In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

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

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

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

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

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

In the run up to the midterm elections in November, President Biden has warmed to student loan forgiveness. However, before even being proposed, severe restrictions have been attached to the forgiveness that would severely limit any effective forgiveness for physicians.

What was the plan?

During the 2020 election, student loan forgiveness was a hot topic as the COVID epidemic raged. The CARES Act has placed all federal student loans in forbearance, with no payments made and the interest rate set to 0% to prevent further accrual. While this was tremendously useful to 45 million borrowers around the country (including the author), nothing material was done to deal with the loans.

The Biden Administration’s approach at that time was multi-tiered and chaotic. Plans were put forward that either expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or capped it. Plans were put forward that either extended free undergraduate or severely limited it through Pell Grants. Unfortunately, that duality continues today, with current plans not having a clear goal or a target group of beneficiaries.
 

Necessary CARES Act extensions

The Biden Administration has attempted repeatedly to turn the student loan apparatus back on, restarting payments en masse. However, each time, they are beset by challenges, ranging from repeat COVID spikes to servicer withdrawals or macroeconomic indicators of a recession.

At each step, the administration has had little choice but to extend the CARES Act forbearance, lest they suffer retribution for hastily resuming payments for 45 million borrowers without the apparatus to do so. Two years ago, the major federal servicers laid off hundreds, if not thousands, of staffers responsible for payment processing, accounting, customer care, and taxation. Hiring, training, and staffing these positions is nontrivial.

The administration has been out of step with servicers such that three of the largest have chosen not to renew their contracts: Navient, MyFedLoan, and Granite State Management and Resources. This has left 15 million borrowers in the lurch, not knowing who their servicer is – and, even worse, losing track of qualifying payments toward programs like PSLF.
 

Avenues of forgiveness

There are two major pathways to forgiveness. It is widely believed that the executive branch has the authority to broadly forgive student loans under executive order and managed through the U.S. Department of Education.

The alternative is through congressional action, voting on forgiveness as an economic stimulus plan. There is little appetite in Congress for forgiveness, and prominent congresspeople like Senator Warren and Senator Schumer have both pushed the executive branch for forgiveness in recognition of this.
 

What has been proposed?

First, it’s important to state that as headline-grabbing as it is to see that $50,000 of forgiveness has been proposed, the reality is that President Biden has repeatedly stated that he will not be in favor of that level of forgiveness. Instead, the number most commonly being discussed is $10,000. This would represent an unprecedented amount of support, alleviating 35% of borrowers of all student debt.

The impact of proposed forgiveness plans for physicians

For the medical community, sadly, this doesn’t represent a significant amount of forgiveness. At graduation, the average MD has $203,000 in debt, and the average DO has $258,000 in debt. These numbers grow during residency for years before any meaningful payments are made.

Further weakening forgiveness plans for physicians has been two caps proposed by the administration in recent days. The first is an income cap of $125,000. While this would maintain forgiveness for nearly all residents and fellows, this would exclude nearly every practicing physician. The alternative to an income cap is specific exclusion of certain careers seen to be high-earning: doctors and lawyers.
 

The bottom line

Physicians are unlikely to be included in any forgiveness plans being proposed recently by the Biden Administration. If they are considered, it will be for exclusion from any forgiveness offered.

For physicians no longer eligible for PSLF, this exclusion needs to be considered in managing the student loan debt associated with becoming a doctor.

Dr. Palmer is a part-time instructor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and staff physician, department of medical critical care, Boston Children’s Hospital. He disclosed that he serves as director for Panacea Financial.

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

In the run up to the midterm elections in November, President Biden has warmed to student loan forgiveness. However, before even being proposed, severe restrictions have been attached to the forgiveness that would severely limit any effective forgiveness for physicians.

What was the plan?

During the 2020 election, student loan forgiveness was a hot topic as the COVID epidemic raged. The CARES Act has placed all federal student loans in forbearance, with no payments made and the interest rate set to 0% to prevent further accrual. While this was tremendously useful to 45 million borrowers around the country (including the author), nothing material was done to deal with the loans.

The Biden Administration’s approach at that time was multi-tiered and chaotic. Plans were put forward that either expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or capped it. Plans were put forward that either extended free undergraduate or severely limited it through Pell Grants. Unfortunately, that duality continues today, with current plans not having a clear goal or a target group of beneficiaries.
 

Necessary CARES Act extensions

The Biden Administration has attempted repeatedly to turn the student loan apparatus back on, restarting payments en masse. However, each time, they are beset by challenges, ranging from repeat COVID spikes to servicer withdrawals or macroeconomic indicators of a recession.

At each step, the administration has had little choice but to extend the CARES Act forbearance, lest they suffer retribution for hastily resuming payments for 45 million borrowers without the apparatus to do so. Two years ago, the major federal servicers laid off hundreds, if not thousands, of staffers responsible for payment processing, accounting, customer care, and taxation. Hiring, training, and staffing these positions is nontrivial.

The administration has been out of step with servicers such that three of the largest have chosen not to renew their contracts: Navient, MyFedLoan, and Granite State Management and Resources. This has left 15 million borrowers in the lurch, not knowing who their servicer is – and, even worse, losing track of qualifying payments toward programs like PSLF.
 

Avenues of forgiveness

There are two major pathways to forgiveness. It is widely believed that the executive branch has the authority to broadly forgive student loans under executive order and managed through the U.S. Department of Education.

The alternative is through congressional action, voting on forgiveness as an economic stimulus plan. There is little appetite in Congress for forgiveness, and prominent congresspeople like Senator Warren and Senator Schumer have both pushed the executive branch for forgiveness in recognition of this.
 

What has been proposed?

First, it’s important to state that as headline-grabbing as it is to see that $50,000 of forgiveness has been proposed, the reality is that President Biden has repeatedly stated that he will not be in favor of that level of forgiveness. Instead, the number most commonly being discussed is $10,000. This would represent an unprecedented amount of support, alleviating 35% of borrowers of all student debt.

