my family). But Mr. Jones’ pill supply will run out on April 1, 2022, and I still have no idea what will happen then.
Neither does he. And for him, that’s pretty scary.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Mr. Jones has had multiple sclerosis (MS) since 2008. Initially it was pretty active, though I was able to bring it under control with drug A. He didn’t like the side effects, or the shots, but at that time options for MS treatment were kind of limited.
When the oral agents came out he switched to drug B. He still had some side effects on it, which he didn’t like, but his insurance didn’t cover the other oral agent that was available. So he soldiered on.
Then, in late 2019, he had an episode of optic neuritis, and a repeat MRI showed that in the last 2 years he’d had an uptick in demyelinating plaques. So, in early 2020, he switched to drug C.
Drug C has, to date, been pretty good. He’s had no side effects or relapses, and a recent brain MRI was stable.
Of course, drug C ain’t cheap. Its price isn’t even listed on ePocrates or GoodRx. So my staff and I have to do all kinds of paperwork and hoop-jumping to get it covered each year.
So in late 2021 we started the annual process, which doesn’t happen overnight. We finally received notice he’d been approved – until March 1, 2022. Only 3 months.
Given the alacrity with which these companies seem to work, we began the new authorization paperwork almost as soon as we got the last one in mid-January. This time we didn’t hear back, and every time we called they told us the application was “under review.” In the meantime, Mr. Jones’ supply of pills, which are pretty critical to his health and well-being, was gradually decreasing.
Recently, out of the blue, a 1-month supply of drug C showed up in his mailbox, along with a bill for $3,000. Mr. Jones is a career waiter at a local restaurant, and had no way to pay for this. So my staff went to work on the phones, and after a few hours got it in writing that it was being covered as a bridging supply under the manufacturer’s assistance program. Okay. That crises was averted. (I have no idea if the insurance really pays $3,000/month. Like buying a car, there can be a big difference between a drug’s asking price and what’s really paid for it).
The next morning, however, we got a note from his insurance company saying the medical reviewer had decided he didn’t need drug C, and wanted him to go back to drug B. After all, it was cheaper. I called the reviewer and argued with him. I told him he’d clinically worsened on drug B, not to mention the side effects. The reviewer said I should have mentioned that in my notes. I pointed out that it was in my notes, which had been sent along with the forms I’d filled out. He didn’t answer that, just said he’d have them fax me an appeal form.
The appeal form showed up about an hour later, so I took some time out of my weekend to fill it out. Then I faxed it back, along with (as they requested) chart notes and MRI reports dating back to 2008. Which was a lot.
So now we’ll see what happens.
Do other countries have this sort of thing? Or is this a product of the bizarre patchwork that makes up the American health care system? Different insurance companies, different subplans, and regional sub-subplans, and so on, each with a different set of rules, forms, and obstacle courses to navigate.
For all their glitzy TV commercials showing smiling, happy, multigenerational families, all looking to be in glowing health from the medical care they’re receiving, they seem to be pretty determined to keep Mr. Jones from receiving a drug that’s allowing him to continue working as a waiter 50-60 hours per week. Without it, he’d likely be unable to work and, at some point, would have to file for disability. Probably would eventually need increasingly high-cost items, going to a cane, then a walker, then a wheelchair, then a power wheelchair. ER visits, things that. In the long run, those would cost a helluva lot more than drug C.
Of course, that may be part of their game, too. Maybe they figure he’ll end up dropping off their insurance as he worsens, and then their shareholders don’t have to pay for his bad luck. I hope I’m wrong in thinking that, but such is the nature of business. And health insurance is a HUGE business.
So now I’ve faxed in the appeal forms, and can move on, for the time being, to the needs of other patients (not to mention spending time with my family). But Mr. Jones’ pill supply will run out on April 1, 2022, and I still have no idea what will happen then.
Neither does he. And for him, that’s pretty scary.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Physicians beware: Feds start tracking information-blocking claims
The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such,
Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.
