User login
Federal judge pauses strict Texas abortion law
Robert Pitman, a federal district court judge in Austin, sided with the Biden administration and granted the Justice Department’s request to halt enforcement of the new law. The Biden administration sued to stop the law, and Mr. Pitman’s decision pauses the law while it moves through federal courts, The New York Times reported.
In a 113-page ruling, Mr. Pitman criticized the law, also known as Senate Bill 8, for delegating enforcement to private individuals, who can sue anyone who performs abortions or “aids and abets” them. Plaintiffs are encouraged to file lawsuits because they recover legal fees and $10,000 if they win.
“From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their own lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” Mr. Pitman wrote in the ruling.
“This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right,” he said.
The Texas law bans abortions once fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which is usually around 6 weeks of pregnancy. Women may not know they’re pregnant yet during that time frame.
It’s not yet clear what effect Mr. Pitman’s ruling will have on women in Texas, the Times reported. Since the law went into effect about a month ago, women have sought abortion providers in other states. Mr. Pitman’s ruling pauses the enforcement of the law, but clinics may still face retroactive lawsuits for abortions provided while the law was temporarily suspended.
Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas, said Wednesday that it was “making plans to resume abortion care up to 18 weeks as soon as possible,” the newspaper reported. The Center for Reproductive Rights also said that clinics “hope to resume full abortion services as soon as they are able.”
Late Oct. 6, Texas said it would appeal the ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is one of the most conservative in the country, according to the Times, and another decision could come soon.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Robert Pitman, a federal district court judge in Austin, sided with the Biden administration and granted the Justice Department’s request to halt enforcement of the new law. The Biden administration sued to stop the law, and Mr. Pitman’s decision pauses the law while it moves through federal courts, The New York Times reported.
In a 113-page ruling, Mr. Pitman criticized the law, also known as Senate Bill 8, for delegating enforcement to private individuals, who can sue anyone who performs abortions or “aids and abets” them. Plaintiffs are encouraged to file lawsuits because they recover legal fees and $10,000 if they win.
“From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their own lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” Mr. Pitman wrote in the ruling.
“This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right,” he said.
The Texas law bans abortions once fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which is usually around 6 weeks of pregnancy. Women may not know they’re pregnant yet during that time frame.
It’s not yet clear what effect Mr. Pitman’s ruling will have on women in Texas, the Times reported. Since the law went into effect about a month ago, women have sought abortion providers in other states. Mr. Pitman’s ruling pauses the enforcement of the law, but clinics may still face retroactive lawsuits for abortions provided while the law was temporarily suspended.
Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas, said Wednesday that it was “making plans to resume abortion care up to 18 weeks as soon as possible,” the newspaper reported. The Center for Reproductive Rights also said that clinics “hope to resume full abortion services as soon as they are able.”
Late Oct. 6, Texas said it would appeal the ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is one of the most conservative in the country, according to the Times, and another decision could come soon.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Robert Pitman, a federal district court judge in Austin, sided with the Biden administration and granted the Justice Department’s request to halt enforcement of the new law. The Biden administration sued to stop the law, and Mr. Pitman’s decision pauses the law while it moves through federal courts, The New York Times reported.
In a 113-page ruling, Mr. Pitman criticized the law, also known as Senate Bill 8, for delegating enforcement to private individuals, who can sue anyone who performs abortions or “aids and abets” them. Plaintiffs are encouraged to file lawsuits because they recover legal fees and $10,000 if they win.
“From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their own lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” Mr. Pitman wrote in the ruling.
“This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right,” he said.
The Texas law bans abortions once fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which is usually around 6 weeks of pregnancy. Women may not know they’re pregnant yet during that time frame.
It’s not yet clear what effect Mr. Pitman’s ruling will have on women in Texas, the Times reported. Since the law went into effect about a month ago, women have sought abortion providers in other states. Mr. Pitman’s ruling pauses the enforcement of the law, but clinics may still face retroactive lawsuits for abortions provided while the law was temporarily suspended.
Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas, said Wednesday that it was “making plans to resume abortion care up to 18 weeks as soon as possible,” the newspaper reported. The Center for Reproductive Rights also said that clinics “hope to resume full abortion services as soon as they are able.”
Late Oct. 6, Texas said it would appeal the ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is one of the most conservative in the country, according to the Times, and another decision could come soon.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Diminishing number of clerkship sites poses threat to psychiatry training
Medical school clinical rotations are a rite of passage as students emerge from their basic science courses and first board exam to the clinical world where the patients vaguely resemble the question stem descriptions. Finally, intangible theory can be put into practice. Yet, it is becoming increasingly difficult for 3rd-year medical student clerkship directors to find enough clinical sites to support the growing number of medical students as enrollment numbers steadily increase and outpace the current clinical resources.
In a 2019 Association of American Medical Colleges report, 84% of medical school deans were concerned about the diminishing number of clerkship sites, and there was additional worry about lack of qualified specialty preceptors. This lack of clerkship availability is especially true for psychiatry sites.
Psychiatry clerkship directors are in need of more clinical sites to address the educational needs of medical students, and psychiatrists in the broader clinical community are positioned to help medical schools expand their clinical sites.
Inpatient psychiatric units and consult services continue to be popular sites for medical student rotations, but it has been hard to expand into other settings, where psychiatric treatment is seen as more private and intimate than other specialties. Reasons for falling site availability are varied and include 1) financial disincentive to take students – because they can be seen as a burden on supervisors who must meet revenue-generating patient quotas; 2) competition with other learners, including residents, PA students, NPs, and NP students; and 3) the general financial and operational obstacles to clinical practice inflicted by the pandemic. COVID-19 affected medical education – for better and worse (JAMA. 2020;324[11]:1033-4). Psychiatry clerkships particularly suffered from restricted patient access as inpatient units reduced their census to comply with COVID-19 safety protocols, and during the height of the pandemic inpatient units provided psychiatric care to COVID-19–positive patients, which precluded student involvement. On the other hand, many more students were introduced to telepsychiatry and witnessed creative forms of mental health intervention as clinicians adapted their practices to the pandemic.
When rotations began
Clinical rotations entered the American medical school curriculum in the 1890s when Sir William Osler brought the European standard of medical education with him as Physician in Chief at the newly opened Johns Hopkins University Hospital. He formalized the traditional apprenticeship model by standardizing 3rd- and 4th-year clerkships as rotations in which medical students worked in clinics and on the wards, learning from residents and attendings.
Clinical rotations, their location, the supervisors, and the patients and their ailments all go in to influence a student’s specialty choice. Some students enter medical school knowing they want to be a surgeon, a pediatrician, or a psychiatrist. And some are compelled by a specific rotation, when they realize that it’s not at all what they expected and maybe they could dedicate their professional life to this area of medicine.