The impact of proposed forgiveness plans for physicians

For the medical community, sadly, this doesn’t represent a significant amount of forgiveness. At graduation, the average MD has $203,000 in debt, and the average DO has $258,000 in debt. These numbers grow during residency for years before any meaningful payments are made.

Further weakening forgiveness plans for physicians has been two caps proposed by the administration in recent days. The first is an income cap of $125,000. While this would maintain forgiveness for nearly all residents and fellows, this would exclude nearly every practicing physician. The alternative to an income cap is specific exclusion of certain careers seen to be high-earning: doctors and lawyers.
 

The bottom line

Physicians are unlikely to be included in any forgiveness plans being proposed recently by the Biden Administration. If they are considered, it will be for exclusion from any forgiveness offered.

For physicians no longer eligible for PSLF, this exclusion needs to be considered in managing the student loan debt associated with becoming a doctor.

Dr. Palmer is a part-time instructor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and staff physician, department of medical critical care, Boston Children’s Hospital. He disclosed that he serves as director for Panacea Financial.

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

In the run up to the midterm elections in November, President Biden has warmed to student loan forgiveness. However, before even being proposed, severe restrictions have been attached to the forgiveness that would severely limit any effective forgiveness for physicians.

What was the plan?

During the 2020 election, student loan forgiveness was a hot topic as the COVID epidemic raged. The CARES Act has placed all federal student loans in forbearance, with no payments made and the interest rate set to 0% to prevent further accrual. While this was tremendously useful to 45 million borrowers around the country (including the author), nothing material was done to deal with the loans.

The Biden Administration’s approach at that time was multi-tiered and chaotic. Plans were put forward that either expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or capped it. Plans were put forward that either extended free undergraduate or severely limited it through Pell Grants. Unfortunately, that duality continues today, with current plans not having a clear goal or a target group of beneficiaries.
 

Necessary CARES Act extensions

The Biden Administration has attempted repeatedly to turn the student loan apparatus back on, restarting payments en masse. However, each time, they are beset by challenges, ranging from repeat COVID spikes to servicer withdrawals or macroeconomic indicators of a recession.

At each step, the administration has had little choice but to extend the CARES Act forbearance, lest they suffer retribution for hastily resuming payments for 45 million borrowers without the apparatus to do so. Two years ago, the major federal servicers laid off hundreds, if not thousands, of staffers responsible for payment processing, accounting, customer care, and taxation. Hiring, training, and staffing these positions is nontrivial.

The administration has been out of step with servicers such that three of the largest have chosen not to renew their contracts: Navient, MyFedLoan, and Granite State Management and Resources. This has left 15 million borrowers in the lurch, not knowing who their servicer is – and, even worse, losing track of qualifying payments toward programs like PSLF.
 

Avenues of forgiveness

There are two major pathways to forgiveness. It is widely believed that the executive branch has the authority to broadly forgive student loans under executive order and managed through the U.S. Department of Education.

The alternative is through congressional action, voting on forgiveness as an economic stimulus plan. There is little appetite in Congress for forgiveness, and prominent congresspeople like Senator Warren and Senator Schumer have both pushed the executive branch for forgiveness in recognition of this.
 

What has been proposed?

First, it’s important to state that as headline-grabbing as it is to see that $50,000 of forgiveness has been proposed, the reality is that President Biden has repeatedly stated that he will not be in favor of that level of forgiveness. Instead, the number most commonly being discussed is $10,000. This would represent an unprecedented amount of support, alleviating 35% of borrowers of all student debt.

The impact of proposed forgiveness plans for physicians

For the medical community, sadly, this doesn’t represent a significant amount of forgiveness. At graduation, the average MD has $203,000 in debt, and the average DO has $258,000 in debt. These numbers grow during residency for years before any meaningful payments are made.

Further weakening forgiveness plans for physicians has been two caps proposed by the administration in recent days. The first is an income cap of $125,000. While this would maintain forgiveness for nearly all residents and fellows, this would exclude nearly every practicing physician. The alternative to an income cap is specific exclusion of certain careers seen to be high-earning: doctors and lawyers.
 

The bottom line

Physicians are unlikely to be included in any forgiveness plans being proposed recently by the Biden Administration. If they are considered, it will be for exclusion from any forgiveness offered.

For physicians no longer eligible for PSLF, this exclusion needs to be considered in managing the student loan debt associated with becoming a doctor.

Dr. Palmer is a part-time instructor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and staff physician, department of medical critical care, Boston Children’s Hospital. He disclosed that he serves as director for Panacea Financial.

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

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

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

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

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

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

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

It’s no secret that, for decades, the participants in clinical trials for new drugs and medical devices haven’t accurately represented the diverse groups of patients the drugs and devices were designed for.

In a recently published draft guidance, the Food and Drug Administration recommended that companies in charge of running these trials should submit a proposal to the agency that would address how they plan to enroll more “clinically relevant populations” and historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

It’s an issue that the U.S. has been trying to fix for years. In 1993, the NIH Revitalization Act was passed into law. It mandated the appropriate inclusion of women and racial minorities in all National Institutes of Health–funded research.

Since then, the FDA has put out plans that encourage trial sponsors to recruit more diverse enrollees, offering strategies and best practices rather than establishing requirements or quotas that companies would be forced to meet. Despite its efforts to encourage inclusion, people of color continue to be largely underrepresented in clinical trials.

Experts aren’t just calling for trial cohorts to reflect U.S. census data. Rather, the demographics of participants should match those of the diagnosis being studied. An analysis of 24 clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs, for example, found that Black Americans made up 2.9% of trial participants, compared with 83.1% for White people. Given that cardiovascular diseases affect Black Americans at almost the same rate as Whites (23.5% and 23.7%, respectively) – and keeping in mind that Black Americans make up 13.4% of the population and White people represent 76.3% – the degree of underrepresentation is glaring.

