The Hospitalist

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, is chief of hospital medicine at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and director of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for hospital medicine at HealthPartners. He is also the course director for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference (HM20), to be held April 16-18 in San Diego.

Dr. Mathews, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, is recognized by fellow hospitalists as a pioneer in the use of bedside ultrasound. In fact, his Certificate of Leadership in Hospital Medicine (CLHM) was completed with a focus on ultrasound in hospital medicine, and he is a Fellow in Diagnostic Safety through the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine. “While a resident, I took an interest in the field of improving diagnosis and combined it with the 21st-century innovative tool of bedside ultrasound,” he said. “Now, I continue to teach clinicians, educators, and learners.”

In addition to his interest in POCUS and medical education, Dr. Mathews also has a passion for global health, rooted in a commitment to reducing health care disparities both locally and globally. He has worked with medical missions, nongovernmental organizations, and orphanages in Nepal, India, Bolivia, Honduras, and Costa Rica. This led him to complete the global health course at the University of Minnesota.

Dr. Mathews spent a few minutes with The Hospitalist to discuss his background and his new role of course director of the HM20 Annual Conference.

Can you describe your journey to becoming a hospitalist?

I’ve been a hospitalist for most of the last decade. I was fortunate to be a part of a great residency program at the University of Minnesota Medical School, which started a hospital medicine pathway that had several nationally recognized hospital medicine leaders as mentors. I was lucky to work with several of them through the HealthPartners organization in Saint Paul, and that developed in me a further desire to practice hospital medicine. The group and mentors provided opportunities to develop further niches in my practice, like bedside ultrasound.

How did you first get involved with SHM?

I entered SHM through the influence of mentors at HealthPartners, especially Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, senior medical director for hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in Bloomington, Minn. and a past president of the Society, who encouraged me to participate on SHM committees. I eventually applied for the Annual Conference Committee, and somehow was accepted.

At that time, I was a community hospitalist among a lot of academic hospitalists. I thought that my voice could probably diversify the conversation, and bring the perspective of an early-career hospitalist to the discussion around educational offerings at the Annual Conference. I benefited from good mentorship on that committee, and with that experience I started getting involved with our local chapter in Minnesota. That was very important. I became our local chapter president and was able to combine my efforts with SHM nationally with our regional initiatives.

You have a particular interest in point-of-care ultrasound for hospitalists. How did that make its way into your involvement with SHM?

Point-of-care ultrasound and diagnostic error work really took off when I was a resident. My interest in that funneled naturally into the base curriculum of the Annual Conference, where once a year I could come together with 18 of my best hospitalist friends from across the nation to discuss curriculum. We talk about what content is applicable for frontline clinicians, what is right for early learners, and what innovations are coming in the future. Toward that last point, I was always involved as a judge or volunteer for the Research, Innovations and Clinical Vignettes – or RIV – competition at the Annual Conference. That’s the scientific abstract and poster competition at the conference. My interest grew to a point at which I decided to apply for one of the leadership roles in the RIV. I had the opportunity to serve as an Innovations Lead at RIV one year, and then chaired the overall RIV competition. Those opportunities helped me better understand the cutting-edge research that hospitalists should be aware of and which researchers and clinicians we should be in conversation with.

All these roles together have led me to my service as HM20 course director. I see myself as a lucky guy who has benefited from great mentorship, and I want to take advantage of my opportunities to serve.

We’ve been told that your elementary school–age children have learned to use ultrasound!

Well, they’ve learned how to use handheld ultrasound devices on each other. They’re able to find their siblings’ kidneys and hearts. I often show an image of this to encourage hospitalists that, if children can pick it up, highly educated providers can do the same and more.

To register for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference, please visit the HM20 Registration page.




 

Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, is chief of hospital medicine at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and director of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for hospital medicine at HealthPartners. He is also the course director for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference (HM20), to be held April 16-18 in San Diego.

Dr. Mathews, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, is recognized by fellow hospitalists as a pioneer in the use of bedside ultrasound. In fact, his Certificate of Leadership in Hospital Medicine (CLHM) was completed with a focus on ultrasound in hospital medicine, and he is a Fellow in Diagnostic Safety through the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine. “While a resident, I took an interest in the field of improving diagnosis and combined it with the 21st-century innovative tool of bedside ultrasound,” he said. “Now, I continue to teach clinicians, educators, and learners.”

In addition to his interest in POCUS and medical education, Dr. Mathews also has a passion for global health, rooted in a commitment to reducing health care disparities both locally and globally. He has worked with medical missions, nongovernmental organizations, and orphanages in Nepal, India, Bolivia, Honduras, and Costa Rica. This led him to complete the global health course at the University of Minnesota.

Dr. Mathews spent a few minutes with The Hospitalist to discuss his background and his new role of course director of the HM20 Annual Conference.

Can you describe your journey to becoming a hospitalist?

I’ve been a hospitalist for most of the last decade. I was fortunate to be a part of a great residency program at the University of Minnesota Medical School, which started a hospital medicine pathway that had several nationally recognized hospital medicine leaders as mentors. I was lucky to work with several of them through the HealthPartners organization in Saint Paul, and that developed in me a further desire to practice hospital medicine. The group and mentors provided opportunities to develop further niches in my practice, like bedside ultrasound.

How did you first get involved with SHM?