High-quality clinical clerkship sites are essential to the future of psychiatry. At clerkship sites, undecided students interested in psychiatry may affirm their commitment to psychiatry. Other students will have their only dedicated exposure to psychiatrically ill patients. This represents students’ only opportunity to learn the skills to treat comorbid psychiatric and medical illness. Regardless of specialty, nearly every physician will have to treat patients with some psychiatric illnesses.
What constitutes a “high-quality clinical site” is difficult to measure and define. Some measures of quality include a safe learning environment, a reasonable ratio of students to supervisors (including residents, fellows, and attendings), and an adequate number and diversity of patients. Many medical schools may prefer an affiliated academic medical center or Veterans’ Affairs hospitals for their rotating students. Private psychiatric hospitals are proliferating, and if these are to be sites for medical students, the following standards are suggested: Private psychiatric hospitals must follow standard safety precautions with sufficient staff presence, ensure willing preceptors who can provide adequate student supervision, and adjust their expectations to students who can carry a few patients of diverse background, but are not to be treated merely as scribes.
Psychiatrists, whether they consider themselves “academic” or not, have a role to play in expanding access to clinical sites. Students are eager to learn in any setting. Inpatient settings have long been seen as the norm for clinical education in psychiatry. Yet inpatient settings perpetuate the idea that those with severe mental illness or individuals with psychosocial stressors or disabling, comorbid substance use disorders are the only people who seek help from a psychiatrist. without an academic affiliation to explore the possibility of creating space for a medical student in their clinical practice.
We cannot deny the demands on psychiatrists’ time – every minute is counted by the patient and doctor, and every encounter is accounted for in some revenue stream. However, the academic world is running out of space for its students, and there’s a serious question as to whether an academic center is the only place for students. If you are a psychiatrist who still loves to learn and prides themselves on high-quality patient care, then you have an essential role in shaping the students who will one day be your peers in psychiatry, or the physicians treating your patients’ comorbid medical illnesses.
There are upfront challenges to teaching 3rd-year medical students, including teaching the psychiatric interview, note writing, persuading patients to allow students into their care, and setting time aside at the end of the workday to provide feedback on performance. Yet, after learning the ropes of psychiatric patient care, medical students can provide help in writing notes, calling collateral, contacting patients with their laboratory results, and even helping with the tedious but necessary administrative tasks like prior authorizations. In exchange for training students, some medical schools may offer perks, such as a volunteer faculty position that comes with access to usually expensive library resources, such as medical databases.
You can help expand clinical sites in psychiatry rotations by contacting your alma mater or the medical school closest to your community and asking about their need for clerkship sites. Many medical schools are branching out by sending students to stay near the clinical sites and immerse themselves in the community where their site director practices. Even one-half day a week in an outpatient setting provides patient and setting diversity to students and helps spread out students to different sites, easing the burden on inpatient supervisors while providing students more individualized supervision.
The practice of medicine is built on apprenticeship and teaching wisdom through patient care. Just because we leave residency doesn’t mean we leave academics. Taking students into your practice is an invaluable service to the medical education community and future physicians.
Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington, and staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ortiz is assistant professor and clerkship director in the department of psychiatry at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center – El Paso. She has no conflicts of interest.
Medical school clinical rotations are a rite of passage as students emerge from their basic science courses and first board exam to the clinical world where the patients vaguely resemble the question stem descriptions. Finally, intangible theory can be put into practice. Yet, it is becoming increasingly difficult for 3rd-year medical student clerkship directors to find enough clinical sites to support the growing number of medical students as enrollment numbers steadily increase and outpace the current clinical resources.
In a 2019 Association of American Medical Colleges report, 84% of medical school deans were concerned about the diminishing number of clerkship sites, and there was additional worry about lack of qualified specialty preceptors. This lack of clerkship availability is especially true for psychiatry sites.
Psychiatry clerkship directors are in need of more clinical sites to address the educational needs of medical students, and psychiatrists in the broader clinical community are positioned to help medical schools expand their clinical sites.
Inpatient psychiatric units and consult services continue to be popular sites for medical student rotations, but it has been hard to expand into other settings, where psychiatric treatment is seen as more private and intimate than other specialties. Reasons for falling site availability are varied and include 1) financial disincentive to take students – because they can be seen as a burden on supervisors who must meet revenue-generating patient quotas; 2) competition with other learners, including residents, PA students, NPs, and NP students; and 3) the general financial and operational obstacles to clinical practice inflicted by the pandemic. COVID-19 affected medical education – for better and worse (JAMA. 2020;324[11]:1033-4). Psychiatry clerkships particularly suffered from restricted patient access as inpatient units reduced their census to comply with COVID-19 safety protocols, and during the height of the pandemic inpatient units provided psychiatric care to COVID-19–positive patients, which precluded student involvement. On the other hand, many more students were introduced to telepsychiatry and witnessed creative forms of mental health intervention as clinicians adapted their practices to the pandemic.
When rotations began
Clinical rotations entered the American medical school curriculum in the 1890s when Sir William Osler brought the European standard of medical education with him as Physician in Chief at the newly opened Johns Hopkins University Hospital. He formalized the traditional apprenticeship model by standardizing 3rd- and 4th-year clerkships as rotations in which medical students worked in clinics and on the wards, learning from residents and attendings.
Clinical rotations, their location, the supervisors, and the patients and their ailments all go in to influence a student’s specialty choice. Some students enter medical school knowing they want to be a surgeon, a pediatrician, or a psychiatrist. And some are compelled by a specific rotation, when they realize that it’s not at all what they expected and maybe they could dedicate their professional life to this area of medicine.
High-quality clinical clerkship sites are essential to the future of psychiatry. At clerkship sites, undecided students interested in psychiatry may affirm their commitment to psychiatry. Other students will have their only dedicated exposure to psychiatrically ill patients. This represents students’ only opportunity to learn the skills to treat comorbid psychiatric and medical illness. Regardless of specialty, nearly every physician will have to treat patients with some psychiatric illnesses.
What constitutes a “high-quality clinical site” is difficult to measure and define. Some measures of quality include a safe learning environment, a reasonable ratio of students to supervisors (including residents, fellows, and attendings), and an adequate number and diversity of patients. Many medical schools may prefer an affiliated academic medical center or Veterans’ Affairs hospitals for their rotating students. Private psychiatric hospitals are proliferating, and if these are to be sites for medical students, the following standards are suggested: Private psychiatric hospitals must follow standard safety precautions with sufficient staff presence, ensure willing preceptors who can provide adequate student supervision, and adjust their expectations to students who can carry a few patients of diverse background, but are not to be treated merely as scribes.