One commonly cited reason for this lack of representation is that people of color, especially Black Americans, have lingering feelings of mistrust toward the medical field. The U.S.-run Tuskegee study – during which researchers documented the natural progression of syphilis in hundreds of Black men who were kept from life-saving treatment – is, justifiably, often named as a notable source of that suspicion.

But blaming the disproportionately low numbers of Black participants in clinical trials on medical mistrust is an easy answer to a much more complicated issue, said cardiologist Clyde Yancy, MD, who also serves as the vice dean for diversity and inclusion at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

“We need to not put the onus on the back of the patient cohort, and say they are the problem,” Dr. Yancy said, adding that many trials add financial barriers and don’t provide proper transportation for participants who may live farther away.

The diversity of the study team itself – the institutions, researchers, and recruiters – also contributes to a lack of diversity in the participant pool. When considering all of these factors, “you begin to understand the complexity and the multidimensionality of why we have underrepresentation,” said Dr. Yancy. “So I would not promulgate the notion that this is simply because patients don’t trust the system.”

Soumya Niranjan, PhD, worked as a study coordinator at the Tulane Cancer Center in New Orleans, La., where she recruited patients for a prostate cancer study. After researching the impact of clinicians’ biases on the recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities in oncology trials, she found that some recruiters view patients of color as less promising participants.

“Who ends up being approached for a clinical trial is based on a preset rubric that one has in mind about a patient who may be eligible for a cancer study,” said Dr. Niranjan. “There is a characterization of, ‘we want to make sure this patient is compliant, that they will be a good historian and seem responsible.’ ... Our study showed that it kind of fell along racial lines.”

In her study, published in the journal Cancer in 2020, Dr. Niranjan wrote that researchers sometimes “perceived racial minority groups to have low knowledge of cancer clinical trials. This was considered to be a hindrance while explaining cancer clinical trials in the face of limited provider time during a clinical encounter.”

Some researchers believed minority participants, especially Black women, would be less likely to file study protocols. Others said people of color are more likely to be selfish.

She quoted one research investigator as saying Black people are less knowledgeable.

“African Americans I think have less knowledge,” the unnamed researcher said. “We take a little bit more time to explain to African American [sic]. I think ... they have more questions because we know they are not more knowledgeable so I think it takes time. They have a lot of questions.”
 

Progress over the years

The FDA’s recent draft builds upon a guidance from 2016, which already recommended that trial teams submit an inclusion plan to the agency at the earliest phase of development. While the recent announcement is another step in the right direction, it may not be substantial enough.

“There’s always an enrollment plan,” Dr. Niranjan said. “But those enrollment plans are not enforced. So if it’s not enforced, what does that look like?”

In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lola Fashoyin-Aje, MD, the deputy director of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence’s division to expand diversity, emphasized that the draft guidance does not require anything, but that the agency “expect[s] sponsors will follow FDA’s recommendations as described in the draft guidance.”

Without requirements, it’s up to the sponsor to make the effort to enroll people with varied racial and ethnic backgrounds. During the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna announced that the company would slow the trial’s enrollment to ensure minority groups were properly represented.

Not every sponsor is as motivated to make this a concerted effort, and some simply don’t have the funds to allocate to strengthening the enrollment process.

“There’s so much red tape and paperwork to get the funding for a clinical trial,” said Julie Silver, MD, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies workforce diversity and inclusion. “Even when people are equitably included, the amount of funding they have to do the trial might not be enough to do an analysis that shows potential differences.”

Whether the FDA will enforce enrollment plans in the future remains an open question; however, Dr. Yancy said the most effective way to do this would be through incentives, rather than penalties.

According to Dr. Fashoyin-Aje, the FDA and sponsors “will learn from these submissions and over time, whether and how these diversity plans lead to meaningful changes in clinical trial representation will need to be assessed, including whether additional steps need to be taken.”

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

It’s no secret that, for decades, the participants in clinical trials for new drugs and medical devices haven’t accurately represented the diverse groups of patients the drugs and devices were designed for.

In a recently published draft guidance, the Food and Drug Administration recommended that companies in charge of running these trials should submit a proposal to the agency that would address how they plan to enroll more “clinically relevant populations” and historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

It’s an issue that the U.S. has been trying to fix for years. In 1993, the NIH Revitalization Act was passed into law. It mandated the appropriate inclusion of women and racial minorities in all National Institutes of Health–funded research.

Since then, the FDA has put out plans that encourage trial sponsors to recruit more diverse enrollees, offering strategies and best practices rather than establishing requirements or quotas that companies would be forced to meet. Despite its efforts to encourage inclusion, people of color continue to be largely underrepresented in clinical trials.

Experts aren’t just calling for trial cohorts to reflect U.S. census data. Rather, the demographics of participants should match those of the diagnosis being studied. An analysis of 24 clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs, for example, found that Black Americans made up 2.9% of trial participants, compared with 83.1% for White people. Given that cardiovascular diseases affect Black Americans at almost the same rate as Whites (23.5% and 23.7%, respectively) – and keeping in mind that Black Americans make up 13.4% of the population and White people represent 76.3% – the degree of underrepresentation is glaring.

One commonly cited reason for this lack of representation is that people of color, especially Black Americans, have lingering feelings of mistrust toward the medical field. The U.S.-run Tuskegee study – during which researchers documented the natural progression of syphilis in hundreds of Black men who were kept from life-saving treatment – is, justifiably, often named as a notable source of that suspicion.

But blaming the disproportionately low numbers of Black participants in clinical trials on medical mistrust is an easy answer to a much more complicated issue, said cardiologist Clyde Yancy, MD, who also serves as the vice dean for diversity and inclusion at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

“We need to not put the onus on the back of the patient cohort, and say they are the problem,” Dr. Yancy said, adding that many trials add financial barriers and don’t provide proper transportation for participants who may live farther away.

The diversity of the study team itself – the institutions, researchers, and recruiters – also contributes to a lack of diversity in the participant pool. When considering all of these factors, “you begin to understand the complexity and the multidimensionality of why we have underrepresentation,” said Dr. Yancy. “So I would not promulgate the notion that this is simply because patients don’t trust the system.”

