Injuries

The number of young children unintentionally exposed to edible cannabis products in the United States jumped 1,375% over a 5-year period, according to a new analysis of data from poison control centers.

In 2017, centers received 207 reports of children aged 5 years and younger who ingested edible cannabis. In 2021, 3,054 such cases were reported, according to the study, which was published online in Pediatrics.

Many of the children experienced clinical effects, such as depression of the central nervous system, impaired coordination, confusion, agitation, an increase in heart rate, or dilated pupils. No deaths were reported.

“These exposures can cause significant toxicity and are responsible for an increasing number of hospitalizations,” study coauthor Marit S. Tweet, MD, of Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues wrote.

About 97% of the exposures occurred in residences – 90% at the child’s own home – and about half of the cases involved 2- and 3-year-olds, they noted.
 

Examining national trends

Twenty-one states have approved recreational cannabis for people aged 21 years and older.

Prior research has shown that calls to poison centers and visits to emergency departments for pediatric cannabis consumption increased in certain states after the drug became legal in those jurisdictions.

To assess national trends, Dr. Tweet’s group analyzed cases in the National Poison Data System, which tracks potentially toxic exposures reported to poison control centers in the United States.

During the 5-year period, they identified 7,043 exposures to edible cannabis by children younger than age 6. In 2.2% of the cases, the drug had a major effect, defined as being either life-threatening or causing residual disability. In 21.9% of cases, the effect was considered to be moderate, with symptoms that were more pronounced, prolonged, or systemic than minor effects.

About 8% of the children were admitted to critical care units; 14.6% were admitted to non–critical care units.

Of 4,827 cases for which there was information about the clinical effects of the exposure and therapies used, 70% involved CNS depression, including 1.9% with “more severe CNS effects, including major CNS depression or coma,” according to the report.

Patients also experienced ataxia (7.4%), agitation (7.1%), confusion (6.1%), tremor (2%), and seizures (1.6%). Other common symptoms included tachycardia (11.4%), vomiting (9.5%), mydriasis (5.9%), and respiratory depression (3.1%).

Treatments for the exposures included intravenous fluids (20.7%), food or snacks (10.3%), and oxygen therapy (4%). Some patients also received naloxone (1.4%) or charcoal (2.1%).

“The total number of children requiring intubation during the study period was 35, or approximately 1 in 140,” the researchers reported. “Although this was a relatively rare occurrence, it is important for clinicians to be aware that life-threatening sequelae can develop and may necessitate invasive supportive care measures.”
 

Tempting and toxic

For toddlers, edible cannabis may be especially tempting and toxic. Edibles can “resemble common treats such as candies, chocolates, cookies, or other baked goods,” the researchers wrote. Children would not recognize, for example, that one chocolate bar might contain multiple 10-mg servings of tetrahydrocannabinol intended for adults.

Poison centers have been fielding more calls about edible cannabis use by older children, as well.

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, recently found that many cases of intentional misuse and abuse by adolescents involve edible forms of cannabis.

“While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

Measures to keep edibles away from children could include changing how the products are packaged, limiting the maximum dose of drug per package, and educating the public about the risks to children, Dr. Tweet’s group wrote. They highlighted a 2019 position statement from the American College of Medical Toxicology that includes recommendations for responsible storage habits.

Dr. Hughes echoed one suggestion that is mentioned in the position statement: Parents should consider keeping their cannabis products locked up.

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of young children unintentionally exposed to edible cannabis products in the United States jumped 1,375% over a 5-year period, according to a new analysis of data from poison control centers.

In 2017, centers received 207 reports of children aged 5 years and younger who ingested edible cannabis. In 2021, 3,054 such cases were reported, according to the study, which was published online in Pediatrics.

Many of the children experienced clinical effects, such as depression of the central nervous system, impaired coordination, confusion, agitation, an increase in heart rate, or dilated pupils. No deaths were reported.

“These exposures can cause significant toxicity and are responsible for an increasing number of hospitalizations,” study coauthor Marit S. Tweet, MD, of Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues wrote.

About 97% of the exposures occurred in residences – 90% at the child’s own home – and about half of the cases involved 2- and 3-year-olds, they noted.
 

Examining national trends

Twenty-one states have approved recreational cannabis for people aged 21 years and older.

Prior research has shown that calls to poison centers and visits to emergency departments for pediatric cannabis consumption increased in certain states after the drug became legal in those jurisdictions.

To assess national trends, Dr. Tweet’s group analyzed cases in the National Poison Data System, which tracks potentially toxic exposures reported to poison control centers in the United States.

During the 5-year period, they identified 7,043 exposures to edible cannabis by children younger than age 6. In 2.2% of the cases, the drug had a major effect, defined as being either life-threatening or causing residual disability. In 21.9% of cases, the effect was considered to be moderate, with symptoms that were more pronounced, prolonged, or systemic than minor effects.

About 8% of the children were admitted to critical care units; 14.6% were admitted to non–critical care units.

Of 4,827 cases for which there was information about the clinical effects of the exposure and therapies used, 70% involved CNS depression, including 1.9% with “more severe CNS effects, including major CNS depression or coma,” according to the report.

Patients also experienced ataxia (7.4%), agitation (7.1%), confusion (6.1%), tremor (2%), and seizures (1.6%). Other common symptoms included tachycardia (11.4%), vomiting (9.5%), mydriasis (5.9%), and respiratory depression (3.1%).

Treatments for the exposures included intravenous fluids (20.7%), food or snacks (10.3%), and oxygen therapy (4%). Some patients also received naloxone (1.4%) or charcoal (2.1%).

“The total number of children requiring intubation during the study period was 35, or approximately 1 in 140,” the researchers reported. “Although this was a relatively rare occurrence, it is important for clinicians to be aware that life-threatening sequelae can develop and may necessitate invasive supportive care measures.”
 

Tempting and toxic

For toddlers, edible cannabis may be especially tempting and toxic. Edibles can “resemble common treats such as candies, chocolates, cookies, or other baked goods,” the researchers wrote. Children would not recognize, for example, that one chocolate bar might contain multiple 10-mg servings of tetrahydrocannabinol intended for adults.

Poison centers have been fielding more calls about edible cannabis use by older children, as well.

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, recently found that many cases of intentional misuse and abuse by adolescents involve edible forms of cannabis.

“While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

Measures to keep edibles away from children could include changing how the products are packaged, limiting the maximum dose of drug per package, and educating the public about the risks to children, Dr. Tweet’s group wrote. They highlighted a 2019 position statement from the American College of Medical Toxicology that includes recommendations for responsible storage habits.

Dr. Hughes echoed one suggestion that is mentioned in the position statement: Parents should consider keeping their cannabis products locked up.