Psychiatrists, whether they consider themselves “academic” or not, have a role to play in expanding access to clinical sites. Students are eager to learn in any setting. Inpatient settings have long been seen as the norm for clinical education in psychiatry. Yet inpatient settings perpetuate the idea that those with severe mental illness or individuals with psychosocial stressors or disabling, comorbid substance use disorders are the only people who seek help from a psychiatrist. without an academic affiliation to explore the possibility of creating space for a medical student in their clinical practice.
We cannot deny the demands on psychiatrists’ time – every minute is counted by the patient and doctor, and every encounter is accounted for in some revenue stream. However, the academic world is running out of space for its students, and there’s a serious question as to whether an academic center is the only place for students. If you are a psychiatrist who still loves to learn and prides themselves on high-quality patient care, then you have an essential role in shaping the students who will one day be your peers in psychiatry, or the physicians treating your patients’ comorbid medical illnesses.
There are upfront challenges to teaching 3rd-year medical students, including teaching the psychiatric interview, note writing, persuading patients to allow students into their care, and setting time aside at the end of the workday to provide feedback on performance. Yet, after learning the ropes of psychiatric patient care, medical students can provide help in writing notes, calling collateral, contacting patients with their laboratory results, and even helping with the tedious but necessary administrative tasks like prior authorizations. In exchange for training students, some medical schools may offer perks, such as a volunteer faculty position that comes with access to usually expensive library resources, such as medical databases.
You can help expand clinical sites in psychiatry rotations by contacting your alma mater or the medical school closest to your community and asking about their need for clerkship sites. Many medical schools are branching out by sending students to stay near the clinical sites and immerse themselves in the community where their site director practices. Even one-half day a week in an outpatient setting provides patient and setting diversity to students and helps spread out students to different sites, easing the burden on inpatient supervisors while providing students more individualized supervision.
The practice of medicine is built on apprenticeship and teaching wisdom through patient care. Just because we leave residency doesn’t mean we leave academics. Taking students into your practice is an invaluable service to the medical education community and future physicians.
Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington, and staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ortiz is assistant professor and clerkship director in the department of psychiatry at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center – El Paso. She has no conflicts of interest.
Medical school clinical rotations are a rite of passage as students emerge from their basic science courses and first board exam to the clinical world where the patients vaguely resemble the question stem descriptions. Finally, intangible theory can be put into practice. Yet, it is becoming increasingly difficult for 3rd-year medical student clerkship directors to find enough clinical sites to support the growing number of medical students as enrollment numbers steadily increase and outpace the current clinical resources.
In a 2019 Association of American Medical Colleges report, 84% of medical school deans were concerned about the diminishing number of clerkship sites, and there was additional worry about lack of qualified specialty preceptors. This lack of clerkship availability is especially true for psychiatry sites.
Psychiatry clerkship directors are in need of more clinical sites to address the educational needs of medical students, and psychiatrists in the broader clinical community are positioned to help medical schools expand their clinical sites.
Inpatient psychiatric units and consult services continue to be popular sites for medical student rotations, but it has been hard to expand into other settings, where psychiatric treatment is seen as more private and intimate than other specialties. Reasons for falling site availability are varied and include 1) financial disincentive to take students – because they can be seen as a burden on supervisors who must meet revenue-generating patient quotas; 2) competition with other learners, including residents, PA students, NPs, and NP students; and 3) the general financial and operational obstacles to clinical practice inflicted by the pandemic. COVID-19 affected medical education – for better and worse (JAMA. 2020;324[11]:1033-4). Psychiatry clerkships particularly suffered from restricted patient access as inpatient units reduced their census to comply with COVID-19 safety protocols, and during the height of the pandemic inpatient units provided psychiatric care to COVID-19–positive patients, which precluded student involvement. On the other hand, many more students were introduced to telepsychiatry and witnessed creative forms of mental health intervention as clinicians adapted their practices to the pandemic.
When rotations began
Clinical rotations entered the American medical school curriculum in the 1890s when Sir William Osler brought the European standard of medical education with him as Physician in Chief at the newly opened Johns Hopkins University Hospital. He formalized the traditional apprenticeship model by standardizing 3rd- and 4th-year clerkships as rotations in which medical students worked in clinics and on the wards, learning from residents and attendings.
Clinical rotations, their location, the supervisors, and the patients and their ailments all go in to influence a student’s specialty choice. Some students enter medical school knowing they want to be a surgeon, a pediatrician, or a psychiatrist. And some are compelled by a specific rotation, when they realize that it’s not at all what they expected and maybe they could dedicate their professional life to this area of medicine.
High-quality clinical clerkship sites are essential to the future of psychiatry. At clerkship sites, undecided students interested in psychiatry may affirm their commitment to psychiatry. Other students will have their only dedicated exposure to psychiatrically ill patients. This represents students’ only opportunity to learn the skills to treat comorbid psychiatric and medical illness. Regardless of specialty, nearly every physician will have to treat patients with some psychiatric illnesses.
What constitutes a “high-quality clinical site” is difficult to measure and define. Some measures of quality include a safe learning environment, a reasonable ratio of students to supervisors (including residents, fellows, and attendings), and an adequate number and diversity of patients. Many medical schools may prefer an affiliated academic medical center or Veterans’ Affairs hospitals for their rotating students. Private psychiatric hospitals are proliferating, and if these are to be sites for medical students, the following standards are suggested: Private psychiatric hospitals must follow standard safety precautions with sufficient staff presence, ensure willing preceptors who can provide adequate student supervision, and adjust their expectations to students who can carry a few patients of diverse background, but are not to be treated merely as scribes.
Psychiatrists, whether they consider themselves “academic” or not, have a role to play in expanding access to clinical sites. Students are eager to learn in any setting. Inpatient settings have long been seen as the norm for clinical education in psychiatry. Yet inpatient settings perpetuate the idea that those with severe mental illness or individuals with psychosocial stressors or disabling, comorbid substance use disorders are the only people who seek help from a psychiatrist. without an academic affiliation to explore the possibility of creating space for a medical student in their clinical practice.
We cannot deny the demands on psychiatrists’ time – every minute is counted by the patient and doctor, and every encounter is accounted for in some revenue stream. However, the academic world is running out of space for its students, and there’s a serious question as to whether an academic center is the only place for students. If you are a psychiatrist who still loves to learn and prides themselves on high-quality patient care, then you have an essential role in shaping the students who will one day be your peers in psychiatry, or the physicians treating your patients’ comorbid medical illnesses.
There are upfront challenges to teaching 3rd-year medical students, including teaching the psychiatric interview, note writing, persuading patients to allow students into their care, and setting time aside at the end of the workday to provide feedback on performance. Yet, after learning the ropes of psychiatric patient care, medical students can provide help in writing notes, calling collateral, contacting patients with their laboratory results, and even helping with the tedious but necessary administrative tasks like prior authorizations. In exchange for training students, some medical schools may offer perks, such as a volunteer faculty position that comes with access to usually expensive library resources, such as medical databases.