The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.
Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.
The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
Do the stats tell the story?
The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.
Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.
“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
A long time coming
The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.
The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.
Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.
“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
With education, more is better
These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.
“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”
Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.
“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.
For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.
The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.
“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such,
Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.
The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.
Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.
The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
Do the stats tell the story?
The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.
Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.
“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
A long time coming
The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.
The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.
Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.
“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
With education, more is better
These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.
“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”
Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.
“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.
For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.
The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.
“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such,
Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.
The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.
Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.
The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
Do the stats tell the story?
The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.
Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.
“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
A long time coming
The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.
The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.
Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.
“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
With education, more is better
These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.
“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”
Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.
“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.
For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.
The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.
“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Screening with a tablet-based app elicits sensitive information in primary care
“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”
In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
Study methods and results
The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.
The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.
The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.
The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.
“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”
Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.
When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.
Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.
The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
Real-world setting supports clinical value
“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”
“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.
“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.
“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.
“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
App allows patients privacy in responses
“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.
“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.
Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.
“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”
The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities
“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.
Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.
“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.
“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”
In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
Study methods and results
The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.
The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.
The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.
The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.
“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”
Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.
When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.
Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.
The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
Real-world setting supports clinical value
“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”
“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.
“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.
“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.
“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
App allows patients privacy in responses
“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.
“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.
Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.
“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”
The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities
“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.
Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.
“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.
“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”
In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
Study methods and results
The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.
The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.
The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.
The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.
“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”
Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.
When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.
Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.
The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
Real-world setting supports clinical value
“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”
“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.
“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.
“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.
“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
App allows patients privacy in responses
“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.
“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.
Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.
“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”
The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities
“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.
Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.
“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Former physician sentenced to 20 years in pill mill case
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Depression, suicidal ideation continue to plague physicians: Survey
Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.
In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.
Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.
One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.
Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.
“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help
Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.
“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”
This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.
“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”
As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
Addressing barriers to mental health
The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”
In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.
Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”
According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.
“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.
In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.
Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.
One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.
Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.
“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help
Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.
“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”
This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.
“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”
As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
Addressing barriers to mental health
The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”
In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.
Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”
According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.
“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.
In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.
Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.
One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.
Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.
“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help
Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.
“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”
This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.
“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”
As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
Addressing barriers to mental health
The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”
In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.
Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”
According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.
“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lawsuit: 18-inch sponge left in stomach for 5 years; migrates internally
Carolyn Boerste underwent aortobifemoral bypass surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.) Hospital in March 2011 to improve circulation in her lower extremities. She had a history of peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes, which caused a wound on her toe to become infected and gangrenous, according to court records.
During the surgery, performed by Marvin Morris, MD, the surgical team left a laparotomy sponge in Ms. Boerste’s abdomen. Because of its size, Ms. Boerste’s attorneys characterized the 18-by-18-inch object as “more like a towel,” according to court documents.
During the years that the sponge went undetected, the object eroded via transmural migration from Ms. Boerste’s abdomen into her intestine, causing diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. In March 2015, Ms. Boerste was transferred by ambulance to an emergency department because of abdominal pain. An emergency physician ordered an abdominal CT scan, which showed the x-ray detectable sponge marker inside Ms. Boerste’s intestine, according to her complaint.
Although the radiologist called the emergency physician to advise him of the sponge marker, the information was not shared with Ms. Boerste and she was discharged from the hospital with a urinary tract infection diagnosis. The emergency physician later testified he had no memory of the call with the radiologist.
The CT scan was faxed to Ms. Boerste’s family physician. She testified that she read the report but did not mention the sponge marker to Ms. Boerste because she believed the issue had been handled by the emergency physician. Thus the sponge remained inside Ms. Boerste for another 20 months.
In November 2016, Ms. Boerste returned to the same emergency department with more intense gastrointestinal issues. Another CT scan was ordered, which revealed the sponge. The object was removed by exploratory laparotomy later that month. In her complaint, Ms. Boerste claimed that the removal surgery resulted in amputation of her leg because of wounds developed on her lower extremities while she was bedridden during recovery.