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of young children unintentionally exposed to edible cannabis products in the United States jumped 1,375% over a 5-year period, according to a new analysis of data from poison control centers.

In 2017, centers received 207 reports of children aged 5 years and younger who ingested edible cannabis. In 2021, 3,054 such cases were reported, according to the study, which was published online in Pediatrics.

Many of the children experienced clinical effects, such as depression of the central nervous system, impaired coordination, confusion, agitation, an increase in heart rate, or dilated pupils. No deaths were reported.

“These exposures can cause significant toxicity and are responsible for an increasing number of hospitalizations,” study coauthor Marit S. Tweet, MD, of Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues wrote.

About 97% of the exposures occurred in residences – 90% at the child’s own home – and about half of the cases involved 2- and 3-year-olds, they noted.
 

Examining national trends

Twenty-one states have approved recreational cannabis for people aged 21 years and older.

Prior research has shown that calls to poison centers and visits to emergency departments for pediatric cannabis consumption increased in certain states after the drug became legal in those jurisdictions.

To assess national trends, Dr. Tweet’s group analyzed cases in the National Poison Data System, which tracks potentially toxic exposures reported to poison control centers in the United States.

During the 5-year period, they identified 7,043 exposures to edible cannabis by children younger than age 6. In 2.2% of the cases, the drug had a major effect, defined as being either life-threatening or causing residual disability. In 21.9% of cases, the effect was considered to be moderate, with symptoms that were more pronounced, prolonged, or systemic than minor effects.

About 8% of the children were admitted to critical care units; 14.6% were admitted to non–critical care units.

Of 4,827 cases for which there was information about the clinical effects of the exposure and therapies used, 70% involved CNS depression, including 1.9% with “more severe CNS effects, including major CNS depression or coma,” according to the report.

Patients also experienced ataxia (7.4%), agitation (7.1%), confusion (6.1%), tremor (2%), and seizures (1.6%). Other common symptoms included tachycardia (11.4%), vomiting (9.5%), mydriasis (5.9%), and respiratory depression (3.1%).

Treatments for the exposures included intravenous fluids (20.7%), food or snacks (10.3%), and oxygen therapy (4%). Some patients also received naloxone (1.4%) or charcoal (2.1%).

“The total number of children requiring intubation during the study period was 35, or approximately 1 in 140,” the researchers reported. “Although this was a relatively rare occurrence, it is important for clinicians to be aware that life-threatening sequelae can develop and may necessitate invasive supportive care measures.”
 

Tempting and toxic

For toddlers, edible cannabis may be especially tempting and toxic. Edibles can “resemble common treats such as candies, chocolates, cookies, or other baked goods,” the researchers wrote. Children would not recognize, for example, that one chocolate bar might contain multiple 10-mg servings of tetrahydrocannabinol intended for adults.

Poison centers have been fielding more calls about edible cannabis use by older children, as well.

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, recently found that many cases of intentional misuse and abuse by adolescents involve edible forms of cannabis.

“While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

Measures to keep edibles away from children could include changing how the products are packaged, limiting the maximum dose of drug per package, and educating the public about the risks to children, Dr. Tweet’s group wrote. They highlighted a 2019 position statement from the American College of Medical Toxicology that includes recommendations for responsible storage habits.

Dr. Hughes echoed one suggestion that is mentioned in the position statement: Parents should consider keeping their cannabis products locked up.

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

The homicide rate among children in the United States rose by more than 4% per year since 2013 but jumped nearly 28% from 2019 to 2020, new data show.

Although long-term trends varied by region and demographics, with some groups and areas seeing declines in killings, the increases were the highest among Black children and boys aged 11-17, according to the researchers, who attribute the surge in violent deaths to a recent rise in firearm-related killings in children. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, claiming what the American Academy of Pediatrics has equated to a classroomful of lives each day.

“There are troubling recent rate increases among several groups, warranting immediate attention, with some racial and ethnic disparities persisting for more than 20 years,” said Rebecca F. Wilson, PhD, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who helped conduct the study.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues, whose findings appear in JAMA Pediatrics, examined data on 38,362 homicide victims in the United States aged 0-17 years who were killed between 1999 and 2020.

The nation’s overall homicide rate for youth fell by 5.6% per year from 2007 to 2013 before reversing course. Between 2013 and 2020, the overall rate rose 4.3% annually.

The figures show that not all children are affected equally. The rate of child homicide has fallen significantly for girls, infants, and children ages 5 years and under – whose deaths often result from caregiver neglect or violence – as well as Asian or Pacific Islanders, Whites, and those living in the Northeast.

But the child homicide rate in the South increased 6.4% per year between 2013 and 2020, while that of children in both rural America and in cities is also rising after years of decline, according to the researchers.

The suspected perpetrator was known in about 64% of child killings. Nearly 80% of those perpetrators were male.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues also note that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have precipitated a wave of gun-related violence among children – a link borne out by another recent paper in JAMA Pediatrics. (Recent data suggest that intentional firearm injuries are often misclassified as accidental.)

The study found that gun-related injuries in youth remained elevated through 2021, with non-Hispanic Black children and those with public insurance making up greater proportions of victims during the pandemic. The researchers identified 1,815 firearm injuries per month before the pandemic and 2,759 per month during the outbreak, a 52% increase.

Although the two studies look at different data, both show that Black children are most affected by gun violence, experts said.

“This demonstrates a critical issue for the medical, public health, and legal communities: While homicide is often presented as a criminal justice problem, it is increasingly a racial justice problem,” said Katherine E. Hoops, MD, of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

In an editorial about the homicide study, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the violent deaths “preventable and unacceptable.” Eliminating such deaths “must be among our first priorities,” they wrote.

The editorial authors also noted that researchers know relatively little about nonfatal violent injuries such as those involving firearms. “These injuries are important not only because they may have life-altering consequences for children and families but also because understanding only the most severe form of any health condition (death) will hamper our ability to design and evaluate prevention strategies,” they wrote.

Dr. Wilson’s group identified different causes of youth homicide for different age groups – and the potential interventions for each differ. Although the youngest children are more likely to die from abuse or neglect, those aged 6-10 years were most likely to die by firearm, often associated with abuse that ends in suicide. Meanwhile, adolescents aged 11-17 were more subject to peer violence.

For Dr. Hoops, “each of these differences has important policy implications, including the need for policies that address structural racism, poverty, and systematic disadvantage – but also firearm safe storage to prevent youth violence and suicide [and] reduction of access to lethal means, such as through extreme risk protective orders when someone is at risk of harming themselves or others.”