I entered SHM through the influence of mentors at HealthPartners, especially Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, senior medical director for hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in Bloomington, Minn. and a past president of the Society, who encouraged me to participate on SHM committees. I eventually applied for the Annual Conference Committee, and somehow was accepted.

At that time, I was a community hospitalist among a lot of academic hospitalists. I thought that my voice could probably diversify the conversation, and bring the perspective of an early-career hospitalist to the discussion around educational offerings at the Annual Conference. I benefited from good mentorship on that committee, and with that experience I started getting involved with our local chapter in Minnesota. That was very important. I became our local chapter president and was able to combine my efforts with SHM nationally with our regional initiatives.

You have a particular interest in point-of-care ultrasound for hospitalists. How did that make its way into your involvement with SHM?

Point-of-care ultrasound and diagnostic error work really took off when I was a resident. My interest in that funneled naturally into the base curriculum of the Annual Conference, where once a year I could come together with 18 of my best hospitalist friends from across the nation to discuss curriculum. We talk about what content is applicable for frontline clinicians, what is right for early learners, and what innovations are coming in the future. Toward that last point, I was always involved as a judge or volunteer for the Research, Innovations and Clinical Vignettes – or RIV – competition at the Annual Conference. That’s the scientific abstract and poster competition at the conference. My interest grew to a point at which I decided to apply for one of the leadership roles in the RIV. I had the opportunity to serve as an Innovations Lead at RIV one year, and then chaired the overall RIV competition. Those opportunities helped me better understand the cutting-edge research that hospitalists should be aware of and which researchers and clinicians we should be in conversation with.

All these roles together have led me to my service as HM20 course director. I see myself as a lucky guy who has benefited from great mentorship, and I want to take advantage of my opportunities to serve.

We’ve been told that your elementary school–age children have learned to use ultrasound!

Well, they’ve learned how to use handheld ultrasound devices on each other. They’re able to find their siblings’ kidneys and hearts. I often show an image of this to encourage hospitalists that, if children can pick it up, highly educated providers can do the same and more.

To register for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference, please visit the HM20 Registration page.




 

Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, is chief of hospital medicine at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and director of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for hospital medicine at HealthPartners. He is also the course director for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference (HM20), to be held April 16-18 in San Diego.

Dr. Mathews, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, is recognized by fellow hospitalists as a pioneer in the use of bedside ultrasound. In fact, his Certificate of Leadership in Hospital Medicine (CLHM) was completed with a focus on ultrasound in hospital medicine, and he is a Fellow in Diagnostic Safety through the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine. “While a resident, I took an interest in the field of improving diagnosis and combined it with the 21st-century innovative tool of bedside ultrasound,” he said. “Now, I continue to teach clinicians, educators, and learners.”

In addition to his interest in POCUS and medical education, Dr. Mathews also has a passion for global health, rooted in a commitment to reducing health care disparities both locally and globally. He has worked with medical missions, nongovernmental organizations, and orphanages in Nepal, India, Bolivia, Honduras, and Costa Rica. This led him to complete the global health course at the University of Minnesota.

Dr. Mathews spent a few minutes with The Hospitalist to discuss his background and his new role of course director of the HM20 Annual Conference.

Can you describe your journey to becoming a hospitalist?

I’ve been a hospitalist for most of the last decade. I was fortunate to be a part of a great residency program at the University of Minnesota Medical School, which started a hospital medicine pathway that had several nationally recognized hospital medicine leaders as mentors. I was lucky to work with several of them through the HealthPartners organization in Saint Paul, and that developed in me a further desire to practice hospital medicine. The group and mentors provided opportunities to develop further niches in my practice, like bedside ultrasound.

How did you first get involved with SHM?

I entered SHM through the influence of mentors at HealthPartners, especially Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, senior medical director for hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in Bloomington, Minn. and a past president of the Society, who encouraged me to participate on SHM committees. I eventually applied for the Annual Conference Committee, and somehow was accepted.

At that time, I was a community hospitalist among a lot of academic hospitalists. I thought that my voice could probably diversify the conversation, and bring the perspective of an early-career hospitalist to the discussion around educational offerings at the Annual Conference. I benefited from good mentorship on that committee, and with that experience I started getting involved with our local chapter in Minnesota. That was very important. I became our local chapter president and was able to combine my efforts with SHM nationally with our regional initiatives.

You have a particular interest in point-of-care ultrasound for hospitalists. How did that make its way into your involvement with SHM?

Point-of-care ultrasound and diagnostic error work really took off when I was a resident. My interest in that funneled naturally into the base curriculum of the Annual Conference, where once a year I could come together with 18 of my best hospitalist friends from across the nation to discuss curriculum. We talk about what content is applicable for frontline clinicians, what is right for early learners, and what innovations are coming in the future. Toward that last point, I was always involved as a judge or volunteer for the Research, Innovations and Clinical Vignettes – or RIV – competition at the Annual Conference. That’s the scientific abstract and poster competition at the conference. My interest grew to a point at which I decided to apply for one of the leadership roles in the RIV. I had the opportunity to serve as an Innovations Lead at RIV one year, and then chaired the overall RIV competition. Those opportunities helped me better understand the cutting-edge research that hospitalists should be aware of and which researchers and clinicians we should be in conversation with.

All these roles together have led me to my service as HM20 course director. I see myself as a lucky guy who has benefited from great mentorship, and I want to take advantage of my opportunities to serve.