Soumya Niranjan, PhD, worked as a study coordinator at the Tulane Cancer Center in New Orleans, La., where she recruited patients for a prostate cancer study. After researching the impact of clinicians’ biases on the recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities in oncology trials, she found that some recruiters view patients of color as less promising participants.

“Who ends up being approached for a clinical trial is based on a preset rubric that one has in mind about a patient who may be eligible for a cancer study,” said Dr. Niranjan. “There is a characterization of, ‘we want to make sure this patient is compliant, that they will be a good historian and seem responsible.’ ... Our study showed that it kind of fell along racial lines.”

In her study, published in the journal Cancer in 2020, Dr. Niranjan wrote that researchers sometimes “perceived racial minority groups to have low knowledge of cancer clinical trials. This was considered to be a hindrance while explaining cancer clinical trials in the face of limited provider time during a clinical encounter.”

Some researchers believed minority participants, especially Black women, would be less likely to file study protocols. Others said people of color are more likely to be selfish.

She quoted one research investigator as saying Black people are less knowledgeable.

“African Americans I think have less knowledge,” the unnamed researcher said. “We take a little bit more time to explain to African American [sic]. I think ... they have more questions because we know they are not more knowledgeable so I think it takes time. They have a lot of questions.”
 

Progress over the years

The FDA’s recent draft builds upon a guidance from 2016, which already recommended that trial teams submit an inclusion plan to the agency at the earliest phase of development. While the recent announcement is another step in the right direction, it may not be substantial enough.

“There’s always an enrollment plan,” Dr. Niranjan said. “But those enrollment plans are not enforced. So if it’s not enforced, what does that look like?”

In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lola Fashoyin-Aje, MD, the deputy director of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence’s division to expand diversity, emphasized that the draft guidance does not require anything, but that the agency “expect[s] sponsors will follow FDA’s recommendations as described in the draft guidance.”

Without requirements, it’s up to the sponsor to make the effort to enroll people with varied racial and ethnic backgrounds. During the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna announced that the company would slow the trial’s enrollment to ensure minority groups were properly represented.

Not every sponsor is as motivated to make this a concerted effort, and some simply don’t have the funds to allocate to strengthening the enrollment process.

“There’s so much red tape and paperwork to get the funding for a clinical trial,” said Julie Silver, MD, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies workforce diversity and inclusion. “Even when people are equitably included, the amount of funding they have to do the trial might not be enough to do an analysis that shows potential differences.”

Whether the FDA will enforce enrollment plans in the future remains an open question; however, Dr. Yancy said the most effective way to do this would be through incentives, rather than penalties.

According to Dr. Fashoyin-Aje, the FDA and sponsors “will learn from these submissions and over time, whether and how these diversity plans lead to meaningful changes in clinical trial representation will need to be assessed, including whether additional steps need to be taken.”

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

It’s no secret that, for decades, the participants in clinical trials for new drugs and medical devices haven’t accurately represented the diverse groups of patients the drugs and devices were designed for.

In a recently published draft guidance, the Food and Drug Administration recommended that companies in charge of running these trials should submit a proposal to the agency that would address how they plan to enroll more “clinically relevant populations” and historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

It’s an issue that the U.S. has been trying to fix for years. In 1993, the NIH Revitalization Act was passed into law. It mandated the appropriate inclusion of women and racial minorities in all National Institutes of Health–funded research.

Since then, the FDA has put out plans that encourage trial sponsors to recruit more diverse enrollees, offering strategies and best practices rather than establishing requirements or quotas that companies would be forced to meet. Despite its efforts to encourage inclusion, people of color continue to be largely underrepresented in clinical trials.

Experts aren’t just calling for trial cohorts to reflect U.S. census data. Rather, the demographics of participants should match those of the diagnosis being studied. An analysis of 24 clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs, for example, found that Black Americans made up 2.9% of trial participants, compared with 83.1% for White people. Given that cardiovascular diseases affect Black Americans at almost the same rate as Whites (23.5% and 23.7%, respectively) – and keeping in mind that Black Americans make up 13.4% of the population and White people represent 76.3% – the degree of underrepresentation is glaring.

One commonly cited reason for this lack of representation is that people of color, especially Black Americans, have lingering feelings of mistrust toward the medical field. The U.S.-run Tuskegee study – during which researchers documented the natural progression of syphilis in hundreds of Black men who were kept from life-saving treatment – is, justifiably, often named as a notable source of that suspicion.

But blaming the disproportionately low numbers of Black participants in clinical trials on medical mistrust is an easy answer to a much more complicated issue, said cardiologist Clyde Yancy, MD, who also serves as the vice dean for diversity and inclusion at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

“We need to not put the onus on the back of the patient cohort, and say they are the problem,” Dr. Yancy said, adding that many trials add financial barriers and don’t provide proper transportation for participants who may live farther away.

The diversity of the study team itself – the institutions, researchers, and recruiters – also contributes to a lack of diversity in the participant pool. When considering all of these factors, “you begin to understand the complexity and the multidimensionality of why we have underrepresentation,” said Dr. Yancy. “So I would not promulgate the notion that this is simply because patients don’t trust the system.”

Soumya Niranjan, PhD, worked as a study coordinator at the Tulane Cancer Center in New Orleans, La., where she recruited patients for a prostate cancer study. After researching the impact of clinicians’ biases on the recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities in oncology trials, she found that some recruiters view patients of color as less promising participants.

“Who ends up being approached for a clinical trial is based on a preset rubric that one has in mind about a patient who may be eligible for a cancer study,” said Dr. Niranjan. “There is a characterization of, ‘we want to make sure this patient is compliant, that they will be a good historian and seem responsible.’ ... Our study showed that it kind of fell along racial lines.”

In her study, published in the journal Cancer in 2020, Dr. Niranjan wrote that researchers sometimes “perceived racial minority groups to have low knowledge of cancer clinical trials. This was considered to be a hindrance while explaining cancer clinical trials in the face of limited provider time during a clinical encounter.”