You can help expand clinical sites in psychiatry rotations by contacting your alma mater or the medical school closest to your community and asking about their need for clerkship sites. Many medical schools are branching out by sending students to stay near the clinical sites and immerse themselves in the community where their site director practices. Even one-half day a week in an outpatient setting provides patient and setting diversity to students and helps spread out students to different sites, easing the burden on inpatient supervisors while providing students more individualized supervision.
The practice of medicine is built on apprenticeship and teaching wisdom through patient care. Just because we leave residency doesn’t mean we leave academics. Taking students into your practice is an invaluable service to the medical education community and future physicians.
Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington, and staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ortiz is assistant professor and clerkship director in the department of psychiatry at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center – El Paso. She has no conflicts of interest.
Lessons from an ethnic skin center: Awareness and respect for diversity
With the strong likelihood that , according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.
“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.
Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.
“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.
Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.
Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
Black henna
For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.
Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.
“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.
While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.
Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum
Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.
Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.
In the case of bindi, para-tertiary-butylphenol in adhesives is one source of reactions, whereas kumkum itself can be an irritant. As these are typically local to the site of application, the diagnosis is not difficult, but treatment can be more challenging for patients unwilling to abandon the practice.
Hair oils, skin-lightening agents
Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.
“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.
Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.
“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.
When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.
“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.
The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.
He said that he agreed with Dr. Vashi that understanding the role of cultural practices leading to dermatoses is not enough.
“Advising patients to alter or discontinue a specific cultural practice due to a dermatologic complication should be done with respect, humility, and understanding that may be challenging,” said Dr. Alexis.
While being aware of the specific cultural practices that might be causing or exacerbating dermatoses is important for accurate diagnosis, he said he believes that “partnering with the patient to modify the cultural practices in question” is important for a clinical outcome acceptable to the patient.
“Educational resources to inform clinicians of dermatoses associated with cultural practices are available and can be helpful for dermatologists in any practice setting,” he said.
Dr. Vashi reports that she has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Alexis reports financial relationships with Abbvie, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara, Galderma, Genzyme, Janssen, Leo, Menlo, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Valeant.
With the strong likelihood that , according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.
“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.
Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.
“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.
Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.
Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
Black henna
For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.
Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.
“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.
While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.
Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum
Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.
Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.
In the case of bindi, para-tertiary-butylphenol in adhesives is one source of reactions, whereas kumkum itself can be an irritant. As these are typically local to the site of application, the diagnosis is not difficult, but treatment can be more challenging for patients unwilling to abandon the practice.
Hair oils, skin-lightening agents
Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.
“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.
Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.
“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.
When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.
“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.
The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.
He said that he agreed with Dr. Vashi that understanding the role of cultural practices leading to dermatoses is not enough.
“Advising patients to alter or discontinue a specific cultural practice due to a dermatologic complication should be done with respect, humility, and understanding that may be challenging,” said Dr. Alexis.
While being aware of the specific cultural practices that might be causing or exacerbating dermatoses is important for accurate diagnosis, he said he believes that “partnering with the patient to modify the cultural practices in question” is important for a clinical outcome acceptable to the patient.
“Educational resources to inform clinicians of dermatoses associated with cultural practices are available and can be helpful for dermatologists in any practice setting,” he said.
Dr. Vashi reports that she has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Alexis reports financial relationships with Abbvie, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara, Galderma, Genzyme, Janssen, Leo, Menlo, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Valeant.
With the strong likelihood that , according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.
“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.
Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.
“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.
Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.
Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
Black henna
For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.
Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.
“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.
While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.
Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum
Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.
Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.
In the case of bindi, para-tertiary-butylphenol in adhesives is one source of reactions, whereas kumkum itself can be an irritant. As these are typically local to the site of application, the diagnosis is not difficult, but treatment can be more challenging for patients unwilling to abandon the practice.
Hair oils, skin-lightening agents
Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.
“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.
Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.
“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.
When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.
“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.
The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.
He said that he agreed with Dr. Vashi that understanding the role of cultural practices leading to dermatoses is not enough.
“Advising patients to alter or discontinue a specific cultural practice due to a dermatologic complication should be done with respect, humility, and understanding that may be challenging,” said Dr. Alexis.
While being aware of the specific cultural practices that might be causing or exacerbating dermatoses is important for accurate diagnosis, he said he believes that “partnering with the patient to modify the cultural practices in question” is important for a clinical outcome acceptable to the patient.
“Educational resources to inform clinicians of dermatoses associated with cultural practices are available and can be helpful for dermatologists in any practice setting,” he said.
Dr. Vashi reports that she has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Alexis reports financial relationships with Abbvie, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara, Galderma, Genzyme, Janssen, Leo, Menlo, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Valeant.
FROM SOC 2021
Via the keyboard
In the fall of 1980, my parents made me take a high school class that I was REALLY angry over. It was a waste of time. It was beneath my dignity. It was something I never was going to use. It was embarrassing.
It was ... typing.
And I was completely wrong.
Looking back from 2021, I have to say that, of all the things I learned in high school, it’s probably the skill I depend on the most every day. It’s probably been at least 25 years since I had a day when I didn’t type something.
Some of it is the rise of the Internet and computers, but a lot of it is also the way I run my practice. My schedule isn’t as busy as those of my colleagues in general practice, and I don’t use one of those new-fangled EMRs (my charts are on computer, but not in a specialized program per se).
I’ve always been my own transcriptionist. I type roughly 40 words a minute; certainly not blazing speed, but enough to get the job done. For a few years I used voice dictation, but the only speech program I really liked folded up years ago (yes, ViaVoice, I still miss you).
So now I just type, and proofread, all my own notes. Old-school maybe, certainly not efficient as far as time goes, but it works for me. My thoughts go through my fingers directly into the chart, occasionally pausing to think something through before I put it in or hitting backspace if I think of a better way to phrase it.
Writing the notes myself allows me to tell the patient’s story, and think about it in the process. It allows me to work through it again the next time I open the chart, months, or even years, later. Hopefully it shows my thought process and why I did things the way I did for myself, the colleague I’m sending the note to, and any physicians down the line.
I could probably save time with a system that lets me just check boxes or circle pertinent positives and negatives in a template, but that’s not how my thought process works. I feel like I’d be missing something if I did.
And, 41 years later, it’s still a reminder of how much of my parents’ advice was correct. Because at the time, I was pretty sure they were wrong.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In the fall of 1980, my parents made me take a high school class that I was REALLY angry over. It was a waste of time. It was beneath my dignity. It was something I never was going to use. It was embarrassing.
It was ... typing.
And I was completely wrong.
Looking back from 2021, I have to say that, of all the things I learned in high school, it’s probably the skill I depend on the most every day. It’s probably been at least 25 years since I had a day when I didn’t type something.