Dr. Wilson agreed. “We know child homicides are preventable,” she said. “The rate decrease for some groups is encouraging, yet more can be done to protect all children.”

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

The homicide rate among children in the United States rose by more than 4% per year since 2013 but jumped nearly 28% from 2019 to 2020, new data show.

Although long-term trends varied by region and demographics, with some groups and areas seeing declines in killings, the increases were the highest among Black children and boys aged 11-17, according to the researchers, who attribute the surge in violent deaths to a recent rise in firearm-related killings in children. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, claiming what the American Academy of Pediatrics has equated to a classroomful of lives each day.

“There are troubling recent rate increases among several groups, warranting immediate attention, with some racial and ethnic disparities persisting for more than 20 years,” said Rebecca F. Wilson, PhD, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who helped conduct the study.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues, whose findings appear in JAMA Pediatrics, examined data on 38,362 homicide victims in the United States aged 0-17 years who were killed between 1999 and 2020.

The nation’s overall homicide rate for youth fell by 5.6% per year from 2007 to 2013 before reversing course. Between 2013 and 2020, the overall rate rose 4.3% annually.

The figures show that not all children are affected equally. The rate of child homicide has fallen significantly for girls, infants, and children ages 5 years and under – whose deaths often result from caregiver neglect or violence – as well as Asian or Pacific Islanders, Whites, and those living in the Northeast.

But the child homicide rate in the South increased 6.4% per year between 2013 and 2020, while that of children in both rural America and in cities is also rising after years of decline, according to the researchers.

The suspected perpetrator was known in about 64% of child killings. Nearly 80% of those perpetrators were male.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues also note that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have precipitated a wave of gun-related violence among children – a link borne out by another recent paper in JAMA Pediatrics. (Recent data suggest that intentional firearm injuries are often misclassified as accidental.)

The study found that gun-related injuries in youth remained elevated through 2021, with non-Hispanic Black children and those with public insurance making up greater proportions of victims during the pandemic. The researchers identified 1,815 firearm injuries per month before the pandemic and 2,759 per month during the outbreak, a 52% increase.

Although the two studies look at different data, both show that Black children are most affected by gun violence, experts said.

“This demonstrates a critical issue for the medical, public health, and legal communities: While homicide is often presented as a criminal justice problem, it is increasingly a racial justice problem,” said Katherine E. Hoops, MD, of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

In an editorial about the homicide study, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the violent deaths “preventable and unacceptable.” Eliminating such deaths “must be among our first priorities,” they wrote.

The editorial authors also noted that researchers know relatively little about nonfatal violent injuries such as those involving firearms. “These injuries are important not only because they may have life-altering consequences for children and families but also because understanding only the most severe form of any health condition (death) will hamper our ability to design and evaluate prevention strategies,” they wrote.

Dr. Wilson’s group identified different causes of youth homicide for different age groups – and the potential interventions for each differ. Although the youngest children are more likely to die from abuse or neglect, those aged 6-10 years were most likely to die by firearm, often associated with abuse that ends in suicide. Meanwhile, adolescents aged 11-17 were more subject to peer violence.

For Dr. Hoops, “each of these differences has important policy implications, including the need for policies that address structural racism, poverty, and systematic disadvantage – but also firearm safe storage to prevent youth violence and suicide [and] reduction of access to lethal means, such as through extreme risk protective orders when someone is at risk of harming themselves or others.”

Dr. Wilson agreed. “We know child homicides are preventable,” she said. “The rate decrease for some groups is encouraging, yet more can be done to protect all children.”

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

The homicide rate among children in the United States rose by more than 4% per year since 2013 but jumped nearly 28% from 2019 to 2020, new data show.

Although long-term trends varied by region and demographics, with some groups and areas seeing declines in killings, the increases were the highest among Black children and boys aged 11-17, according to the researchers, who attribute the surge in violent deaths to a recent rise in firearm-related killings in children. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, claiming what the American Academy of Pediatrics has equated to a classroomful of lives each day.

“There are troubling recent rate increases among several groups, warranting immediate attention, with some racial and ethnic disparities persisting for more than 20 years,” said Rebecca F. Wilson, PhD, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who helped conduct the study.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues, whose findings appear in JAMA Pediatrics, examined data on 38,362 homicide victims in the United States aged 0-17 years who were killed between 1999 and 2020.

The nation’s overall homicide rate for youth fell by 5.6% per year from 2007 to 2013 before reversing course. Between 2013 and 2020, the overall rate rose 4.3% annually.

The figures show that not all children are affected equally. The rate of child homicide has fallen significantly for girls, infants, and children ages 5 years and under – whose deaths often result from caregiver neglect or violence – as well as Asian or Pacific Islanders, Whites, and those living in the Northeast.

But the child homicide rate in the South increased 6.4% per year between 2013 and 2020, while that of children in both rural America and in cities is also rising after years of decline, according to the researchers.

The suspected perpetrator was known in about 64% of child killings. Nearly 80% of those perpetrators were male.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues also note that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have precipitated a wave of gun-related violence among children – a link borne out by another recent paper in JAMA Pediatrics. (Recent data suggest that intentional firearm injuries are often misclassified as accidental.)

The study found that gun-related injuries in youth remained elevated through 2021, with non-Hispanic Black children and those with public insurance making up greater proportions of victims during the pandemic. The researchers identified 1,815 firearm injuries per month before the pandemic and 2,759 per month during the outbreak, a 52% increase.

Although the two studies look at different data, both show that Black children are most affected by gun violence, experts said.

“This demonstrates a critical issue for the medical, public health, and legal communities: While homicide is often presented as a criminal justice problem, it is increasingly a racial justice problem,” said Katherine E. Hoops, MD, of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

In an editorial about the homicide study, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the violent deaths “preventable and unacceptable.” Eliminating such deaths “must be among our first priorities,” they wrote.

The editorial authors also noted that researchers know relatively little about nonfatal violent injuries such as those involving firearms. “These injuries are important not only because they may have life-altering consequences for children and families but also because understanding only the most severe form of any health condition (death) will hamper our ability to design and evaluate prevention strategies,” they wrote.

Dr. Wilson’s group identified different causes of youth homicide for different age groups – and the potential interventions for each differ. Although the youngest children are more likely to die from abuse or neglect, those aged 6-10 years were most likely to die by firearm, often associated with abuse that ends in suicide. Meanwhile, adolescents aged 11-17 were more subject to peer violence.

For Dr. Hoops, “each of these differences has important policy implications, including the need for policies that address structural racism, poverty, and systematic disadvantage – but also firearm safe storage to prevent youth violence and suicide [and] reduction of access to lethal means, such as through extreme risk protective orders when someone is at risk of harming themselves or others.”