In 2017, she filed a negligence lawsuit against Dr. Morris, the hospital, and several others involved in her care. On the first day of trial in December 2019, the hospital conceded liability. The trial continued against Dr. Morris and the other defendants as to liability and damages and proceeded against the hospital as to damages.
At trial, evidence showed there was significant confusion among nurses on how to document sponge counts, according to the appellate decision. In general, nurses used a perioperative nursing record to document the surgical procedure, and that record had a place to document some but not all sponge counts required by hospital policy. The nursing record did not have a place to document sponge counts required to be recorded at every break, lunch, and shift change. Nurses also used a worksheet to track sponge counts, but that worksheet was not part of the medical record.
Dr. Morris testified that he relies on nurses regarding sponge counts, but that he also performs a visual and tactile inspection of the abdominal cavity. He acknowledged during trial that the standard of care required him to keep track of the sponges before closing. Dr. Morris also testified that the surgeon and nurses are a team, and “the entire team did not count the sponges correctly when finishing the bypass surgery,” according to the appellate decision.
After a 10-day trial, jurors found Dr. Morris and several other defendants liable. They apportioned 60% liability to the hospital, 10% to Morris, 15% to the family physician, 0% to the emergency physician, and 15% to the rehabilitation center. Ms. Boerste was awarded $9.5 million in damages and an additional $1 million in punitive damages, for a total of $10.5 million.
Dr. Morris and the hospital appealed to the Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals. As the appeal was pending, Ms. Boerste died, and her son took over the plaintiff’s role.
In their appeal, Dr. Morris and the hospital said they should be granted a new trial for a number of reasons, including that the pain and suffering award was grossly excessive and reflected improper jury sympathy, that the punitive damages award should be vacated because jurors were not properly instructed on the issue, and that the judgment against Dr. Morris should be overturned because there was no evidence he deviated from the standard of care.
The defendants also argued that they were entitled to instructions on “apportionment of fault and mitigation of damages against Boerste.” The mitigation of damages doctrine prevents an injured plaintiff from recovering unreasonable expenses associated with the injury if they could have been avoided through reasonable efforts. Specifically, attorneys for Dr. Morris emphasized that Ms. Boerste failed to follow medical advice for follow-up care, to obtain recommended podiatrist care, and to make necessary efforts to control her diabetes. Had Ms. Boerste taken more proactive steps to manage her health, leg amputation may not have been needed because the sponge may have been found during other treatment, they contended.
In its Jan. 7, 2022, opinion, the appeals court upheld the majority of the jury award. Judges wrote that Dr. Morris’ testimony alone was sufficient for the jury to determine whether he breached the standard of care, and that the defendants are not entitled to a new trial on pain and suffering damages. In addition, judges rejected mitigation of damages.
“The fact that Boerste was a poor patient who failed to properly treat her diabetes is irrelevant,” the panel wrote in their decision. “She was a poor patient prior to the bypass surgery, and Appellants knew Boerste might ultimately need to have her lower leg amputated at the time of the bypass surgery. Therefore, we hold Appellants were not entitled to instructions on apportionment of fault or mitigation of damages.”
The appeals court, however, vacated the $1 million punitive damages award, ruling that the lower court did not give a proper instruction to the jury on punitive damages. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for a retrial as it pertains to punitive damages.
Attorneys for Dr. Morris and the hospital did not return messages seeking comment.
Bo Bolus, an attorney for Ms. Boerste’s family, said there will be no retrial on punitive damages, and that the plaintiff is satisfied with the outcome of the case.
“While we are pleased that Carolyn’s family and, equally importantly, her memory, now finally have closure on this extremely trying matter, our pleasure is severely tempered by the loss of Carolyn in November of last year,” Mr. Bolus said. “After having endured all she did, it is, frankly, painful for all concerned that she will not reap the reward of the jury’s verdict.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Carolyn Boerste underwent aortobifemoral bypass surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.) Hospital in March 2011 to improve circulation in her lower extremities. She had a history of peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes, which caused a wound on her toe to become infected and gangrenous, according to court records.