Some researchers believed minority participants, especially Black women, would be less likely to file study protocols. Others said people of color are more likely to be selfish.

She quoted one research investigator as saying Black people are less knowledgeable.

“African Americans I think have less knowledge,” the unnamed researcher said. “We take a little bit more time to explain to African American [sic]. I think ... they have more questions because we know they are not more knowledgeable so I think it takes time. They have a lot of questions.”
 

Progress over the years

The FDA’s recent draft builds upon a guidance from 2016, which already recommended that trial teams submit an inclusion plan to the agency at the earliest phase of development. While the recent announcement is another step in the right direction, it may not be substantial enough.

“There’s always an enrollment plan,” Dr. Niranjan said. “But those enrollment plans are not enforced. So if it’s not enforced, what does that look like?”

In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lola Fashoyin-Aje, MD, the deputy director of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence’s division to expand diversity, emphasized that the draft guidance does not require anything, but that the agency “expect[s] sponsors will follow FDA’s recommendations as described in the draft guidance.”

Without requirements, it’s up to the sponsor to make the effort to enroll people with varied racial and ethnic backgrounds. During the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna announced that the company would slow the trial’s enrollment to ensure minority groups were properly represented.

Not every sponsor is as motivated to make this a concerted effort, and some simply don’t have the funds to allocate to strengthening the enrollment process.

“There’s so much red tape and paperwork to get the funding for a clinical trial,” said Julie Silver, MD, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies workforce diversity and inclusion. “Even when people are equitably included, the amount of funding they have to do the trial might not be enough to do an analysis that shows potential differences.”

Whether the FDA will enforce enrollment plans in the future remains an open question; however, Dr. Yancy said the most effective way to do this would be through incentives, rather than penalties.

According to Dr. Fashoyin-Aje, the FDA and sponsors “will learn from these submissions and over time, whether and how these diversity plans lead to meaningful changes in clinical trial representation will need to be assessed, including whether additional steps need to be taken.”

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

COVID-19 forced consumers to adopt digital and virtual platforms to receive medical care, and more than 2 years after the start of the pandemic, it doesn’t appear that that will change.

“During the pandemic we witnessed a very steep rise in the utilization of digital health care transactions. And as we have now witnessed a plateau, we see that digital health care transactions have not fallen back to the way things were prepandemic,” said Bart M. Demaerschalk, MD, professor and chair of cerebrovascular diseases for digital health research at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz. “At Mayo Clinic and other health care organizations, approximately 20% ... of the composite care is occurring by digital means.”

Dr. Demaerschalk was among a panel representing retail and traditional health care organizations at the American Telemedicine Association conference in Boston.

The pandemic created this new reality, and health care leaders are now trying to make the most of all digital tools. Marcus Osborne, former senior vice president at Walmart Health, said that to progress, the health care industry needs to move beyond the conception of a world in which consumers interact with care providers via one-off in-person or digital experiences.

“What we’re actually seeing in other sectors and in life in general is that the world is not multichannel. The world is omnichannel,” Mr. Osborne said. Under an omnichannel paradigm, provider organizations integrate multiple digital and in-person health delivery methods, making it possible to “create whole new experiences for consumers that no one channel could deliver,” he added.

Creagh Milford, DO, vice president and head of enterprise virtual care at CVS Health, agreed and added that “the retail footprint will evolve” from offering separate physical and virtual care experiences to a “blended” experience.

Three key digital technology strategies

In addition to supporting an omnichannel experience, the panelists pointed out that traditional and retail health care providers can make the most of digital technologies in a few different ways.

One is by helping consumers manage innovation. With venture capital investments in digital technologies at an all-time high, the health care industry is drowning in innovation, <r/ Osborne pointed out.

“So on one hand, we have been blessed with this eruption of innovation. On the other hand – and I’m saying this as a consumer – it [doesn’t] really matter. I’m overwhelmed, and I think the market is overwhelmed,” Mr. Osborne said. “So if we’re overwhelmed, it means we’re not going to leverage that innovation as effectively as we should.” The challenge, then, is to find a way to “not get overwhelmed by the sheer force of innovations occurring” and to instead leverage these new technologies to drive real transformation in our health care system.

To meet this challenge, health care organizations will have to provide consumers with “some guidance as to how to tailor that journey,” Dr. Demaerschalk said. “It’s the responsibility of all of us to be creating that tailored and individual guidance for our patients.” By doing so, health care organizations ultimately can help consumers feel less overwhelmed.

Another strategy is to ensure that the use of technology promotes health equity. Mr. Osborne pointed out that events such as the pandemic and George Floyd’s murder have resulted in a “much more robust conversation around the need to address health inequities in America. I’ve also heard a lot of people say they believe that digital health solutions are the answer.”

As such, health care organizations need to ensure that digital innovations are leveraged to “fundamentally address the inequities that we’re facing today and support the care of all Americans,” Mr. Osborne noted.

To move in this direction, leaders need to address one glaring gap: “We talk all the time about fancy technology, like artificial intelligence. Most of my clients, they’re just trying to get basic Internet access at home,” Dr. McCann said. “So, there’s a technology challenge we first have to solve.”

Once this hurdle is overcome, however, digital technologies could pay off in spades, especially for consumers who struggle to access in-person services because they live 2 or 3 hours away from the hospital, are working two jobs, and have child care responsibilities, Dr. McCann noted.

Health care must also address staffing issues, said the panelists. Leaders need to create new career paths for clinicians as digital care delivery becomes more prominent.

Some health care organizations have already discovered that using digital technologies to support hospital-at-home programs can also enhance the work lives of clinicians.

When working in hospital-at-home programs, clinicians can “deliver care in the way that they have always wanted to but have never been able to within an acute inpatient facility. They’re able to go into patients’ homes and spend an hour with them, actually develop a proper relationship and look at social determinants of health and medications and do things in a way they’ve never been able to do before. And that has dramatically reduced rates of burnout,” Dr. McCann said.