We’ve been told that your elementary school–age children have learned to use ultrasound!

Well, they’ve learned how to use handheld ultrasound devices on each other. They’re able to find their siblings’ kidneys and hearts. I often show an image of this to encourage hospitalists that, if children can pick it up, highly educated providers can do the same and more.

To register for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference, please visit the HM20 Registration page.




 

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., and serves as the physician assistant department chair/program director at South University, West Palm Beach, Fla., where she supervises more than 40 PAs, medical directors, and administrative staff across the South University campuses.

Ms. Gadalla is the chair of SHM’s NP/PA Special Interest Group, which was integral in drafting the society’s recent white paper on NP/PA integration and optimization.

She says that she continuously drives innovative projects for NPs and PAs to demonstrate excellence in collaboration by working closely with C-suite administration to expand quality improvement and education efforts. A prime example is the optimal communication system that she developed within her first week as a hospitalist in the Port St. Lucie area. Nursing, ED, and pharmacy staff had difficulty contacting hospitalists since the electronic medical record would not reflect the assigned hospitalist. She developed a simple contact sheet that included the hospitalist team each day. This method is still in use today.
 

At what point in your life did you realize you wanted to be a physician assistant?

I worked as a respiratory therapist and had a desire to expand my knowledge to manage critical care patients. I applied to Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, where I received my PA training. I knew before PA school that I was passionate about the medical field and wanted to advance my education and training.

How did you decide to become a PA hospitalist?

From day one at my first job, I knew that I loved inpatient medicine. I had a unique position as a cardiology hospitalist in Baltimore. That was my first experience working in hospital medicine. As a team of PAs, we worked closely with hospitalists in addition to the cardiologists. I really enjoyed the acuity of hospital medicine, and the brilliant hospitalist colleagues I worked with. They fueled my clinical knowledge daily, and that really drew me further into hospital medicine.

What is your current position?

I have a unique position. I work primarily in an academic role, as a program director and department chair of the physician assistant program at South University in West Palm Beach. I provide oversight for four PA program campuses located in Florida. Georgia, and Virginia. I also work clinically as a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in the Port St. Lucie area.

What are some of your favorite parts of your work?

My favorite aspect within the academic environment is what I call the “lightbulb moment” – that instant when you see your students comprehending and applying critical thinking regarding patient care. In clinical practice, I really enjoy educating and navigating a patient through their diagnosis and management. It’s like teaching, in that a patient can also have a lightbulb moment.

What are the most challenging aspects of practicing hospital medicine, from a PA’s perspective?

Medicine is an art, and each patient’s body is different. It’s a challenge to create individualized care in a system where metrics and templates exist. An additional challenge is simply navigating the culture of medicine and its receptiveness to physician assistants.

How does a hospitalist PA work differently than a PA in other health care settings?

PAs in hospital medicine must excel in communication skills. We are frequently the primary liaison between families, patients, specialists, consultants, and various departments daily. PAs in other care settings also communicate with a broad variety of people, but in hospital medicine that communication is required to be much more rapid. Your skills must really rise to the next level.

There is also the opportunity for PAs to integrate within hospital committees and the C-suite. That is very different from other settings.
 

How can PAs and nurse practitioners fit best into hospital medicine groups?

Initially, a hospital medicine group needs to identify their specific needs when deciding to integrate PAs and NPs. There must be a culture of receptiveness, with proper onboarding. That is a vital necessity, because without a proper onboarding process and a welcoming culture, a group is set up to fail.

What kind of resources do hospitalist PAs require to succeed?

There is a big need for education that targets the hospital C-suite and our physician colleagues about the scope of practice and autonomy that a PA can have. There are significant misconceptions about the capabilities of hospitalist PAs, and the additional value we bring to a team. PAs do not want to replace our MD/DO colleagues.

What do you see on the horizon for PAs and NPs in hospital medicine?

As the chair of SHM’s NP/PA Special Interest Group, we see a significant need for onboarding resources, because there is a hospitalist staffing shortage in the United States, and that gap can be filled with NPs and PAs. There is a lack of understanding about how to onboard and integrate advanced practice providers, so we are working intently on providing a toolkit that will assist groups with this process.

Do you have any advice for students who are interested in becoming hospitalist PAs?

I would encourage students to seek mentoring from a hospitalist PA. This can really help prepare you for the inpatient world, as it’s very different from outpatient medicine with a higher acuity of patient care. I would also encourage students to join SHM, as there are many resources to help improve your skills and increase your confidence as you grow within your career.

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., and serves as the physician assistant department chair/program director at South University, West Palm Beach, Fla., where she supervises more than 40 PAs, medical directors, and administrative staff across the South University campuses.

Ms. Gadalla is the chair of SHM’s NP/PA Special Interest Group, which was integral in drafting the society’s recent white paper on NP/PA integration and optimization.

She says that she continuously drives innovative projects for NPs and PAs to demonstrate excellence in collaboration by working closely with C-suite administration to expand quality improvement and education efforts. A prime example is the optimal communication system that she developed within her first week as a hospitalist in the Port St. Lucie area. Nursing, ED, and pharmacy staff had difficulty contacting hospitalists since the electronic medical record would not reflect the assigned hospitalist. She developed a simple contact sheet that included the hospitalist team each day. This method is still in use today.
 

At what point in your life did you realize you wanted to be a physician assistant?