Dr. Wilson agreed. “We know child homicides are preventable,” she said. “The rate decrease for some groups is encouraging, yet more can be done to protect all children.”

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

Patients who seek fracture care at a facility that treats a higher proportion of patients from racial or ethnic minorities or a higher number of uninsured patients are more likely to face a longer-than-recommended delay in treatment, according to new data.

Regardless of individual patient-level characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or insurance status, these patients were more likely to miss the recommended 24-hour benchmark for surgery.

“Institutions that treat a less diverse patient population appeared to be more resilient to the mix of insurance status in their patient population and were more likely to meet time-to-surgery benchmarks, regardless of patient insurance status or population-based insurance mix,” write study author Ida Leah Gitajn, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

“While it is unsurprising that increased delays were associated with underfunded institutions, the association between institutional-level racial disparity and surgical delays implies structural health systems bias,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Site performance varied

Racial inequalities in health care utilization and outcomes have been documented in many medical specialties, including orthopedic trauma, the study authors write. However, previous studies evaluating racial disparities in fracture care have been limited to patient-level associations rather than hospital-level factors.

The investigators conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected multicenter data for 2,565 patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in two randomized trials at 23 sites in the United States and Canada. The researchers assessed whether disparities in meeting 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks exist at the patient level or at the institutional level, evaluating the association of race, ethnicity, and insurance status.

The cohort study used data from the Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Preoperative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREP-IT), which enrolled patients from 2018-2021 and followed them for 1 year. All patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in the PREP-IT program were included in the analysis, which was conducted from April to September of this year.

The cohort included 2,565 patients with an average age of about 65 years. About 82% of patients were White, 13.4% were Black, 3.2% were Asian, and 1.1% were classified as another race or ethnicity. Among the study population, 32.5% of participants were employed, and 92.2% had health insurance. Nearly 40% had a femur fracture with an average injury severity score of 10.4.

Overall, 596 patients (23.2%) didn’t meet the 24-hour time-to-operating-room benchmark. Patients who didn’t meet the 24-hour surgical window were more likely to be older, women, and have a femur fracture. They were less likely to be employed.

The 23 sites had variability in meeting the 24-hour benchmark, race and ethnicity distribution, and population-based health insurance. Institutions met benchmarks at frequencies ranging from 45.2% (for 196 of 433 procedures) to 97.4% (37 of 38 procedures). Minority race and ethnicity distribution ranged from 0% (in 99 procedures) to 58.2% (in 53 of 91 procedures). The proportion of uninsured patients ranged from 0% (in 64 procedures) to 34.2% (in 13 of 38 procedures).

At the patient level, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and race or ethnicity, and there was no independent association between hospital population racial composition and surgical delay. In an analysis that controlled for patient-level characteristics, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and patient-level insurance status.

There was an independent association, however, between the hospital population insurance coverage and hospital population racial composition as an interaction term, suggesting a moderating effect (P = .03), the study authors write.

At low rates of uninsured patients, the probability of missing the 24-hour benchmark was 12.5%-14.6% when racial composition varied from 0%-50% minority patients. In contrast, at higher rates of uninsured patients, the risk of missing the 24-hour window was higher among more diverse populations. For instance, at 30% uninsured, the risk of missing the benchmark was 0.5% when the racial composition was low and 17.6% at 50% minority patients.

Additional studies are needed to understand the findings and how health system programs or structures play a role, the authors write. For instance, well-funded health systems that care for a higher proportion of insured patients likely have quality improvement programs and other support structures, such as operating room access, that ensure appropriate time-to-surgery benchmarks for time-sensitive fractures, they say.
 

Addressing inequalities

Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said, “Despite these disparities being reported and well documented in recent years, unfortunately, not enough has been done to address them or understand their fundamental root causes.”

Dr. Amen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched racial and ethnic disparities in hip fracture surgery care across the United States. He and his colleagues found disparities in delayed time-to-surgery, particularly for Black patients.

“We live in a country and society where we want and strive for equality of care for patients regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or background,” he said. “We have a moral imperative to address these disparities as health care providers, not only among ourselves, but also in conjunction with lawmakers, hospital administrators, and health policy specialists.”

Uma Srikumaran, MD, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wasn’t involved with this study but has researched racial disparities in the timing of radiographic assessment and surgical treatment of hip fractures.

“Though we understand that racial disparities are pervasive in health care, we have a great deal left to understand about the extent of those disparities and all the various factors that contribute to them,” Dr. Srikumaran told this news organization.

Dr. Srikumaran and colleagues have found that Black patients had longer wait times for evaluation and surgery than White patients.

“We all want to get to the solutions, but those can be difficult to execute without an intricate understanding of the problem,” he said. “We should encourage this type of research all throughout health care in general but also very locally, as solutions are not likely to be one-size-fits-all.”

Dr. Srikumaran pointed to the need to measure the problem in specific pathologies, populations, geographies, hospital types, and other factors.

“Studying the trends of this issue will help us determine whether our national or local initiatives are making a difference and which interventions are most effective for a particular hospital, geographic location, or particular pathology,” he said. “Accordingly, if a particular hospital or health system isn’t looking at differences in the delivery of care by race, they are missing an opportunity to ensure equity and raise overall quality.”

The study was supported by funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Gitajn reported receiving personal fees for consulting and teaching work from Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Amen and Dr. Srikumaran reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who seek fracture care at a facility that treats a higher proportion of patients from racial or ethnic minorities or a higher number of uninsured patients are more likely to face a longer-than-recommended delay in treatment, according to new data.

Regardless of individual patient-level characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or insurance status, these patients were more likely to miss the recommended 24-hour benchmark for surgery.

“Institutions that treat a less diverse patient population appeared to be more resilient to the mix of insurance status in their patient population and were more likely to meet time-to-surgery benchmarks, regardless of patient insurance status or population-based insurance mix,” write study author Ida Leah Gitajn, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

“While it is unsurprising that increased delays were associated with underfunded institutions, the association between institutional-level racial disparity and surgical delays implies structural health systems bias,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Site performance varied

Racial inequalities in health care utilization and outcomes have been documented in many medical specialties, including orthopedic trauma, the study authors write. However, previous studies evaluating racial disparities in fracture care have been limited to patient-level associations rather than hospital-level factors.

The investigators conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected multicenter data for 2,565 patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in two randomized trials at 23 sites in the United States and Canada. The researchers assessed whether disparities in meeting 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks exist at the patient level or at the institutional level, evaluating the association of race, ethnicity, and insurance status.

The cohort study used data from the Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Preoperative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREP-IT), which enrolled patients from 2018-2021 and followed them for 1 year. All patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in the PREP-IT program were included in the analysis, which was conducted from April to September of this year.