During the surgery, performed by Marvin Morris, MD, the surgical team left a laparotomy sponge in Ms. Boerste’s abdomen. Because of its size, Ms. Boerste’s attorneys characterized the 18-by-18-inch object as “more like a towel,” according to court documents.
During the years that the sponge went undetected, the object eroded via transmural migration from Ms. Boerste’s abdomen into her intestine, causing diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. In March 2015, Ms. Boerste was transferred by ambulance to an emergency department because of abdominal pain. An emergency physician ordered an abdominal CT scan, which showed the x-ray detectable sponge marker inside Ms. Boerste’s intestine, according to her complaint.
Although the radiologist called the emergency physician to advise him of the sponge marker, the information was not shared with Ms. Boerste and she was discharged from the hospital with a urinary tract infection diagnosis. The emergency physician later testified he had no memory of the call with the radiologist.
The CT scan was faxed to Ms. Boerste’s family physician. She testified that she read the report but did not mention the sponge marker to Ms. Boerste because she believed the issue had been handled by the emergency physician. Thus the sponge remained inside Ms. Boerste for another 20 months.
In November 2016, Ms. Boerste returned to the same emergency department with more intense gastrointestinal issues. Another CT scan was ordered, which revealed the sponge. The object was removed by exploratory laparotomy later that month. In her complaint, Ms. Boerste claimed that the removal surgery resulted in amputation of her leg because of wounds developed on her lower extremities while she was bedridden during recovery.
In 2017, she filed a negligence lawsuit against Dr. Morris, the hospital, and several others involved in her care. On the first day of trial in December 2019, the hospital conceded liability. The trial continued against Dr. Morris and the other defendants as to liability and damages and proceeded against the hospital as to damages.
At trial, evidence showed there was significant confusion among nurses on how to document sponge counts, according to the appellate decision. In general, nurses used a perioperative nursing record to document the surgical procedure, and that record had a place to document some but not all sponge counts required by hospital policy. The nursing record did not have a place to document sponge counts required to be recorded at every break, lunch, and shift change. Nurses also used a worksheet to track sponge counts, but that worksheet was not part of the medical record.
Dr. Morris testified that he relies on nurses regarding sponge counts, but that he also performs a visual and tactile inspection of the abdominal cavity. He acknowledged during trial that the standard of care required him to keep track of the sponges before closing. Dr. Morris also testified that the surgeon and nurses are a team, and “the entire team did not count the sponges correctly when finishing the bypass surgery,” according to the appellate decision.
After a 10-day trial, jurors found Dr. Morris and several other defendants liable. They apportioned 60% liability to the hospital, 10% to Morris, 15% to the family physician, 0% to the emergency physician, and 15% to the rehabilitation center. Ms. Boerste was awarded $9.5 million in damages and an additional $1 million in punitive damages, for a total of $10.5 million.
Dr. Morris and the hospital appealed to the Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals. As the appeal was pending, Ms. Boerste died, and her son took over the plaintiff’s role.
In their appeal, Dr. Morris and the hospital said they should be granted a new trial for a number of reasons, including that the pain and suffering award was grossly excessive and reflected improper jury sympathy, that the punitive damages award should be vacated because jurors were not properly instructed on the issue, and that the judgment against Dr. Morris should be overturned because there was no evidence he deviated from the standard of care.
The defendants also argued that they were entitled to instructions on “apportionment of fault and mitigation of damages against Boerste.” The mitigation of damages doctrine prevents an injured plaintiff from recovering unreasonable expenses associated with the injury if they could have been avoided through reasonable efforts. Specifically, attorneys for Dr. Morris emphasized that Ms. Boerste failed to follow medical advice for follow-up care, to obtain recommended podiatrist care, and to make necessary efforts to control her diabetes. Had Ms. Boerste taken more proactive steps to manage her health, leg amputation may not have been needed because the sponge may have been found during other treatment, they contended.