I worked as a respiratory therapist and had a desire to expand my knowledge to manage critical care patients. I applied to Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, where I received my PA training. I knew before PA school that I was passionate about the medical field and wanted to advance my education and training.

How did you decide to become a PA hospitalist?

From day one at my first job, I knew that I loved inpatient medicine. I had a unique position as a cardiology hospitalist in Baltimore. That was my first experience working in hospital medicine. As a team of PAs, we worked closely with hospitalists in addition to the cardiologists. I really enjoyed the acuity of hospital medicine, and the brilliant hospitalist colleagues I worked with. They fueled my clinical knowledge daily, and that really drew me further into hospital medicine.

What is your current position?

I have a unique position. I work primarily in an academic role, as a program director and department chair of the physician assistant program at South University in West Palm Beach. I provide oversight for four PA program campuses located in Florida. Georgia, and Virginia. I also work clinically as a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in the Port St. Lucie area.

What are some of your favorite parts of your work?

My favorite aspect within the academic environment is what I call the “lightbulb moment” – that instant when you see your students comprehending and applying critical thinking regarding patient care. In clinical practice, I really enjoy educating and navigating a patient through their diagnosis and management. It’s like teaching, in that a patient can also have a lightbulb moment.

What are the most challenging aspects of practicing hospital medicine, from a PA’s perspective?

Medicine is an art, and each patient’s body is different. It’s a challenge to create individualized care in a system where metrics and templates exist. An additional challenge is simply navigating the culture of medicine and its receptiveness to physician assistants.

How does a hospitalist PA work differently than a PA in other health care settings?

PAs in hospital medicine must excel in communication skills. We are frequently the primary liaison between families, patients, specialists, consultants, and various departments daily. PAs in other care settings also communicate with a broad variety of people, but in hospital medicine that communication is required to be much more rapid. Your skills must really rise to the next level.

There is also the opportunity for PAs to integrate within hospital committees and the C-suite. That is very different from other settings.
 

How can PAs and nurse practitioners fit best into hospital medicine groups?

Initially, a hospital medicine group needs to identify their specific needs when deciding to integrate PAs and NPs. There must be a culture of receptiveness, with proper onboarding. That is a vital necessity, because without a proper onboarding process and a welcoming culture, a group is set up to fail.

What kind of resources do hospitalist PAs require to succeed?

There is a big need for education that targets the hospital C-suite and our physician colleagues about the scope of practice and autonomy that a PA can have. There are significant misconceptions about the capabilities of hospitalist PAs, and the additional value we bring to a team. PAs do not want to replace our MD/DO colleagues.

What do you see on the horizon for PAs and NPs in hospital medicine?

As the chair of SHM’s NP/PA Special Interest Group, we see a significant need for onboarding resources, because there is a hospitalist staffing shortage in the United States, and that gap can be filled with NPs and PAs. There is a lack of understanding about how to onboard and integrate advanced practice providers, so we are working intently on providing a toolkit that will assist groups with this process.

Do you have any advice for students who are interested in becoming hospitalist PAs?

I would encourage students to seek mentoring from a hospitalist PA. This can really help prepare you for the inpatient world, as it’s very different from outpatient medicine with a higher acuity of patient care. I would also encourage students to join SHM, as there are many resources to help improve your skills and increase your confidence as you grow within your career.

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., and serves as the physician assistant department chair/program director at South University, West Palm Beach, Fla., where she supervises more than 40 PAs, medical directors, and administrative staff across the South University campuses.

Ms. Gadalla is the chair of SHM’s NP/PA Special Interest Group, which was integral in drafting the society’s recent white paper on NP/PA integration and optimization.

She says that she continuously drives innovative projects for NPs and PAs to demonstrate excellence in collaboration by working closely with C-suite administration to expand quality improvement and education efforts. A prime example is the optimal communication system that she developed within her first week as a hospitalist in the Port St. Lucie area. Nursing, ED, and pharmacy staff had difficulty contacting hospitalists since the electronic medical record would not reflect the assigned hospitalist. She developed a simple contact sheet that included the hospitalist team each day. This method is still in use today.
 

At what point in your life did you realize you wanted to be a physician assistant?

I worked as a respiratory therapist and had a desire to expand my knowledge to manage critical care patients. I applied to Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, where I received my PA training. I knew before PA school that I was passionate about the medical field and wanted to advance my education and training.

How did you decide to become a PA hospitalist?

From day one at my first job, I knew that I loved inpatient medicine. I had a unique position as a cardiology hospitalist in Baltimore. That was my first experience working in hospital medicine. As a team of PAs, we worked closely with hospitalists in addition to the cardiologists. I really enjoyed the acuity of hospital medicine, and the brilliant hospitalist colleagues I worked with. They fueled my clinical knowledge daily, and that really drew me further into hospital medicine.

What is your current position?

I have a unique position. I work primarily in an academic role, as a program director and department chair of the physician assistant program at South University in West Palm Beach. I provide oversight for four PA program campuses located in Florida. Georgia, and Virginia. I also work clinically as a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in the Port St. Lucie area.

What are some of your favorite parts of your work?

My favorite aspect within the academic environment is what I call the “lightbulb moment” – that instant when you see your students comprehending and applying critical thinking regarding patient care. In clinical practice, I really enjoy educating and navigating a patient through their diagnosis and management. It’s like teaching, in that a patient can also have a lightbulb moment.