The cohort included 2,565 patients with an average age of about 65 years. About 82% of patients were White, 13.4% were Black, 3.2% were Asian, and 1.1% were classified as another race or ethnicity. Among the study population, 32.5% of participants were employed, and 92.2% had health insurance. Nearly 40% had a femur fracture with an average injury severity score of 10.4.

Overall, 596 patients (23.2%) didn’t meet the 24-hour time-to-operating-room benchmark. Patients who didn’t meet the 24-hour surgical window were more likely to be older, women, and have a femur fracture. They were less likely to be employed.

The 23 sites had variability in meeting the 24-hour benchmark, race and ethnicity distribution, and population-based health insurance. Institutions met benchmarks at frequencies ranging from 45.2% (for 196 of 433 procedures) to 97.4% (37 of 38 procedures). Minority race and ethnicity distribution ranged from 0% (in 99 procedures) to 58.2% (in 53 of 91 procedures). The proportion of uninsured patients ranged from 0% (in 64 procedures) to 34.2% (in 13 of 38 procedures).

At the patient level, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and race or ethnicity, and there was no independent association between hospital population racial composition and surgical delay. In an analysis that controlled for patient-level characteristics, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and patient-level insurance status.

There was an independent association, however, between the hospital population insurance coverage and hospital population racial composition as an interaction term, suggesting a moderating effect (P = .03), the study authors write.

At low rates of uninsured patients, the probability of missing the 24-hour benchmark was 12.5%-14.6% when racial composition varied from 0%-50% minority patients. In contrast, at higher rates of uninsured patients, the risk of missing the 24-hour window was higher among more diverse populations. For instance, at 30% uninsured, the risk of missing the benchmark was 0.5% when the racial composition was low and 17.6% at 50% minority patients.

Additional studies are needed to understand the findings and how health system programs or structures play a role, the authors write. For instance, well-funded health systems that care for a higher proportion of insured patients likely have quality improvement programs and other support structures, such as operating room access, that ensure appropriate time-to-surgery benchmarks for time-sensitive fractures, they say.
 

Addressing inequalities

Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said, “Despite these disparities being reported and well documented in recent years, unfortunately, not enough has been done to address them or understand their fundamental root causes.”

Dr. Amen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched racial and ethnic disparities in hip fracture surgery care across the United States. He and his colleagues found disparities in delayed time-to-surgery, particularly for Black patients.

“We live in a country and society where we want and strive for equality of care for patients regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or background,” he said. “We have a moral imperative to address these disparities as health care providers, not only among ourselves, but also in conjunction with lawmakers, hospital administrators, and health policy specialists.”

Uma Srikumaran, MD, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wasn’t involved with this study but has researched racial disparities in the timing of radiographic assessment and surgical treatment of hip fractures.

“Though we understand that racial disparities are pervasive in health care, we have a great deal left to understand about the extent of those disparities and all the various factors that contribute to them,” Dr. Srikumaran told this news organization.

Dr. Srikumaran and colleagues have found that Black patients had longer wait times for evaluation and surgery than White patients.

“We all want to get to the solutions, but those can be difficult to execute without an intricate understanding of the problem,” he said. “We should encourage this type of research all throughout health care in general but also very locally, as solutions are not likely to be one-size-fits-all.”

Dr. Srikumaran pointed to the need to measure the problem in specific pathologies, populations, geographies, hospital types, and other factors.

“Studying the trends of this issue will help us determine whether our national or local initiatives are making a difference and which interventions are most effective for a particular hospital, geographic location, or particular pathology,” he said. “Accordingly, if a particular hospital or health system isn’t looking at differences in the delivery of care by race, they are missing an opportunity to ensure equity and raise overall quality.”

The study was supported by funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Gitajn reported receiving personal fees for consulting and teaching work from Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Amen and Dr. Srikumaran reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who seek fracture care at a facility that treats a higher proportion of patients from racial or ethnic minorities or a higher number of uninsured patients are more likely to face a longer-than-recommended delay in treatment, according to new data.

Regardless of individual patient-level characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or insurance status, these patients were more likely to miss the recommended 24-hour benchmark for surgery.

“Institutions that treat a less diverse patient population appeared to be more resilient to the mix of insurance status in their patient population and were more likely to meet time-to-surgery benchmarks, regardless of patient insurance status or population-based insurance mix,” write study author Ida Leah Gitajn, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

“While it is unsurprising that increased delays were associated with underfunded institutions, the association between institutional-level racial disparity and surgical delays implies structural health systems bias,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Site performance varied

Racial inequalities in health care utilization and outcomes have been documented in many medical specialties, including orthopedic trauma, the study authors write. However, previous studies evaluating racial disparities in fracture care have been limited to patient-level associations rather than hospital-level factors.

The investigators conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected multicenter data for 2,565 patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in two randomized trials at 23 sites in the United States and Canada. The researchers assessed whether disparities in meeting 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks exist at the patient level or at the institutional level, evaluating the association of race, ethnicity, and insurance status.

The cohort study used data from the Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Preoperative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREP-IT), which enrolled patients from 2018-2021 and followed them for 1 year. All patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in the PREP-IT program were included in the analysis, which was conducted from April to September of this year.

The cohort included 2,565 patients with an average age of about 65 years. About 82% of patients were White, 13.4% were Black, 3.2% were Asian, and 1.1% were classified as another race or ethnicity. Among the study population, 32.5% of participants were employed, and 92.2% had health insurance. Nearly 40% had a femur fracture with an average injury severity score of 10.4.

Overall, 596 patients (23.2%) didn’t meet the 24-hour time-to-operating-room benchmark. Patients who didn’t meet the 24-hour surgical window were more likely to be older, women, and have a femur fracture. They were less likely to be employed.

The 23 sites had variability in meeting the 24-hour benchmark, race and ethnicity distribution, and population-based health insurance. Institutions met benchmarks at frequencies ranging from 45.2% (for 196 of 433 procedures) to 97.4% (37 of 38 procedures). Minority race and ethnicity distribution ranged from 0% (in 99 procedures) to 58.2% (in 53 of 91 procedures). The proportion of uninsured patients ranged from 0% (in 64 procedures) to 34.2% (in 13 of 38 procedures).

At the patient level, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and race or ethnicity, and there was no independent association between hospital population racial composition and surgical delay. In an analysis that controlled for patient-level characteristics, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and patient-level insurance status.

There was an independent association, however, between the hospital population insurance coverage and hospital population racial composition as an interaction term, suggesting a moderating effect (P = .03), the study authors write.