While these strategies will help organizations support “this exciting digital ecosystem,” health care technology innovators need to “really study the costs and the health outcomes related to these digital health transactions in order to move the entire field and the science forward,” Dr. Demaerschalk concluded.

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

COVID-19 forced consumers to adopt digital and virtual platforms to receive medical care, and more than 2 years after the start of the pandemic, it doesn’t appear that that will change.

“During the pandemic we witnessed a very steep rise in the utilization of digital health care transactions. And as we have now witnessed a plateau, we see that digital health care transactions have not fallen back to the way things were prepandemic,” said Bart M. Demaerschalk, MD, professor and chair of cerebrovascular diseases for digital health research at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz. “At Mayo Clinic and other health care organizations, approximately 20% ... of the composite care is occurring by digital means.”

Dr. Demaerschalk was among a panel representing retail and traditional health care organizations at the American Telemedicine Association conference in Boston.

The pandemic created this new reality, and health care leaders are now trying to make the most of all digital tools. Marcus Osborne, former senior vice president at Walmart Health, said that to progress, the health care industry needs to move beyond the conception of a world in which consumers interact with care providers via one-off in-person or digital experiences.

“What we’re actually seeing in other sectors and in life in general is that the world is not multichannel. The world is omnichannel,” Mr. Osborne said. Under an omnichannel paradigm, provider organizations integrate multiple digital and in-person health delivery methods, making it possible to “create whole new experiences for consumers that no one channel could deliver,” he added.

Creagh Milford, DO, vice president and head of enterprise virtual care at CVS Health, agreed and added that “the retail footprint will evolve” from offering separate physical and virtual care experiences to a “blended” experience.

Three key digital technology strategies

In addition to supporting an omnichannel experience, the panelists pointed out that traditional and retail health care providers can make the most of digital technologies in a few different ways.

One is by helping consumers manage innovation. With venture capital investments in digital technologies at an all-time high, the health care industry is drowning in innovation, <r/ Osborne pointed out.

“So on one hand, we have been blessed with this eruption of innovation. On the other hand – and I’m saying this as a consumer – it [doesn’t] really matter. I’m overwhelmed, and I think the market is overwhelmed,” Mr. Osborne said. “So if we’re overwhelmed, it means we’re not going to leverage that innovation as effectively as we should.” The challenge, then, is to find a way to “not get overwhelmed by the sheer force of innovations occurring” and to instead leverage these new technologies to drive real transformation in our health care system.

To meet this challenge, health care organizations will have to provide consumers with “some guidance as to how to tailor that journey,” Dr. Demaerschalk said. “It’s the responsibility of all of us to be creating that tailored and individual guidance for our patients.” By doing so, health care organizations ultimately can help consumers feel less overwhelmed.

Another strategy is to ensure that the use of technology promotes health equity. Mr. Osborne pointed out that events such as the pandemic and George Floyd’s murder have resulted in a “much more robust conversation around the need to address health inequities in America. I’ve also heard a lot of people say they believe that digital health solutions are the answer.”

As such, health care organizations need to ensure that digital innovations are leveraged to “fundamentally address the inequities that we’re facing today and support the care of all Americans,” Mr. Osborne noted.

To move in this direction, leaders need to address one glaring gap: “We talk all the time about fancy technology, like artificial intelligence. Most of my clients, they’re just trying to get basic Internet access at home,” Dr. McCann said. “So, there’s a technology challenge we first have to solve.”

Once this hurdle is overcome, however, digital technologies could pay off in spades, especially for consumers who struggle to access in-person services because they live 2 or 3 hours away from the hospital, are working two jobs, and have child care responsibilities, Dr. McCann noted.

Health care must also address staffing issues, said the panelists. Leaders need to create new career paths for clinicians as digital care delivery becomes more prominent.

Some health care organizations have already discovered that using digital technologies to support hospital-at-home programs can also enhance the work lives of clinicians.

When working in hospital-at-home programs, clinicians can “deliver care in the way that they have always wanted to but have never been able to within an acute inpatient facility. They’re able to go into patients’ homes and spend an hour with them, actually develop a proper relationship and look at social determinants of health and medications and do things in a way they’ve never been able to do before. And that has dramatically reduced rates of burnout,” Dr. McCann said.

While these strategies will help organizations support “this exciting digital ecosystem,” health care technology innovators need to “really study the costs and the health outcomes related to these digital health transactions in order to move the entire field and the science forward,” Dr. Demaerschalk concluded.

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

COVID-19 forced consumers to adopt digital and virtual platforms to receive medical care, and more than 2 years after the start of the pandemic, it doesn’t appear that that will change.

“During the pandemic we witnessed a very steep rise in the utilization of digital health care transactions. And as we have now witnessed a plateau, we see that digital health care transactions have not fallen back to the way things were prepandemic,” said Bart M. Demaerschalk, MD, professor and chair of cerebrovascular diseases for digital health research at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz. “At Mayo Clinic and other health care organizations, approximately 20% ... of the composite care is occurring by digital means.”

Dr. Demaerschalk was among a panel representing retail and traditional health care organizations at the American Telemedicine Association conference in Boston.

The pandemic created this new reality, and health care leaders are now trying to make the most of all digital tools. Marcus Osborne, former senior vice president at Walmart Health, said that to progress, the health care industry needs to move beyond the conception of a world in which consumers interact with care providers via one-off in-person or digital experiences.

“What we’re actually seeing in other sectors and in life in general is that the world is not multichannel. The world is omnichannel,” Mr. Osborne said. Under an omnichannel paradigm, provider organizations integrate multiple digital and in-person health delivery methods, making it possible to “create whole new experiences for consumers that no one channel could deliver,” he added.

Creagh Milford, DO, vice president and head of enterprise virtual care at CVS Health, agreed and added that “the retail footprint will evolve” from offering separate physical and virtual care experiences to a “blended” experience.

Three key digital technology strategies

In addition to supporting an omnichannel experience, the panelists pointed out that traditional and retail health care providers can make the most of digital technologies in a few different ways.