Some of it is the rise of the Internet and computers, but a lot of it is also the way I run my practice. My schedule isn’t as busy as those of my colleagues in general practice, and I don’t use one of those new-fangled EMRs (my charts are on computer, but not in a specialized program per se).
I’ve always been my own transcriptionist. I type roughly 40 words a minute; certainly not blazing speed, but enough to get the job done. For a few years I used voice dictation, but the only speech program I really liked folded up years ago (yes, ViaVoice, I still miss you).
So now I just type, and proofread, all my own notes. Old-school maybe, certainly not efficient as far as time goes, but it works for me. My thoughts go through my fingers directly into the chart, occasionally pausing to think something through before I put it in or hitting backspace if I think of a better way to phrase it.
Writing the notes myself allows me to tell the patient’s story, and think about it in the process. It allows me to work through it again the next time I open the chart, months, or even years, later. Hopefully it shows my thought process and why I did things the way I did for myself, the colleague I’m sending the note to, and any physicians down the line.
I could probably save time with a system that lets me just check boxes or circle pertinent positives and negatives in a template, but that’s not how my thought process works. I feel like I’d be missing something if I did.
And, 41 years later, it’s still a reminder of how much of my parents’ advice was correct. Because at the time, I was pretty sure they were wrong.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In the fall of 1980, my parents made me take a high school class that I was REALLY angry over. It was a waste of time. It was beneath my dignity. It was something I never was going to use. It was embarrassing.
It was ... typing.
And I was completely wrong.
Looking back from 2021, I have to say that, of all the things I learned in high school, it’s probably the skill I depend on the most every day. It’s probably been at least 25 years since I had a day when I didn’t type something.
Some of it is the rise of the Internet and computers, but a lot of it is also the way I run my practice. My schedule isn’t as busy as those of my colleagues in general practice, and I don’t use one of those new-fangled EMRs (my charts are on computer, but not in a specialized program per se).
I’ve always been my own transcriptionist. I type roughly 40 words a minute; certainly not blazing speed, but enough to get the job done. For a few years I used voice dictation, but the only speech program I really liked folded up years ago (yes, ViaVoice, I still miss you).
So now I just type, and proofread, all my own notes. Old-school maybe, certainly not efficient as far as time goes, but it works for me. My thoughts go through my fingers directly into the chart, occasionally pausing to think something through before I put it in or hitting backspace if I think of a better way to phrase it.
Writing the notes myself allows me to tell the patient’s story, and think about it in the process. It allows me to work through it again the next time I open the chart, months, or even years, later. Hopefully it shows my thought process and why I did things the way I did for myself, the colleague I’m sending the note to, and any physicians down the line.
I could probably save time with a system that lets me just check boxes or circle pertinent positives and negatives in a template, but that’s not how my thought process works. I feel like I’d be missing something if I did.
And, 41 years later, it’s still a reminder of how much of my parents’ advice was correct. Because at the time, I was pretty sure they were wrong.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
NIAMS director reflects on her mentors, spotlights research projects underway
After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.
“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.
Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.
Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.
What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.
Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.
What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.
How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.
The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.
The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.
The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).
Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.
What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.
Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.
Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.
How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.
During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.
What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.
Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.
Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.
Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.
After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.
“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.
Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.
Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.
What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.
Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.
What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.
How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.
The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.
The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.
The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).
Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.
What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.
Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.
Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.
How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.
During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.
What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.
Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.
Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.
Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.
After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.
“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.
Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.
Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.
What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.
Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.
What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.
How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.
The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.
The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.
The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).
Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.
What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.
Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.
Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.
How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.
During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.
What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.
Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.
Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.
Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.
New data illustrate pandemic pivot to telehealth by patients, physicians
Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.
Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.
A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.
Big jump during pandemic
The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.
The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).
Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.
Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.
There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.
The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
How telehealth was used
Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.
Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.
Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).
Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
Virtual consults with peers
Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.
Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.
The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.
Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.
A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.
Big jump during pandemic
The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.
The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).
Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.
Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.
There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.
The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
How telehealth was used
Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.
Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.
Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).
Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
Virtual consults with peers
Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.
Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.
The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.
Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.
A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.
Big jump during pandemic
The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.
The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).
Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.
Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.
There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.
The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
How telehealth was used
Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.
Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.
Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).
Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
Virtual consults with peers
Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.
Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.
The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Predicted pandemic retirement of many physicians hasn’t happened
The number of physicians who have chosen early retirement or have left medicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic may be considerably lower than previously thought, results of a new study suggest.
The research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, based on Medicare claims data, stated that “practice interruption rates were similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, except for a spike in April 2020.”
By contrast, in a Physicians Foundation Survey conducted in August 2020, 8% of physicians said they had closed their practices as a result of COVID, and 4% of the respondents said they planned to leave their practices within the next 12 months.
Similarly, a Jackson Physician Search survey in the fourth quarter of 2020 found that 54% of physicians surveyed had changed their employment plans. Of those doctors, 21% said they might hang up their white coat for early retirement. That works out to about 11% of the respondents.
The JAMA study’s authors analyzed the Medicare claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Dec. 30, 2020, to see how many physicians with Medicare patients had stopped filing claims for a period during those 2 years.
If a doctor had ceased submitting claims and then resumed filing them within 6 months after the last billing month, the lapse in filing was defined as “interruption with return.” If a physician stopped filing claims to Medicare and did not resume within 6 months, the gap in filing was called “interruption without return.”
In April 2020, 6.9% of physicians billing Medicare had a practice interruption, compared to 1.4% in 2019. But only 1.1% of physicians stopped practice in April 2020 and did not return, compared with 0.33% in 2019.
Physicians aged 55 or older had higher rates of interruption both with and without return than younger doctors did. The change in interruption rates for older doctors was 7.2% vs. 3.9% for younger physicians. The change in older physicians’ interruption-without-return rate was 1.3% vs. 0.34% for younger colleagues.
“Female physicians, specialists, physicians in smaller practices, those not in a health professional shortage area, and those practicing in a metropolitan area experienced greater increases in practice interruption rates in April 2020 vs. April 2019,” the study states. “But those groups typically had higher rates of return, so the overall changes in practice interruptions without return were similar across characteristics other than age.”
Significance for retirement rate
Discussing these results, the authors stressed that practice interruptions without return can’t necessarily be attributed to retirement, and that practice interruptions with return don’t necessarily signify that doctors had been furloughed from their practices.
Also, they said, “this measure of practice interruption likely misses meaningful interruptions that lasted for less than a month or did not involve complete cessation in treating Medicare patients.”
Nevertheless, “the study does capture a signal of some doctors probably retiring,” Jonathan Weiner, DPH, professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in an interview.
But he added, “Some of those people who interrupted their practices and didn’t return may still come back. And there are probably a lot of other doctors who are leaving or changing practices that they didn’t capture.” For example, it’s possible that some doctors who went to work for other health care organizations stopped billing under their own names.