At low rates of uninsured patients, the probability of missing the 24-hour benchmark was 12.5%-14.6% when racial composition varied from 0%-50% minority patients. In contrast, at higher rates of uninsured patients, the risk of missing the 24-hour window was higher among more diverse populations. For instance, at 30% uninsured, the risk of missing the benchmark was 0.5% when the racial composition was low and 17.6% at 50% minority patients.

Additional studies are needed to understand the findings and how health system programs or structures play a role, the authors write. For instance, well-funded health systems that care for a higher proportion of insured patients likely have quality improvement programs and other support structures, such as operating room access, that ensure appropriate time-to-surgery benchmarks for time-sensitive fractures, they say.
 

Addressing inequalities

Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said, “Despite these disparities being reported and well documented in recent years, unfortunately, not enough has been done to address them or understand their fundamental root causes.”

Dr. Amen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched racial and ethnic disparities in hip fracture surgery care across the United States. He and his colleagues found disparities in delayed time-to-surgery, particularly for Black patients.

“We live in a country and society where we want and strive for equality of care for patients regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or background,” he said. “We have a moral imperative to address these disparities as health care providers, not only among ourselves, but also in conjunction with lawmakers, hospital administrators, and health policy specialists.”

Uma Srikumaran, MD, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wasn’t involved with this study but has researched racial disparities in the timing of radiographic assessment and surgical treatment of hip fractures.

“Though we understand that racial disparities are pervasive in health care, we have a great deal left to understand about the extent of those disparities and all the various factors that contribute to them,” Dr. Srikumaran told this news organization.

Dr. Srikumaran and colleagues have found that Black patients had longer wait times for evaluation and surgery than White patients.

“We all want to get to the solutions, but those can be difficult to execute without an intricate understanding of the problem,” he said. “We should encourage this type of research all throughout health care in general but also very locally, as solutions are not likely to be one-size-fits-all.”

Dr. Srikumaran pointed to the need to measure the problem in specific pathologies, populations, geographies, hospital types, and other factors.

“Studying the trends of this issue will help us determine whether our national or local initiatives are making a difference and which interventions are most effective for a particular hospital, geographic location, or particular pathology,” he said. “Accordingly, if a particular hospital or health system isn’t looking at differences in the delivery of care by race, they are missing an opportunity to ensure equity and raise overall quality.”

The study was supported by funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Gitajn reported receiving personal fees for consulting and teaching work from Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Amen and Dr. Srikumaran reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and young adults who are exposed to a single CT scan of the head or neck before age 22 years are at significantly increased risk of developing a brain tumor, particularly glioma, after at least 5 years, according to results of the large EPI-CT study.

“Translation of our risk estimates to the clinical setting indicates that per 10,000 children who received one head CT examination, about one radiation-induced brain cancer is expected during the 5-15 years following the CT examination,” noted lead author Michael Hauptmann, PhD, from the Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany, and coauthors.

“Next to the clinical benefit of most CT scans, there is a small risk of cancer from the radiation exposure,” Dr. Hauptmann told this news organization.

“So, CT examinations should only be used when necessary, and if they are used, the lowest achievable dose should be applied,” he said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“This is a thoughtful and well-conducted study by an outstanding multinational team of scientists that adds further weight to the growing body of evidence that has found exposure to CT scanning increases a child’s risk of developing brain cancer,” commented Rebecca Bindman-Smith, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

“The results are real, and important,” she told this news organization, adding that “the authors were conservative in their assumptions, and performed a very large number of sensitivity analyses ... to check that the results were robust to a large range of assumptions – and the results changed relatively little.”

“I do not think there is enough awareness [about this risk],” Dr. Hauptmann said. “There is evidence that a nonnegligible number of CTs is unjustified according to guidelines, and there is evidence that doses vary substantially for the same CT between institutions in the same or different countries.”

Indeed, particularly in the United States, “we perform many CT scans in children and even more so in adults that are simply unnecessary,” agreed Dr. Bindman-Smith, who is professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is important for patients and providers to understand that nothing we do in medicine is risk free, including CT scanning. If a CT is necessary, the benefit almost certainly outweighs the risk. But if [not], then it should not be obtained. Both patients and providers must make thoroughly considered decisions before asking for or agreeing to a CT.”

She also pointed out that while this study evaluated the risk only for brain cancer, children who undergo head CTs are also at increased risk for leukemia.
 

Dose/response relationship

The study included 658,752 individuals from nine European countries and 276 hospitals. Each patient had received at least one CT scan between 1977 and 2014 before they turned 22 years of age. Eligibility requirements included their being alive at least 5 years after the first scan and that they had not previously been diagnosed with cancer or benign brain tumor.

The radiation dose absorbed to the brain and 33 other organs and tissues was estimated for each participant using a dose reconstruction model that included historical information on CT machine settings, questionnaire data, and Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header metadata. “Mean brain dose per head or neck CT examination increased from 1984 until about 1991, following the introduction of multislice CT scanners at which point thereafter the mean dose decreased and then stabilized around 2010,” note the authors.

During a median follow-up of 5.6 years (starting 5 years after the first scan), 165 brain cancers occurred, including 121 (73%) gliomas, as well as a variety of other morphologic changes.

The mean cumulative brain dose, which lagged by 5 years, was 47.4 mGy overall and 76.0 mGy among people with brain cancer.

“We observed a significant positive association between the cumulative number of head or neck CT examinations and the risk of all brain cancers combined (P < .0001), and of gliomas separately (P = .0002),” the team reports, adding that, for a brain dose of 38 mGy, which was the average dose per head or neck CT in 2012-2014, the relative risk of developing brain cancer was 1.5, compared with not undergoing a CT scan, and the excess absolute risk per 100,000 person-years was 1.1.

These findings “can be used to give the patients and their parents important information on the risks of CT examination to balance against the known benefits,” noted Nobuyuki Hamada, PhD, from the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, and Lydia B. Zablotska, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, writing in a linked commentary.

“In recent years, rates of CT use have been steady or declined, and various efforts (for instance, in terms of diagnostic reference levels) have been made to justify and optimize CT examinations. Such continued efforts, along with extended epidemiological investigations, would be needed to minimize the risk of brain cancer after pediatric CT examination,” they add.
 

Keeping dose to a minimum

The study’s finding of a dose-response relationship underscores the importance of keeping doses to a minimum, Dr. Bindman-Smith commented. “I do not believe we are doing this nearly enough,” she added.

“In the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, where we have collected CT scans from 165 hospitals on many millions of patients, we found that the average brain dose for a head CT in a 1-year-old is 42 mGy but that this dose varies tremendously, where some children receive a dose of 100 mGy.