What are the most challenging aspects of practicing hospital medicine, from a PA’s perspective?

Medicine is an art, and each patient’s body is different. It’s a challenge to create individualized care in a system where metrics and templates exist. An additional challenge is simply navigating the culture of medicine and its receptiveness to physician assistants.

How does a hospitalist PA work differently than a PA in other health care settings?

PAs in hospital medicine must excel in communication skills. We are frequently the primary liaison between families, patients, specialists, consultants, and various departments daily. PAs in other care settings also communicate with a broad variety of people, but in hospital medicine that communication is required to be much more rapid. Your skills must really rise to the next level.

There is also the opportunity for PAs to integrate within hospital committees and the C-suite. That is very different from other settings.
 

How can PAs and nurse practitioners fit best into hospital medicine groups?

Initially, a hospital medicine group needs to identify their specific needs when deciding to integrate PAs and NPs. There must be a culture of receptiveness, with proper onboarding. That is a vital necessity, because without a proper onboarding process and a welcoming culture, a group is set up to fail.

What kind of resources do hospitalist PAs require to succeed?

There is a big need for education that targets the hospital C-suite and our physician colleagues about the scope of practice and autonomy that a PA can have. There are significant misconceptions about the capabilities of hospitalist PAs, and the additional value we bring to a team. PAs do not want to replace our MD/DO colleagues.

What do you see on the horizon for PAs and NPs in hospital medicine?

As the chair of SHM’s NP/PA Special Interest Group, we see a significant need for onboarding resources, because there is a hospitalist staffing shortage in the United States, and that gap can be filled with NPs and PAs. There is a lack of understanding about how to onboard and integrate advanced practice providers, so we are working intently on providing a toolkit that will assist groups with this process.

Do you have any advice for students who are interested in becoming hospitalist PAs?

I would encourage students to seek mentoring from a hospitalist PA. This can really help prepare you for the inpatient world, as it’s very different from outpatient medicine with a higher acuity of patient care. I would also encourage students to join SHM, as there are many resources to help improve your skills and increase your confidence as you grow within your career.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Amit Vashist, MD, SFHM, is the senior vice president and chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, an integrated 21-hospital health system serving 29 counties of northeast Tennessee, southwest Virginia, northwest North Carolina, and southeast Kentucky.

Dr. Vashist, who is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, focuses on clinical quality and safety, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, and oversight of the enterprise-wide clinical delivery of care. He also provides administrative oversight of the Ballad Health Clinical Council – a model of physician partnership for clinical transformation and outcomes improvement.

Dr. Vashist is a dual board-certified internist and psychiatrist and an avid proponent of initiatives aimed at promoting quality, improving safety, reducing cost, and minimizing variation in the delivery of patient care across diverse settings. His work has been instrumental in improving outcomes and reducing mortality in patients with sepsis, earning him several local, regional, and national awards, and his work in promoting a zero-harm culture at Ballad Health has been instrumental in significantly reducing hospital-acquired infections system wide.

Prior to transitioning into the role of the chief clinical officer, Dr. Vashist served as the chair of the Ballad Health Clinical Council and the system chair for Ballad Health’s hospitalist division running a group of over 130 hospitalists.

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

The ability to have a positive impact and help others. In addition, I love learning new information and skills, and medicine affords one the opportunity to be a lifelong learner.

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

The relatively fast-paced nature of the work and the ability to tie seemingly fragmented episodes of patient care together. I believe that no other specialty offers that 30,000-foot vantage view of things in clinical medicine.

What do you like the least?

The shift worker mindset emanating from the traditional and rigid 7-on, 7-off model. A sense of team can be lost in this model and, contrary to conventional thinking, this model can accelerate hospitalist burnout.

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

“Don’t rock the boat.” I strongly believe that frequent disruption is required to change the established status quo.

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

A perceived disruption in the continuity of care by virtue of a new hospitalist seeing those patients, and the challenge to build the same level of trust and comfort as the outgoing hospitalist. Superior models of care have developed over the years promoting a better continuity of care but this domain continues to pose a challenge to proponents of hospital medicine.

What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in hospital medicine in your career?

Hospitalists being increasingly perceived as the “quarterbacks” and gatekeepers of quality, costs of care, and clinical outcomes in our hospitals and health care systems.

What’s the biggest change you would like to see in hospital medicine?

Inpatient volumes across the country continue to shrink, and this trend will not change for the foreseeable future. Hospitalists have got to embrace newer models of care faster, like hospitals at home, postacute care, transitional care clinics, hospital at home, etc. Remember what they say: “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Now is our time to be at the table, and be the champions of change and move to true value (quality plus experience/cost), or else, we could end up and vanish like Blockbuster.

Outside of patient care, tell us about your career interests.

Implementing value-driven initiatives, pursuing endeavors aimed at cutting out waste and redundancy in health care, and developing a new generation of physician leaders with these skill sets.

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

Leveraging my experience, training and expertise in hospital medicine to design better systems of health care that transcend above and beyond the four walls of the hospital, and facilitate true consumerism and “patient centeredness.”

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

Attending the annual SHM meetings for the past several years, which have helped me to not only reap rewards from the numerous educational sessions but has also helped me develop a rich network of friends, colleagues, and mentors whose advice I solicit from time to time.