In Dr. Weiner’s view, the true percentage of physicians who have retired since the start of the pandemic is probably somewhere between the portion of doctors who interrupted their practice without return, according to the JAMA study, and the percentage of physicians who said they had closed their practices in the Physicians Foundation survey.
No mass exodus seen
Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president of recruiting for Merritt Hawkins, a physician search firm, said in an interview that the real number may be closer to the interruption-without-return figure in the JAMA study.
While many physician practices were disrupted in spring of 2020, he said, “it really didn’t result in a mass exodus [from health care]. We’re not talking to a lot of candidates who retired or walked away from their practices. We are talking to candidates who slowed down last year and then realized that they wanted to get back into medicine. And now they’re actively looking.”
One change in job candidates’ attitude, Mr. Belkin said, is that, because of COVID-19–related burnout, their quality of life is more important to them.
“They want to know, ‘What’s the culture of the employer like? What did they do last year during COVID? How did they handle it? Have they put together any protocols for the next pandemic?’ “
Demand for doctors has returned
In the summer of 2020, there was a major drop in physician recruitment by hospitals and health systems, partly because of fewer patient visits and procedures. But demand for doctors has bounced back over the past year, Mr. Belkin noted. One reason is the pent-up need for care among patients who avoided health care providers in 2020.
Another reason is that some employed doctors – particularly older physicians – have slowed down. Many doctors prefer to work remotely 1 or 2 days a week, providing telehealth visits to patients. That has led to a loss of productivity in many health care organizations and, consequently, a need to hire additional physicians.
Nevertheless, not many doctors are heading for the exit earlier than physicians did before COVID-19.
“They may work reduced hours,” Mr. Belkin said. “But the sense from a physician’s perspective is that this is all they know. For them to walk away from their life in medicine, from who they are, is problematic. So they’re continuing to practice, but at a reduced capacity.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The number of physicians who have chosen early retirement or have left medicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic may be considerably lower than previously thought, results of a new study suggest.
The research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, based on Medicare claims data, stated that “practice interruption rates were similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, except for a spike in April 2020.”
By contrast, in a Physicians Foundation Survey conducted in August 2020, 8% of physicians said they had closed their practices as a result of COVID, and 4% of the respondents said they planned to leave their practices within the next 12 months.
Similarly, a Jackson Physician Search survey in the fourth quarter of 2020 found that 54% of physicians surveyed had changed their employment plans. Of those doctors, 21% said they might hang up their white coat for early retirement. That works out to about 11% of the respondents.
The JAMA study’s authors analyzed the Medicare claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Dec. 30, 2020, to see how many physicians with Medicare patients had stopped filing claims for a period during those 2 years.
If a doctor had ceased submitting claims and then resumed filing them within 6 months after the last billing month, the lapse in filing was defined as “interruption with return.” If a physician stopped filing claims to Medicare and did not resume within 6 months, the gap in filing was called “interruption without return.”
In April 2020, 6.9% of physicians billing Medicare had a practice interruption, compared to 1.4% in 2019. But only 1.1% of physicians stopped practice in April 2020 and did not return, compared with 0.33% in 2019.
Physicians aged 55 or older had higher rates of interruption both with and without return than younger doctors did. The change in interruption rates for older doctors was 7.2% vs. 3.9% for younger physicians. The change in older physicians’ interruption-without-return rate was 1.3% vs. 0.34% for younger colleagues.
“Female physicians, specialists, physicians in smaller practices, those not in a health professional shortage area, and those practicing in a metropolitan area experienced greater increases in practice interruption rates in April 2020 vs. April 2019,” the study states. “But those groups typically had higher rates of return, so the overall changes in practice interruptions without return were similar across characteristics other than age.”
Significance for retirement rate
Discussing these results, the authors stressed that practice interruptions without return can’t necessarily be attributed to retirement, and that practice interruptions with return don’t necessarily signify that doctors had been furloughed from their practices.
Also, they said, “this measure of practice interruption likely misses meaningful interruptions that lasted for less than a month or did not involve complete cessation in treating Medicare patients.”
Nevertheless, “the study does capture a signal of some doctors probably retiring,” Jonathan Weiner, DPH, professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in an interview.
But he added, “Some of those people who interrupted their practices and didn’t return may still come back. And there are probably a lot of other doctors who are leaving or changing practices that they didn’t capture.” For example, it’s possible that some doctors who went to work for other health care organizations stopped billing under their own names.
In Dr. Weiner’s view, the true percentage of physicians who have retired since the start of the pandemic is probably somewhere between the portion of doctors who interrupted their practice without return, according to the JAMA study, and the percentage of physicians who said they had closed their practices in the Physicians Foundation survey.
No mass exodus seen
Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president of recruiting for Merritt Hawkins, a physician search firm, said in an interview that the real number may be closer to the interruption-without-return figure in the JAMA study.
While many physician practices were disrupted in spring of 2020, he said, “it really didn’t result in a mass exodus [from health care]. We’re not talking to a lot of candidates who retired or walked away from their practices. We are talking to candidates who slowed down last year and then realized that they wanted to get back into medicine. And now they’re actively looking.”
One change in job candidates’ attitude, Mr. Belkin said, is that, because of COVID-19–related burnout, their quality of life is more important to them.
“They want to know, ‘What’s the culture of the employer like? What did they do last year during COVID? How did they handle it? Have they put together any protocols for the next pandemic?’ “
Demand for doctors has returned
In the summer of 2020, there was a major drop in physician recruitment by hospitals and health systems, partly because of fewer patient visits and procedures. But demand for doctors has bounced back over the past year, Mr. Belkin noted. One reason is the pent-up need for care among patients who avoided health care providers in 2020.
Another reason is that some employed doctors – particularly older physicians – have slowed down. Many doctors prefer to work remotely 1 or 2 days a week, providing telehealth visits to patients. That has led to a loss of productivity in many health care organizations and, consequently, a need to hire additional physicians.
Nevertheless, not many doctors are heading for the exit earlier than physicians did before COVID-19.
“They may work reduced hours,” Mr. Belkin said. “But the sense from a physician’s perspective is that this is all they know. For them to walk away from their life in medicine, from who they are, is problematic. So they’re continuing to practice, but at a reduced capacity.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The number of physicians who have chosen early retirement or have left medicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic may be considerably lower than previously thought, results of a new study suggest.
The research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, based on Medicare claims data, stated that “practice interruption rates were similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, except for a spike in April 2020.”
By contrast, in a Physicians Foundation Survey conducted in August 2020, 8% of physicians said they had closed their practices as a result of COVID, and 4% of the respondents said they planned to leave their practices within the next 12 months.