One is by helping consumers manage innovation. With venture capital investments in digital technologies at an all-time high, the health care industry is drowning in innovation, <r/ Osborne pointed out.

“So on one hand, we have been blessed with this eruption of innovation. On the other hand – and I’m saying this as a consumer – it [doesn’t] really matter. I’m overwhelmed, and I think the market is overwhelmed,” Mr. Osborne said. “So if we’re overwhelmed, it means we’re not going to leverage that innovation as effectively as we should.” The challenge, then, is to find a way to “not get overwhelmed by the sheer force of innovations occurring” and to instead leverage these new technologies to drive real transformation in our health care system.

To meet this challenge, health care organizations will have to provide consumers with “some guidance as to how to tailor that journey,” Dr. Demaerschalk said. “It’s the responsibility of all of us to be creating that tailored and individual guidance for our patients.” By doing so, health care organizations ultimately can help consumers feel less overwhelmed.

Another strategy is to ensure that the use of technology promotes health equity. Mr. Osborne pointed out that events such as the pandemic and George Floyd’s murder have resulted in a “much more robust conversation around the need to address health inequities in America. I’ve also heard a lot of people say they believe that digital health solutions are the answer.”

As such, health care organizations need to ensure that digital innovations are leveraged to “fundamentally address the inequities that we’re facing today and support the care of all Americans,” Mr. Osborne noted.

To move in this direction, leaders need to address one glaring gap: “We talk all the time about fancy technology, like artificial intelligence. Most of my clients, they’re just trying to get basic Internet access at home,” Dr. McCann said. “So, there’s a technology challenge we first have to solve.”

Once this hurdle is overcome, however, digital technologies could pay off in spades, especially for consumers who struggle to access in-person services because they live 2 or 3 hours away from the hospital, are working two jobs, and have child care responsibilities, Dr. McCann noted.

Health care must also address staffing issues, said the panelists. Leaders need to create new career paths for clinicians as digital care delivery becomes more prominent.

Some health care organizations have already discovered that using digital technologies to support hospital-at-home programs can also enhance the work lives of clinicians.

When working in hospital-at-home programs, clinicians can “deliver care in the way that they have always wanted to but have never been able to within an acute inpatient facility. They’re able to go into patients’ homes and spend an hour with them, actually develop a proper relationship and look at social determinants of health and medications and do things in a way they’ve never been able to do before. And that has dramatically reduced rates of burnout,” Dr. McCann said.

While these strategies will help organizations support “this exciting digital ecosystem,” health care technology innovators need to “really study the costs and the health outcomes related to these digital health transactions in order to move the entire field and the science forward,” Dr. Demaerschalk concluded.

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

The American Medical Association estimates that physician burnout costs the country $4.6 billion annually, and that doesn’t include the cost for nurses and other clinicians. In addition, physicians note too many bureaucratic tasks as a main contributor to their daily stress.

Such revelations have prompted many in the health care industry to focus on clinician burnout, including a panel at the recent American Telemedicine Association annual conference in Boston.

Not surprisingly, the discussion quickly turned to the COVID-19 pandemic, commonly cited as an event that has exacerbated existing clinician burnout and caused what has become known as the “great resignation.”

Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said his health system has experienced a lot of its nursing staff resigning or moving to other employment, particularly from intensive care units and the emergency department.

“We actually haven’t had too many physicians go, but I have a funny feeling we’re going to see that over the next year or so because I think a lot of people have just put their head down during the pandemic and they’ve worked themselves hard,” he said. “They’re now sort of putting their heads up above the wall,” and could realize that they want a change.

In his role as the wellness officer at the academic medical center, Dr. Yellowlees is proactively addressing burnout among the organization’s 14,000 employees. For example, during the pandemic, he developed a peer responder program. Under this initiative, 600 staff members received training in “psychological first aid,” essentially utilizing staff to become therapists for peers.

For example, if a clinician is struggling emotionally while dealing with a patient who has had significant trauma, a peer responder could talk with the clinician, helping him or her to better deal with the situation.

Marlene McDermott, senior director of therapy services at Array Behavioral Care, a national telepsychiatry provider with offices in New Jersey and Illinois, noted that her organization also addresses burnout by creating opportunities for peer-to-peer support.

“We’ve got hundreds of clinicians and we’ll take 10 to 15 of them, put them in small treatment teams and they have a live chat, a one-off virtual meeting with each other to vent and to ask clinical questions. It’s all clinicians, there’s no administrative staff in there,” Ms. McDermott said. The clinicians have found value in these meetings, as they can share their concerns as well as “silly images or quotes, just to keep things light at times. That’s made a big difference.”
 

Retraining, technology can help curb administrative burdens

In addition to providing peer support, both Dr. Yellowlees and Ms. McDermott are addressing the significant administrative burden that plagues physicians.

This burden is especially onerous for physicians in the United States, according to a study that compared the number of keystrokes required to produce clinical notes among physicians in several countries.

“What [the study] discovered was that the American notes were three to five times longer than the notes of the Australian or U.K. physicians. I’ve worked in all three countries and I can promise you there’s no difference in the quality of the doctors across those places,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

To address this issue, Dr. Yellowlees is training physicians to reduce the length of their clinical documentation.

“I am trying to retrain physicians who for many years have been trained to be defensive in their documentation – to write absurd amounts just to justify billing,” Dr. Yellowlees said. “We are trying to go back in some respects to the way that we used to write notes 20 years ago ... so much shorter. This is a huge retraining exercise but it’s an exercise that is essential.”

Ms. McDermott also is tackling the administrative burden at her organization.

“We are trying to make the workflow as efficient as possible, doing some asynchronous work where consumers are completing information before a session ... so clinicians are essentially reconciling information instead of gathering all nonpertinent information. They can just work at the top of the license and not be burdened by some of the questions that don’t directly affect treatment,” Ms. McDermott noted.

Encouraging and training physicians in concurrent documentation also can help reduce administrative burden.