Amit Vashist, MD, SFHM, is the senior vice president and chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, an integrated 21-hospital health system serving 29 counties of northeast Tennessee, southwest Virginia, northwest North Carolina, and southeast Kentucky.

Dr. Vashist, who is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, focuses on clinical quality and safety, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, and oversight of the enterprise-wide clinical delivery of care. He also provides administrative oversight of the Ballad Health Clinical Council – a model of physician partnership for clinical transformation and outcomes improvement.

Dr. Vashist is a dual board-certified internist and psychiatrist and an avid proponent of initiatives aimed at promoting quality, improving safety, reducing cost, and minimizing variation in the delivery of patient care across diverse settings. His work has been instrumental in improving outcomes and reducing mortality in patients with sepsis, earning him several local, regional, and national awards, and his work in promoting a zero-harm culture at Ballad Health has been instrumental in significantly reducing hospital-acquired infections system wide.

Prior to transitioning into the role of the chief clinical officer, Dr. Vashist served as the chair of the Ballad Health Clinical Council and the system chair for Ballad Health’s hospitalist division running a group of over 130 hospitalists.

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

The ability to have a positive impact and help others. In addition, I love learning new information and skills, and medicine affords one the opportunity to be a lifelong learner.

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

The relatively fast-paced nature of the work and the ability to tie seemingly fragmented episodes of patient care together. I believe that no other specialty offers that 30,000-foot vantage view of things in clinical medicine.

What do you like the least?

The shift worker mindset emanating from the traditional and rigid 7-on, 7-off model. A sense of team can be lost in this model and, contrary to conventional thinking, this model can accelerate hospitalist burnout.

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

“Don’t rock the boat.” I strongly believe that frequent disruption is required to change the established status quo.

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

A perceived disruption in the continuity of care by virtue of a new hospitalist seeing those patients, and the challenge to build the same level of trust and comfort as the outgoing hospitalist. Superior models of care have developed over the years promoting a better continuity of care but this domain continues to pose a challenge to proponents of hospital medicine.

What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in hospital medicine in your career?

Hospitalists being increasingly perceived as the “quarterbacks” and gatekeepers of quality, costs of care, and clinical outcomes in our hospitals and health care systems.

What’s the biggest change you would like to see in hospital medicine?

Inpatient volumes across the country continue to shrink, and this trend will not change for the foreseeable future. Hospitalists have got to embrace newer models of care faster, like hospitals at home, postacute care, transitional care clinics, hospital at home, etc. Remember what they say: “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Now is our time to be at the table, and be the champions of change and move to true value (quality plus experience/cost), or else, we could end up and vanish like Blockbuster.

Outside of patient care, tell us about your career interests.

Implementing value-driven initiatives, pursuing endeavors aimed at cutting out waste and redundancy in health care, and developing a new generation of physician leaders with these skill sets.

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

Leveraging my experience, training and expertise in hospital medicine to design better systems of health care that transcend above and beyond the four walls of the hospital, and facilitate true consumerism and “patient centeredness.”

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

Attending the annual SHM meetings for the past several years, which have helped me to not only reap rewards from the numerous educational sessions but has also helped me develop a rich network of friends, colleagues, and mentors whose advice I solicit from time to time.

Amit Vashist, MD, SFHM, is the senior vice president and chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, an integrated 21-hospital health system serving 29 counties of northeast Tennessee, southwest Virginia, northwest North Carolina, and southeast Kentucky.

Dr. Vashist, who is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, focuses on clinical quality and safety, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, and oversight of the enterprise-wide clinical delivery of care. He also provides administrative oversight of the Ballad Health Clinical Council – a model of physician partnership for clinical transformation and outcomes improvement.

Dr. Vashist is a dual board-certified internist and psychiatrist and an avid proponent of initiatives aimed at promoting quality, improving safety, reducing cost, and minimizing variation in the delivery of patient care across diverse settings. His work has been instrumental in improving outcomes and reducing mortality in patients with sepsis, earning him several local, regional, and national awards, and his work in promoting a zero-harm culture at Ballad Health has been instrumental in significantly reducing hospital-acquired infections system wide.

Prior to transitioning into the role of the chief clinical officer, Dr. Vashist served as the chair of the Ballad Health Clinical Council and the system chair for Ballad Health’s hospitalist division running a group of over 130 hospitalists.

Why did you choose a career in medicine?

The ability to have a positive impact and help others. In addition, I love learning new information and skills, and medicine affords one the opportunity to be a lifelong learner.

What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

The relatively fast-paced nature of the work and the ability to tie seemingly fragmented episodes of patient care together. I believe that no other specialty offers that 30,000-foot vantage view of things in clinical medicine.

What do you like the least?

The shift worker mindset emanating from the traditional and rigid 7-on, 7-off model. A sense of team can be lost in this model and, contrary to conventional thinking, this model can accelerate hospitalist burnout.

What’s the best advice you ever received?

“You’ve gotta learn to listen!”

What’s the worst advice you ever received?

“Don’t rock the boat.” I strongly believe that frequent disruption is required to change the established status quo.

What aspect of patient care is most challenging?

A perceived disruption in the continuity of care by virtue of a new hospitalist seeing those patients, and the challenge to build the same level of trust and comfort as the outgoing hospitalist. Superior models of care have developed over the years promoting a better continuity of care but this domain continues to pose a challenge to proponents of hospital medicine.