Similarly, a Jackson Physician Search survey in the fourth quarter of 2020 found that 54% of physicians surveyed had changed their employment plans. Of those doctors, 21% said they might hang up their white coat for early retirement. That works out to about 11% of the respondents.
The JAMA study’s authors analyzed the Medicare claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Dec. 30, 2020, to see how many physicians with Medicare patients had stopped filing claims for a period during those 2 years.
If a doctor had ceased submitting claims and then resumed filing them within 6 months after the last billing month, the lapse in filing was defined as “interruption with return.” If a physician stopped filing claims to Medicare and did not resume within 6 months, the gap in filing was called “interruption without return.”
In April 2020, 6.9% of physicians billing Medicare had a practice interruption, compared to 1.4% in 2019. But only 1.1% of physicians stopped practice in April 2020 and did not return, compared with 0.33% in 2019.
Physicians aged 55 or older had higher rates of interruption both with and without return than younger doctors did. The change in interruption rates for older doctors was 7.2% vs. 3.9% for younger physicians. The change in older physicians’ interruption-without-return rate was 1.3% vs. 0.34% for younger colleagues.
“Female physicians, specialists, physicians in smaller practices, those not in a health professional shortage area, and those practicing in a metropolitan area experienced greater increases in practice interruption rates in April 2020 vs. April 2019,” the study states. “But those groups typically had higher rates of return, so the overall changes in practice interruptions without return were similar across characteristics other than age.”
Significance for retirement rate
Discussing these results, the authors stressed that practice interruptions without return can’t necessarily be attributed to retirement, and that practice interruptions with return don’t necessarily signify that doctors had been furloughed from their practices.
Also, they said, “this measure of practice interruption likely misses meaningful interruptions that lasted for less than a month or did not involve complete cessation in treating Medicare patients.”
Nevertheless, “the study does capture a signal of some doctors probably retiring,” Jonathan Weiner, DPH, professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in an interview.
But he added, “Some of those people who interrupted their practices and didn’t return may still come back. And there are probably a lot of other doctors who are leaving or changing practices that they didn’t capture.” For example, it’s possible that some doctors who went to work for other health care organizations stopped billing under their own names.
In Dr. Weiner’s view, the true percentage of physicians who have retired since the start of the pandemic is probably somewhere between the portion of doctors who interrupted their practice without return, according to the JAMA study, and the percentage of physicians who said they had closed their practices in the Physicians Foundation survey.
No mass exodus seen
Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president of recruiting for Merritt Hawkins, a physician search firm, said in an interview that the real number may be closer to the interruption-without-return figure in the JAMA study.
While many physician practices were disrupted in spring of 2020, he said, “it really didn’t result in a mass exodus [from health care]. We’re not talking to a lot of candidates who retired or walked away from their practices. We are talking to candidates who slowed down last year and then realized that they wanted to get back into medicine. And now they’re actively looking.”
One change in job candidates’ attitude, Mr. Belkin said, is that, because of COVID-19–related burnout, their quality of life is more important to them.
“They want to know, ‘What’s the culture of the employer like? What did they do last year during COVID? How did they handle it? Have they put together any protocols for the next pandemic?’ “
Demand for doctors has returned
In the summer of 2020, there was a major drop in physician recruitment by hospitals and health systems, partly because of fewer patient visits and procedures. But demand for doctors has bounced back over the past year, Mr. Belkin noted. One reason is the pent-up need for care among patients who avoided health care providers in 2020.
Another reason is that some employed doctors – particularly older physicians – have slowed down. Many doctors prefer to work remotely 1 or 2 days a week, providing telehealth visits to patients. That has led to a loss of productivity in many health care organizations and, consequently, a need to hire additional physicians.
Nevertheless, not many doctors are heading for the exit earlier than physicians did before COVID-19.
“They may work reduced hours,” Mr. Belkin said. “But the sense from a physician’s perspective is that this is all they know. For them to walk away from their life in medicine, from who they are, is problematic. So they’re continuing to practice, but at a reduced capacity.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study finds paying people to participate in clinical trials is not unethical
Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.
Research released this week could change that.
Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.
More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.
But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.
“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.
The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
A good first step?
“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.”
“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.
In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”
The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
Recruitment realities
When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”
“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.
Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.
“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”
“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.
Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.
Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
Key findings
A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).
In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.
In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).
The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).
“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
Inducement vs. coercion
The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.
Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey.
Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.
After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
Research implications
A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.
“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”
“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
Responding to criticism
The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”
Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”
There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.
“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.
The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”
“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.
Research released this week could change that.
Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.
More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.
But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.
“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.
The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
A good first step?
“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.”
“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.
In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”
The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
Recruitment realities
When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”
“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.
Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.
“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”
“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.
Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.
Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
Key findings
A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).
In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.
In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).
The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).
“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
Inducement vs. coercion
The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.
Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey.
Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.
After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
Research implications
A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.
“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”
“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
Responding to criticism
The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”
Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”
There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.
“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.
The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”
“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.
Research released this week could change that.
Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.
More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.
But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.
“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.
The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
A good first step?
“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.”
“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.
In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”
The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
Recruitment realities
When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”
“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.
Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.
“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”
“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.
Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.
Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
Key findings
A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).
In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.
In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).
The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).
“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
Inducement vs. coercion
The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.
Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey.
Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.
After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
Research implications
A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.
“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”
“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
Responding to criticism
The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”
Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”
There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.
“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.
The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”
“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dr. Judy C. Washington shows URM physicians how to lead
For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.
While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)
“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.
Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.
In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.
Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
Guiding future leaders
Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.
“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.
“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.
Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.
“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
STFM involvement
Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.
She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.
It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.
In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.
Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
Navigating the ‘minority tax’
As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.
“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.
A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.
She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.
Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”
Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.
She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.
“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism
Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.
As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.
“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”
Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”
Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”
For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.
While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)
“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.
Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.
In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.
Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
Guiding future leaders
Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.
“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.
“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.
Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.
“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
STFM involvement
Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.
She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.
It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.
In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.
Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
Navigating the ‘minority tax’
As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.
“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.
A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.
She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.
Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”
Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.
She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.
“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism
Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.
As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.
“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”
Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”
Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”
For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.
While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)
“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.
Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.
In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.
Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
Guiding future leaders
Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.
“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.
“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.
Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.
“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
STFM involvement
Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.
She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.
It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.
In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.
Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
Navigating the ‘minority tax’
As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.
“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.
A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.
She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.
Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”
Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.
She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.
“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism
Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.
As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.
“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”
Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”
Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”
Two Colorado nurses admit to stealing drugs from hospital patients
, according to the US Attorney’s Office in Denver.
Alicia Nickel-Tangeman, 44, formerly of Woodland Park, Colo., pled guilty to four counts of obtaining controlled substances using fraud and deception. She gained access to rooms of patients who weren’t assigned to her and diverted drugs from their pain-on-demand devices, according to federal officials.