In its Jan. 7, 2022, opinion, the appeals court upheld the majority of the jury award. Judges wrote that Dr. Morris’ testimony alone was sufficient for the jury to determine whether he breached the standard of care, and that the defendants are not entitled to a new trial on pain and suffering damages. In addition, judges rejected mitigation of damages.
“The fact that Boerste was a poor patient who failed to properly treat her diabetes is irrelevant,” the panel wrote in their decision. “She was a poor patient prior to the bypass surgery, and Appellants knew Boerste might ultimately need to have her lower leg amputated at the time of the bypass surgery. Therefore, we hold Appellants were not entitled to instructions on apportionment of fault or mitigation of damages.”
The appeals court, however, vacated the $1 million punitive damages award, ruling that the lower court did not give a proper instruction to the jury on punitive damages. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for a retrial as it pertains to punitive damages.
Attorneys for Dr. Morris and the hospital did not return messages seeking comment.
Bo Bolus, an attorney for Ms. Boerste’s family, said there will be no retrial on punitive damages, and that the plaintiff is satisfied with the outcome of the case.
“While we are pleased that Carolyn’s family and, equally importantly, her memory, now finally have closure on this extremely trying matter, our pleasure is severely tempered by the loss of Carolyn in November of last year,” Mr. Bolus said. “After having endured all she did, it is, frankly, painful for all concerned that she will not reap the reward of the jury’s verdict.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Carolyn Boerste underwent aortobifemoral bypass surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.) Hospital in March 2011 to improve circulation in her lower extremities. She had a history of peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes, which caused a wound on her toe to become infected and gangrenous, according to court records.
During the surgery, performed by Marvin Morris, MD, the surgical team left a laparotomy sponge in Ms. Boerste’s abdomen. Because of its size, Ms. Boerste’s attorneys characterized the 18-by-18-inch object as “more like a towel,” according to court documents.
During the years that the sponge went undetected, the object eroded via transmural migration from Ms. Boerste’s abdomen into her intestine, causing diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. In March 2015, Ms. Boerste was transferred by ambulance to an emergency department because of abdominal pain. An emergency physician ordered an abdominal CT scan, which showed the x-ray detectable sponge marker inside Ms. Boerste’s intestine, according to her complaint.
Although the radiologist called the emergency physician to advise him of the sponge marker, the information was not shared with Ms. Boerste and she was discharged from the hospital with a urinary tract infection diagnosis. The emergency physician later testified he had no memory of the call with the radiologist.
The CT scan was faxed to Ms. Boerste’s family physician. She testified that she read the report but did not mention the sponge marker to Ms. Boerste because she believed the issue had been handled by the emergency physician. Thus the sponge remained inside Ms. Boerste for another 20 months.
In November 2016, Ms. Boerste returned to the same emergency department with more intense gastrointestinal issues. Another CT scan was ordered, which revealed the sponge. The object was removed by exploratory laparotomy later that month. In her complaint, Ms. Boerste claimed that the removal surgery resulted in amputation of her leg because of wounds developed on her lower extremities while she was bedridden during recovery.
In 2017, she filed a negligence lawsuit against Dr. Morris, the hospital, and several others involved in her care. On the first day of trial in December 2019, the hospital conceded liability. The trial continued against Dr. Morris and the other defendants as to liability and damages and proceeded against the hospital as to damages.
At trial, evidence showed there was significant confusion among nurses on how to document sponge counts, according to the appellate decision. In general, nurses used a perioperative nursing record to document the surgical procedure, and that record had a place to document some but not all sponge counts required by hospital policy. The nursing record did not have a place to document sponge counts required to be recorded at every break, lunch, and shift change. Nurses also used a worksheet to track sponge counts, but that worksheet was not part of the medical record.