What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in hospital medicine in your career?

Hospitalists being increasingly perceived as the “quarterbacks” and gatekeepers of quality, costs of care, and clinical outcomes in our hospitals and health care systems.

What’s the biggest change you would like to see in hospital medicine?

Inpatient volumes across the country continue to shrink, and this trend will not change for the foreseeable future. Hospitalists have got to embrace newer models of care faster, like hospitals at home, postacute care, transitional care clinics, hospital at home, etc. Remember what they say: “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Now is our time to be at the table, and be the champions of change and move to true value (quality plus experience/cost), or else, we could end up and vanish like Blockbuster.

Outside of patient care, tell us about your career interests.

Implementing value-driven initiatives, pursuing endeavors aimed at cutting out waste and redundancy in health care, and developing a new generation of physician leaders with these skill sets.

Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

Leveraging my experience, training and expertise in hospital medicine to design better systems of health care that transcend above and beyond the four walls of the hospital, and facilitate true consumerism and “patient centeredness.”

What has been your most meaningful experience with SHM?

Attending the annual SHM meetings for the past several years, which have helped me to not only reap rewards from the numerous educational sessions but has also helped me develop a rich network of friends, colleagues, and mentors whose advice I solicit from time to time.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

A 59-year-old man is admitted with abdominal pain. He has a history of pancreatitis. A contrast CT scan is ordered. He reports a history of severe shellfish allergy when the radiology tech checks him in for the procedure. You are paged regarding what to do:

A) Continue with scan as ordered.

B) Switch to MRI scan.

C) Switch to MRI scan with gadolinium.

D) Continue with CT with contrast, give dose of Solu-Medrol.

E) Continue with CT with contrast give IV diphenhydramine.
 

The correct answer here is A, This patient can receive his scan and receive contrast as ordered.

For many years, patients have been asked about shellfish allergy as a proxy for having increased risk when receiving iodine containing contrast. The mistaken thought was that shellfish contains iodine, so allergy to shellfish was likely to portend allergy to iodine.

Allergy to shellfish is caused by individual proteins that are definitely not in iodine-containing contrast.¹ Beaty et al. studied the prevalence of the belief that allergy to shellfish is tied to iodine allergy in a survey given to 231 faculty radiologists and interventional cardiologists.² Almost 70% responded that they inquire about seafood allergy before procedures that require iodine contrast, and 37% reported they would withhold the contrast or premedicate patients if they had a seafood allergy.

In a more recent study, Westermann-Clark and colleagues surveyed 252 health professionals before and after an educational intervention to dispel the myth of shellfish allergy and iodinated contrast reactions.³ Before the intervention, 66% of participants felt it was important to ask about shellfish allergies and 93% felt it was important to ask about iodine allergies; 26% responded that they would withhold iodinated contrast material in patients with a shellfish allergy, and 56% would withhold in patients with an iodine allergy. A total of 62% reported they would premedicate patients with a shellfish allergy and 75% would premedicate patients with an iodine allergy. The numbers declined dramatically after the educational intervention.

Patients who have seafood allergy have a higher rate of reactions to iodinated contrast, but not at a higher rate than do patients with other food allergies or asthma.⁴ Most radiology departments do not screen for other food allergies despite the fact these allergies have the same increased risk as for patients with a seafood/shellfish allergy. These patients are more allergic, and in general, are more likely to have reactions. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology recommends not routinely ordering low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media or pretreating with either antihistamines or steroids in patients with a history of seafood allergy.⁵

• It is unnecessary and unhelpful to ask patients about seafood allergies before ordering radiologic studies involving contrast.
• Iodine allergy does not exist.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Narayan AK et al. Avoiding contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans in patients with shellfish allergies. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun;11(6):435-7.

2. Beaty AD et al. Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: Are physicians propagating a myth? Am J Med. 2008 Feb;121(2):158.e1-4.

3. Westermann-Clark E et al. Debunking myths about “allergy” to radiocontrast media in an academic institution. Postgrad Med. 2015 Apr;127(3):295-300.

4. Coakley FV and DM Panicek. Iodine allergy: An oyster without a pearl? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Oct;169(4):951-2.

5. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology recommendations on low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media.

6. Schabelman E and M Witting. The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: A medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;39(5):701-7.

7. van Ketel WG and WH van den Berg. Sensitization to povidone-iodine. Dermatol Clin. 1990 Jan;8(1):107-9.

A 59-year-old man is admitted with abdominal pain. He has a history of pancreatitis. A contrast CT scan is ordered. He reports a history of severe shellfish allergy when the radiology tech checks him in for the procedure. You are paged regarding what to do:

A) Continue with scan as ordered.

B) Switch to MRI scan.

C) Switch to MRI scan with gadolinium.

D) Continue with CT with contrast, give dose of Solu-Medrol.

E) Continue with CT with contrast give IV diphenhydramine.
 

The correct answer here is A, This patient can receive his scan and receive contrast as ordered.

For many years, patients have been asked about shellfish allergy as a proxy for having increased risk when receiving iodine containing contrast. The mistaken thought was that shellfish contains iodine, so allergy to shellfish was likely to portend allergy to iodine.