The defendant told patients she was conducting a study on the pumps that deliver drugs to relieve pain when the patient pushes a button, the officials stated. She would open the machine and would remove a portion of the drug with a syringe. She obtained drugs in this way from three patients on four occasions, a press release stated.
When questioned by law enforcement, Ms. Nickel-Tangeman continued to lie about her conduct and produced a false email address to substantiate her claims, the Department of Justice reported. She is scheduled to be sentenced November 30.
Ms. Nickel-Tangeman’s LinkedIn profile shows that she was a nurse with UCHealth in Colorado for 17 years, ending in May 2019.
Katie Muhs, 34, of Littleton, Colo., was convicted of a felony for using fraud and deception to divert fentanyl for her personal use while serving as an intensive care nurse.
The defendant admitted that between June and September 2019 she stole fentanyl by removing it from the IV bags of patients using a syringe. She also admitted to stealing fentanyl that remained in vials after fentanyl had been administered to patients. She would replace the stolen drug with saline and would “then have a fellow nurse witness her ‘waste,’ or dispose of the saline.”
U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore sentenced Ms. Muhs to 3 months of probation as a result of “the defendant’s confession and her cooperation in disclosing full information on her diversion, which is a matter potentially affecting the public health and the integrity of the health care system. The felony offense is punishable by up to four years of imprisonment and a fine of $250,000, per count.”
In pleading guilty to the single count in the case, Ms. Muhs admitted that on September 8, 2019, “she removed a bag of fentanyl from the automated medication control machine at the hospital under a different nurse’s login credentials. She then removed fentanyl from the IV bag for personal use.”
In April, the Colorado Court of Appeals denied her request for unemployment benefits. Court documents reveal that Ms. Muhs lost her job at St. Anthony Hospital after it was discovered that she stole and self-injected fentanyl while working as a registered nurse there.
The investigations in these cases were conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Criminal Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
“We want it to be known that healthcare professionals who take advantage of patients in need by stealing their medications will be held accountable to the law,” said Deanne Reuter, DEA Denver Field Division special agent in charge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to the US Attorney’s Office in Denver.
Alicia Nickel-Tangeman, 44, formerly of Woodland Park, Colo., pled guilty to four counts of obtaining controlled substances using fraud and deception. She gained access to rooms of patients who weren’t assigned to her and diverted drugs from their pain-on-demand devices, according to federal officials.
The defendant told patients she was conducting a study on the pumps that deliver drugs to relieve pain when the patient pushes a button, the officials stated. She would open the machine and would remove a portion of the drug with a syringe. She obtained drugs in this way from three patients on four occasions, a press release stated.
When questioned by law enforcement, Ms. Nickel-Tangeman continued to lie about her conduct and produced a false email address to substantiate her claims, the Department of Justice reported. She is scheduled to be sentenced November 30.
Ms. Nickel-Tangeman’s LinkedIn profile shows that she was a nurse with UCHealth in Colorado for 17 years, ending in May 2019.
Katie Muhs, 34, of Littleton, Colo., was convicted of a felony for using fraud and deception to divert fentanyl for her personal use while serving as an intensive care nurse.
The defendant admitted that between June and September 2019 she stole fentanyl by removing it from the IV bags of patients using a syringe. She also admitted to stealing fentanyl that remained in vials after fentanyl had been administered to patients. She would replace the stolen drug with saline and would “then have a fellow nurse witness her ‘waste,’ or dispose of the saline.”
U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore sentenced Ms. Muhs to 3 months of probation as a result of “the defendant’s confession and her cooperation in disclosing full information on her diversion, which is a matter potentially affecting the public health and the integrity of the health care system. The felony offense is punishable by up to four years of imprisonment and a fine of $250,000, per count.”
In pleading guilty to the single count in the case, Ms. Muhs admitted that on September 8, 2019, “she removed a bag of fentanyl from the automated medication control machine at the hospital under a different nurse’s login credentials. She then removed fentanyl from the IV bag for personal use.”
In April, the Colorado Court of Appeals denied her request for unemployment benefits. Court documents reveal that Ms. Muhs lost her job at St. Anthony Hospital after it was discovered that she stole and self-injected fentanyl while working as a registered nurse there.
The investigations in these cases were conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Criminal Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
“We want it to be known that healthcare professionals who take advantage of patients in need by stealing their medications will be held accountable to the law,” said Deanne Reuter, DEA Denver Field Division special agent in charge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to the US Attorney’s Office in Denver.
Alicia Nickel-Tangeman, 44, formerly of Woodland Park, Colo., pled guilty to four counts of obtaining controlled substances using fraud and deception. She gained access to rooms of patients who weren’t assigned to her and diverted drugs from their pain-on-demand devices, according to federal officials.
The defendant told patients she was conducting a study on the pumps that deliver drugs to relieve pain when the patient pushes a button, the officials stated. She would open the machine and would remove a portion of the drug with a syringe. She obtained drugs in this way from three patients on four occasions, a press release stated.
When questioned by law enforcement, Ms. Nickel-Tangeman continued to lie about her conduct and produced a false email address to substantiate her claims, the Department of Justice reported. She is scheduled to be sentenced November 30.
Ms. Nickel-Tangeman’s LinkedIn profile shows that she was a nurse with UCHealth in Colorado for 17 years, ending in May 2019.
Katie Muhs, 34, of Littleton, Colo., was convicted of a felony for using fraud and deception to divert fentanyl for her personal use while serving as an intensive care nurse.
The defendant admitted that between June and September 2019 she stole fentanyl by removing it from the IV bags of patients using a syringe. She also admitted to stealing fentanyl that remained in vials after fentanyl had been administered to patients. She would replace the stolen drug with saline and would “then have a fellow nurse witness her ‘waste,’ or dispose of the saline.”
U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore sentenced Ms. Muhs to 3 months of probation as a result of “the defendant’s confession and her cooperation in disclosing full information on her diversion, which is a matter potentially affecting the public health and the integrity of the health care system. The felony offense is punishable by up to four years of imprisonment and a fine of $250,000, per count.”
In pleading guilty to the single count in the case, Ms. Muhs admitted that on September 8, 2019, “she removed a bag of fentanyl from the automated medication control machine at the hospital under a different nurse’s login credentials. She then removed fentanyl from the IV bag for personal use.”
In April, the Colorado Court of Appeals denied her request for unemployment benefits. Court documents reveal that Ms. Muhs lost her job at St. Anthony Hospital after it was discovered that she stole and self-injected fentanyl while working as a registered nurse there.
The investigations in these cases were conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Criminal Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
“We want it to be known that healthcare professionals who take advantage of patients in need by stealing their medications will be held accountable to the law,” said Deanne Reuter, DEA Denver Field Division special agent in charge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.