“So, a second message is that not only should CT scans be justified and used judiciously, but also they should be optimized, meaning using the lowest dose possible. I personally think there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive the absolutely lowest doses possible,” she added. “My team at UCSF has written quality measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a start for setting explicit standards for how CT should be performed in order to ensure the cancer risks are as low as possible.”

The study was funded through the Belgian Cancer Registry; La Ligue contre le Cancer, L’Institut National du Cancer, France; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Worldwide Cancer Research; the Dutch Cancer Society; the Research Council of Norway; Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Generalitat deCatalunya, Spain; the U.S. National Cancer Institute; the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; and Public Health England. Dr. Hauptmann has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Other investigators’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Hamada and Dr. Zablotska disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As a physician in the heart of the opioid epidemic, Pavirthra R. Ellison, MD, has watched for years as her patients have lost parents to overdoses. More than 1,400 adults in West Virginia, where she practices, died of opioid abuse in 2021 alone, government statistics show.

The grim toll made Ellison wonder: What was happening to children in the state? The answer, according to a new study, is not reassuring.

Ellison and her colleagues have found a troubling link between a surge in critical head and neck injuries among youth in West Virginia and a spike in positive tests for opioids and benzodiazepines among children who arrive at emergency departments in the state. They don’t think the pattern is a coincidence.

“What we found was really kind of scary,” said Dr. Ellison, a professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Children in this region often get exposure to these drugs early on.”
 

A region in crisis

According to a 2020 report from the Department of Health & Human Services, about 9.9 million Americans abused prescription opioids in 2018. That same year, almost 47,000 died following an overdose of the painkillers. In 2017, Appalachian counties experienced a death rate from opioid overdoses that was 72% higher than that of the rest of the country.

Dr. Ellison and associates who presented their findings recently at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, examined rates of pediatric trauma injuries, injury severity, and results of drug screenings throughout West Virginia between 2009 and 2019.

The study included 4,538 children and adolescents younger than 18 years who had been treated for head and neck trauma. The youth were divided into two groups: 3,356 who were treated from 2009 to 2016, and 1,182 who were treated between 2017 and 2019.

The incidence of critical head injuries increased from 3.7% in the period 2009-2016 to 7.2% in the period 2017-2019 (P = .007). The incidence of serious neck injuries increased from 12.2% to 27.1% (P = .007) during that period, according to the researchers. The number of days that these patients spent on ventilators more than doubled, from 3.1 to 6.3 (P < .001), they reported.

At the same time, the rate of positive urine drug tests rose sharply, from 0.8% to 1.8% (P < .001) for benzodiazepines and from 1% to 4.9% for opioids (P < .001).

Drug testing of children hospitalized for trauma rose more than threefold, from 6.9% to 23.2% (P < .001). Dr. Ellison’s group was unable to match positive drug screens with patients who came in with injuries.

Dr. Ellison said her research “warrants further evaluation of current policies and protocols targeting substance use in children and adolescents.” To that end, her team is planning to conduct a prospective study in mid 2023 to further illuminate the trends.

“I hope early next year we can put together a group of physicians, pediatric general surgeons, neurosurgeons, and anesthesiologists,” she said. “I want to look at what we can do to reduce the severity of injury.”

She also wants to reach the population that these findings directly affect.

“The next step that we are currently working on is community awareness of the issue,” Dr. Ellison said. “Our trauma institute is partnering with middle school and high school kids to create material to raise awareness.”

Rural Appalachia faces several other endemic problems that affect the health and well-being of children and families, including limited access to health care, poverty, and minimal community support, according to Dr. Ellison. Children and teens in the region who live with parents who abuse opioids are more likely to experience family conflict, mental health challenges, legal troubles, and negative health effects, including physical trauma.
 

A call to action

Toufic Jildeh, MD, assistant professor of orthopedics, Michigan State University Health Care, East Lansing, who has studied ways to reduce opioid use among surgery patients, called the new findings “alarming.”

After reviewing the study, Dr. Jildeh said that in his opinion, the results support standardized drug testing of children, particularly in the context of severe trauma.

Bruce Bassi, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and owner of TelepsychHealth, a private, online psychiatric practice, agreed. “The main take-home message is that drug screening should be the standard of care for pediatric patients in this region, because it changes the management of those individuals,” Dr. Bassi said.

But identifying these patients is just the first step. “We should continue to educate and raise awareness, not only in the health care system,” Dr. Bassi said. “We also need to let parents know that the possibility of children obtaining access to medications is high.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Ellison and Dr. Jildeh reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bassi owns a private psychiatry practice called Telepsychhealth but has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

As a physician in the heart of the opioid epidemic, Pavirthra R. Ellison, MD, has watched for years as her patients have lost parents to overdoses. More than 1,400 adults in West Virginia, where she practices, died of opioid abuse in 2021 alone, government statistics show.

The grim toll made Ellison wonder: What was happening to children in the state? The answer, according to a new study, is not reassuring.

Ellison and her colleagues have found a troubling link between a surge in critical head and neck injuries among youth in West Virginia and a spike in positive tests for opioids and benzodiazepines among children who arrive at emergency departments in the state. They don’t think the pattern is a coincidence.

“What we found was really kind of scary,” said Dr. Ellison, a professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Children in this region often get exposure to these drugs early on.”
 

A region in crisis

According to a 2020 report from the Department of Health & Human Services, about 9.9 million Americans abused prescription opioids in 2018. That same year, almost 47,000 died following an overdose of the painkillers. In 2017, Appalachian counties experienced a death rate from opioid overdoses that was 72% higher than that of the rest of the country.

Dr. Ellison and associates who presented their findings recently at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, examined rates of pediatric trauma injuries, injury severity, and results of drug screenings throughout West Virginia between 2009 and 2019.

The study included 4,538 children and adolescents younger than 18 years who had been treated for head and neck trauma. The youth were divided into two groups: 3,356 who were treated from 2009 to 2016, and 1,182 who were treated between 2017 and 2019.

The incidence of critical head injuries increased from 3.7% in the period 2009-2016 to 7.2% in the period 2017-2019 (P = .007). The incidence of serious neck injuries increased from 12.2% to 27.1% (P = .007) during that period, according to the researchers. The number of days that these patients spent on ventilators more than doubled, from 3.1 to 6.3 (P < .001), they reported.

At the same time, the rate of positive urine drug tests rose sharply, from 0.8% to 1.8% (P < .001) for benzodiazepines and from 1% to 4.9% for opioids (P < .001).

Drug testing of children hospitalized for trauma rose more than threefold, from 6.9% to 23.2% (P < .001). Dr. Ellison’s group was unable to match positive drug screens with patients who came in with injuries.