Allergy to shellfish is caused by individual proteins that are definitely not in iodine-containing contrast.¹ Beaty et al. studied the prevalence of the belief that allergy to shellfish is tied to iodine allergy in a survey given to 231 faculty radiologists and interventional cardiologists.² Almost 70% responded that they inquire about seafood allergy before procedures that require iodine contrast, and 37% reported they would withhold the contrast or premedicate patients if they had a seafood allergy.

In a more recent study, Westermann-Clark and colleagues surveyed 252 health professionals before and after an educational intervention to dispel the myth of shellfish allergy and iodinated contrast reactions.³ Before the intervention, 66% of participants felt it was important to ask about shellfish allergies and 93% felt it was important to ask about iodine allergies; 26% responded that they would withhold iodinated contrast material in patients with a shellfish allergy, and 56% would withhold in patients with an iodine allergy. A total of 62% reported they would premedicate patients with a shellfish allergy and 75% would premedicate patients with an iodine allergy. The numbers declined dramatically after the educational intervention.

Patients who have seafood allergy have a higher rate of reactions to iodinated contrast, but not at a higher rate than do patients with other food allergies or asthma.⁴ Most radiology departments do not screen for other food allergies despite the fact these allergies have the same increased risk as for patients with a seafood/shellfish allergy. These patients are more allergic, and in general, are more likely to have reactions. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology recommends not routinely ordering low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media or pretreating with either antihistamines or steroids in patients with a history of seafood allergy.⁵

• It is unnecessary and unhelpful to ask patients about seafood allergies before ordering radiologic studies involving contrast.
• Iodine allergy does not exist.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Narayan AK et al. Avoiding contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans in patients with shellfish allergies. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun;11(6):435-7.

2. Beaty AD et al. Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: Are physicians propagating a myth? Am J Med. 2008 Feb;121(2):158.e1-4.

3. Westermann-Clark E et al. Debunking myths about “allergy” to radiocontrast media in an academic institution. Postgrad Med. 2015 Apr;127(3):295-300.

4. Coakley FV and DM Panicek. Iodine allergy: An oyster without a pearl? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Oct;169(4):951-2.

5. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology recommendations on low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media.

6. Schabelman E and M Witting. The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: A medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;39(5):701-7.

7. van Ketel WG and WH van den Berg. Sensitization to povidone-iodine. Dermatol Clin. 1990 Jan;8(1):107-9.

A 59-year-old man is admitted with abdominal pain. He has a history of pancreatitis. A contrast CT scan is ordered. He reports a history of severe shellfish allergy when the radiology tech checks him in for the procedure. You are paged regarding what to do:

A) Continue with scan as ordered.

B) Switch to MRI scan.

C) Switch to MRI scan with gadolinium.

D) Continue with CT with contrast, give dose of Solu-Medrol.

E) Continue with CT with contrast give IV diphenhydramine.
 

The correct answer here is A, This patient can receive his scan and receive contrast as ordered.

For many years, patients have been asked about shellfish allergy as a proxy for having increased risk when receiving iodine containing contrast. The mistaken thought was that shellfish contains iodine, so allergy to shellfish was likely to portend allergy to iodine.

Allergy to shellfish is caused by individual proteins that are definitely not in iodine-containing contrast.¹ Beaty et al. studied the prevalence of the belief that allergy to shellfish is tied to iodine allergy in a survey given to 231 faculty radiologists and interventional cardiologists.² Almost 70% responded that they inquire about seafood allergy before procedures that require iodine contrast, and 37% reported they would withhold the contrast or premedicate patients if they had a seafood allergy.

In a more recent study, Westermann-Clark and colleagues surveyed 252 health professionals before and after an educational intervention to dispel the myth of shellfish allergy and iodinated contrast reactions.³ Before the intervention, 66% of participants felt it was important to ask about shellfish allergies and 93% felt it was important to ask about iodine allergies; 26% responded that they would withhold iodinated contrast material in patients with a shellfish allergy, and 56% would withhold in patients with an iodine allergy. A total of 62% reported they would premedicate patients with a shellfish allergy and 75% would premedicate patients with an iodine allergy. The numbers declined dramatically after the educational intervention.

Patients who have seafood allergy have a higher rate of reactions to iodinated contrast, but not at a higher rate than do patients with other food allergies or asthma.⁴ Most radiology departments do not screen for other food allergies despite the fact these allergies have the same increased risk as for patients with a seafood/shellfish allergy. These patients are more allergic, and in general, are more likely to have reactions. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology recommends not routinely ordering low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media or pretreating with either antihistamines or steroids in patients with a history of seafood allergy.⁵

• It is unnecessary and unhelpful to ask patients about seafood allergies before ordering radiologic studies involving contrast.
• Iodine allergy does not exist.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Narayan AK et al. Avoiding contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans in patients with shellfish allergies. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun;11(6):435-7.

2. Beaty AD et al. Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: Are physicians propagating a myth? Am J Med. 2008 Feb;121(2):158.e1-4.

3. Westermann-Clark E et al. Debunking myths about “allergy” to radiocontrast media in an academic institution. Postgrad Med. 2015 Apr;127(3):295-300.

4. Coakley FV and DM Panicek. Iodine allergy: An oyster without a pearl? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Oct;169(4):951-2.

5. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology recommendations on low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media.

6. Schabelman E and M Witting. The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: A medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;39(5):701-7.

7. van Ketel WG and WH van den Berg. Sensitization to povidone-iodine. Dermatol Clin. 1990 Jan;8(1):107-9.