Dr. Morris testified that he relies on nurses regarding sponge counts, but that he also performs a visual and tactile inspection of the abdominal cavity. He acknowledged during trial that the standard of care required him to keep track of the sponges before closing. Dr. Morris also testified that the surgeon and nurses are a team, and “the entire team did not count the sponges correctly when finishing the bypass surgery,” according to the appellate decision.
After a 10-day trial, jurors found Dr. Morris and several other defendants liable. They apportioned 60% liability to the hospital, 10% to Morris, 15% to the family physician, 0% to the emergency physician, and 15% to the rehabilitation center. Ms. Boerste was awarded $9.5 million in damages and an additional $1 million in punitive damages, for a total of $10.5 million.
Dr. Morris and the hospital appealed to the Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals. As the appeal was pending, Ms. Boerste died, and her son took over the plaintiff’s role.
In their appeal, Dr. Morris and the hospital said they should be granted a new trial for a number of reasons, including that the pain and suffering award was grossly excessive and reflected improper jury sympathy, that the punitive damages award should be vacated because jurors were not properly instructed on the issue, and that the judgment against Dr. Morris should be overturned because there was no evidence he deviated from the standard of care.
The defendants also argued that they were entitled to instructions on “apportionment of fault and mitigation of damages against Boerste.” The mitigation of damages doctrine prevents an injured plaintiff from recovering unreasonable expenses associated with the injury if they could have been avoided through reasonable efforts. Specifically, attorneys for Dr. Morris emphasized that Ms. Boerste failed to follow medical advice for follow-up care, to obtain recommended podiatrist care, and to make necessary efforts to control her diabetes. Had Ms. Boerste taken more proactive steps to manage her health, leg amputation may not have been needed because the sponge may have been found during other treatment, they contended.
In its Jan. 7, 2022, opinion, the appeals court upheld the majority of the jury award. Judges wrote that Dr. Morris’ testimony alone was sufficient for the jury to determine whether he breached the standard of care, and that the defendants are not entitled to a new trial on pain and suffering damages. In addition, judges rejected mitigation of damages.
“The fact that Boerste was a poor patient who failed to properly treat her diabetes is irrelevant,” the panel wrote in their decision. “She was a poor patient prior to the bypass surgery, and Appellants knew Boerste might ultimately need to have her lower leg amputated at the time of the bypass surgery. Therefore, we hold Appellants were not entitled to instructions on apportionment of fault or mitigation of damages.”
The appeals court, however, vacated the $1 million punitive damages award, ruling that the lower court did not give a proper instruction to the jury on punitive damages. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for a retrial as it pertains to punitive damages.
Attorneys for Dr. Morris and the hospital did not return messages seeking comment.
Bo Bolus, an attorney for Ms. Boerste’s family, said there will be no retrial on punitive damages, and that the plaintiff is satisfied with the outcome of the case.
“While we are pleased that Carolyn’s family and, equally importantly, her memory, now finally have closure on this extremely trying matter, our pleasure is severely tempered by the loss of Carolyn in November of last year,” Mr. Bolus said. “After having endured all she did, it is, frankly, painful for all concerned that she will not reap the reward of the jury’s verdict.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pandemic continues to exact a high toll on gastroenterologists’ well-being
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.
The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.
Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.
Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
Buried in paperwork
In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.
When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.
Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.
About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.
Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.
“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.
The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.
Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.
Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
Seeking better work-life balance
More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).
About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).
About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.
Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).
To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).
Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.
Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.
Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).
About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).
Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.
Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.
The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.
Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.
Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
Buried in paperwork
In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.
When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.
Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.
About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.
Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.
“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.
The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.
Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.
Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
Seeking better work-life balance
More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).
About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).
About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.
Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).
To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).
Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.
Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.
Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).
About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).
Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.
Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.
The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.
Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.
Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
Buried in paperwork
In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.
When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.
Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.
About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.
Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.
“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.
The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.
Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.
Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
Seeking better work-life balance
More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).
About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).
About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.
Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).
To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).
Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.
Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.
Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).
About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).
Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.
Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.