Dr. Ellison said her research “warrants further evaluation of current policies and protocols targeting substance use in children and adolescents.” To that end, her team is planning to conduct a prospective study in mid 2023 to further illuminate the trends.

“I hope early next year we can put together a group of physicians, pediatric general surgeons, neurosurgeons, and anesthesiologists,” she said. “I want to look at what we can do to reduce the severity of injury.”

She also wants to reach the population that these findings directly affect.

“The next step that we are currently working on is community awareness of the issue,” Dr. Ellison said. “Our trauma institute is partnering with middle school and high school kids to create material to raise awareness.”

Rural Appalachia faces several other endemic problems that affect the health and well-being of children and families, including limited access to health care, poverty, and minimal community support, according to Dr. Ellison. Children and teens in the region who live with parents who abuse opioids are more likely to experience family conflict, mental health challenges, legal troubles, and negative health effects, including physical trauma.
 

A call to action

Toufic Jildeh, MD, assistant professor of orthopedics, Michigan State University Health Care, East Lansing, who has studied ways to reduce opioid use among surgery patients, called the new findings “alarming.”

After reviewing the study, Dr. Jildeh said that in his opinion, the results support standardized drug testing of children, particularly in the context of severe trauma.

Bruce Bassi, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and owner of TelepsychHealth, a private, online psychiatric practice, agreed. “The main take-home message is that drug screening should be the standard of care for pediatric patients in this region, because it changes the management of those individuals,” Dr. Bassi said.

But identifying these patients is just the first step. “We should continue to educate and raise awareness, not only in the health care system,” Dr. Bassi said. “We also need to let parents know that the possibility of children obtaining access to medications is high.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Ellison and Dr. Jildeh reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bassi owns a private psychiatry practice called Telepsychhealth but has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

As a physician in the heart of the opioid epidemic, Pavirthra R. Ellison, MD, has watched for years as her patients have lost parents to overdoses. More than 1,400 adults in West Virginia, where she practices, died of opioid abuse in 2021 alone, government statistics show.

The grim toll made Ellison wonder: What was happening to children in the state? The answer, according to a new study, is not reassuring.

Ellison and her colleagues have found a troubling link between a surge in critical head and neck injuries among youth in West Virginia and a spike in positive tests for opioids and benzodiazepines among children who arrive at emergency departments in the state. They don’t think the pattern is a coincidence.

“What we found was really kind of scary,” said Dr. Ellison, a professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Children in this region often get exposure to these drugs early on.”
 

A region in crisis

According to a 2020 report from the Department of Health & Human Services, about 9.9 million Americans abused prescription opioids in 2018. That same year, almost 47,000 died following an overdose of the painkillers. In 2017, Appalachian counties experienced a death rate from opioid overdoses that was 72% higher than that of the rest of the country.

Dr. Ellison and associates who presented their findings recently at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, examined rates of pediatric trauma injuries, injury severity, and results of drug screenings throughout West Virginia between 2009 and 2019.

The study included 4,538 children and adolescents younger than 18 years who had been treated for head and neck trauma. The youth were divided into two groups: 3,356 who were treated from 2009 to 2016, and 1,182 who were treated between 2017 and 2019.

The incidence of critical head injuries increased from 3.7% in the period 2009-2016 to 7.2% in the period 2017-2019 (P = .007). The incidence of serious neck injuries increased from 12.2% to 27.1% (P = .007) during that period, according to the researchers. The number of days that these patients spent on ventilators more than doubled, from 3.1 to 6.3 (P < .001), they reported.

At the same time, the rate of positive urine drug tests rose sharply, from 0.8% to 1.8% (P < .001) for benzodiazepines and from 1% to 4.9% for opioids (P < .001).

Drug testing of children hospitalized for trauma rose more than threefold, from 6.9% to 23.2% (P < .001). Dr. Ellison’s group was unable to match positive drug screens with patients who came in with injuries.

Dr. Ellison said her research “warrants further evaluation of current policies and protocols targeting substance use in children and adolescents.” To that end, her team is planning to conduct a prospective study in mid 2023 to further illuminate the trends.

“I hope early next year we can put together a group of physicians, pediatric general surgeons, neurosurgeons, and anesthesiologists,” she said. “I want to look at what we can do to reduce the severity of injury.”

She also wants to reach the population that these findings directly affect.

“The next step that we are currently working on is community awareness of the issue,” Dr. Ellison said. “Our trauma institute is partnering with middle school and high school kids to create material to raise awareness.”

Rural Appalachia faces several other endemic problems that affect the health and well-being of children and families, including limited access to health care, poverty, and minimal community support, according to Dr. Ellison. Children and teens in the region who live with parents who abuse opioids are more likely to experience family conflict, mental health challenges, legal troubles, and negative health effects, including physical trauma.
 

A call to action

Toufic Jildeh, MD, assistant professor of orthopedics, Michigan State University Health Care, East Lansing, who has studied ways to reduce opioid use among surgery patients, called the new findings “alarming.”

After reviewing the study, Dr. Jildeh said that in his opinion, the results support standardized drug testing of children, particularly in the context of severe trauma.

Bruce Bassi, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and owner of TelepsychHealth, a private, online psychiatric practice, agreed. “The main take-home message is that drug screening should be the standard of care for pediatric patients in this region, because it changes the management of those individuals,” Dr. Bassi said.

But identifying these patients is just the first step. “We should continue to educate and raise awareness, not only in the health care system,” Dr. Bassi said. “We also need to let parents know that the possibility of children obtaining access to medications is high.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Ellison and Dr. Jildeh reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bassi owns a private psychiatry practice called Telepsychhealth but has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released updated and expanded recommendations for prescribing opioids for adults with acute and chronic pain not related to cancer, sickle cell disease, or palliative/end-of-life care.

The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.

“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
 

How to taper safely

The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.

A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.

“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.

“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.

The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:

• In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
• Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
• Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
• Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
• Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
• Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
• Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
• For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.

Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”

He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.

“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.

“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released updated and expanded recommendations for prescribing opioids for adults with acute and chronic pain not related to cancer, sickle cell disease, or palliative/end-of-life care.

The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.

“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
 

How to taper safely

The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.

A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.

“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.

“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.

The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:

• In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
• Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
• Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
• Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
• Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
• Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
• Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
• For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.

Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”

He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.

“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.

“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released updated and expanded recommendations for prescribing opioids for adults with acute and chronic pain not related to cancer, sickle cell disease, or palliative/end-of-life care.

The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.

“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
 

How to taper safely

The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.

A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.

“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.

“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.

The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:

• In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
• Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
• Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
• Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
• Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
• Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
• Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
• For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.

Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”

He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.

“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.

“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.

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