“Being proficient at remaining in session and documenting as much as you can during a session can help. So that at the end, you’re pressing the button, closing the encounter and you’ve finished documenting,” Ms. McDermott said. “It’s definitely possible to do that without losing the connection with the patient.”

To accomplish this, physicians need to leverage touch-typing – the practice of typing without looking at the keyboard. Fortunately, telehealth makes this mode of documentation easily achievable. Consider the following: During an online session, clinicians can place the patient’s picture “right underneath the camera and make it small. And then you type with the note floating behind it. So you’re actually staring at the note and the person all at the same time,” Ms. McDermott said.

The continued uptake of telehealth in general could also reduce stress for physicians, added Dr. Yellowlees.

“One of the interesting things about that is just how much time we save the physicians because it actually takes quite a lot of time to room patients,” Dr. Yellowlees concluded. “We are now doing about 20% of all our outpatient visits in all disciplines by video. We were higher than that midway through COVID. I’m hoping we’ll go back to being higher than that.”

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

The American Medical Association estimates that physician burnout costs the country $4.6 billion annually, and that doesn’t include the cost for nurses and other clinicians. In addition, physicians note too many bureaucratic tasks as a main contributor to their daily stress.

Such revelations have prompted many in the health care industry to focus on clinician burnout, including a panel at the recent American Telemedicine Association annual conference in Boston.

Not surprisingly, the discussion quickly turned to the COVID-19 pandemic, commonly cited as an event that has exacerbated existing clinician burnout and caused what has become known as the “great resignation.”

Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said his health system has experienced a lot of its nursing staff resigning or moving to other employment, particularly from intensive care units and the emergency department.

“We actually haven’t had too many physicians go, but I have a funny feeling we’re going to see that over the next year or so because I think a lot of people have just put their head down during the pandemic and they’ve worked themselves hard,” he said. “They’re now sort of putting their heads up above the wall,” and could realize that they want a change.

In his role as the wellness officer at the academic medical center, Dr. Yellowlees is proactively addressing burnout among the organization’s 14,000 employees. For example, during the pandemic, he developed a peer responder program. Under this initiative, 600 staff members received training in “psychological first aid,” essentially utilizing staff to become therapists for peers.

For example, if a clinician is struggling emotionally while dealing with a patient who has had significant trauma, a peer responder could talk with the clinician, helping him or her to better deal with the situation.

Marlene McDermott, senior director of therapy services at Array Behavioral Care, a national telepsychiatry provider with offices in New Jersey and Illinois, noted that her organization also addresses burnout by creating opportunities for peer-to-peer support.

“We’ve got hundreds of clinicians and we’ll take 10 to 15 of them, put them in small treatment teams and they have a live chat, a one-off virtual meeting with each other to vent and to ask clinical questions. It’s all clinicians, there’s no administrative staff in there,” Ms. McDermott said. The clinicians have found value in these meetings, as they can share their concerns as well as “silly images or quotes, just to keep things light at times. That’s made a big difference.”
 

Retraining, technology can help curb administrative burdens

In addition to providing peer support, both Dr. Yellowlees and Ms. McDermott are addressing the significant administrative burden that plagues physicians.

This burden is especially onerous for physicians in the United States, according to a study that compared the number of keystrokes required to produce clinical notes among physicians in several countries.

“What [the study] discovered was that the American notes were three to five times longer than the notes of the Australian or U.K. physicians. I’ve worked in all three countries and I can promise you there’s no difference in the quality of the doctors across those places,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

To address this issue, Dr. Yellowlees is training physicians to reduce the length of their clinical documentation.

“I am trying to retrain physicians who for many years have been trained to be defensive in their documentation – to write absurd amounts just to justify billing,” Dr. Yellowlees said. “We are trying to go back in some respects to the way that we used to write notes 20 years ago ... so much shorter. This is a huge retraining exercise but it’s an exercise that is essential.”

Ms. McDermott also is tackling the administrative burden at her organization.

“We are trying to make the workflow as efficient as possible, doing some asynchronous work where consumers are completing information before a session ... so clinicians are essentially reconciling information instead of gathering all nonpertinent information. They can just work at the top of the license and not be burdened by some of the questions that don’t directly affect treatment,” Ms. McDermott noted.

Encouraging and training physicians in concurrent documentation also can help reduce administrative burden.

“Being proficient at remaining in session and documenting as much as you can during a session can help. So that at the end, you’re pressing the button, closing the encounter and you’ve finished documenting,” Ms. McDermott said. “It’s definitely possible to do that without losing the connection with the patient.”

To accomplish this, physicians need to leverage touch-typing – the practice of typing without looking at the keyboard. Fortunately, telehealth makes this mode of documentation easily achievable. Consider the following: During an online session, clinicians can place the patient’s picture “right underneath the camera and make it small. And then you type with the note floating behind it. So you’re actually staring at the note and the person all at the same time,” Ms. McDermott said.

The continued uptake of telehealth in general could also reduce stress for physicians, added Dr. Yellowlees.

“One of the interesting things about that is just how much time we save the physicians because it actually takes quite a lot of time to room patients,” Dr. Yellowlees concluded. “We are now doing about 20% of all our outpatient visits in all disciplines by video. We were higher than that midway through COVID. I’m hoping we’ll go back to being higher than that.”

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

The American Medical Association estimates that physician burnout costs the country $4.6 billion annually, and that doesn’t include the cost for nurses and other clinicians. In addition, physicians note too many bureaucratic tasks as a main contributor to their daily stress.

Such revelations have prompted many in the health care industry to focus on clinician burnout, including a panel at the recent American Telemedicine Association annual conference in Boston.

Not surprisingly, the discussion quickly turned to the COVID-19 pandemic, commonly cited as an event that has exacerbated existing clinician burnout and caused what has become known as the “great resignation.”

Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said his health system has experienced a lot of its nursing staff resigning or moving to other employment, particularly from intensive care units and the emergency department.

“We actually haven’t had too many physicians go, but I have a funny feeling we’re going to see that over the next year or so because I think a lot of people have just put their head down during the pandemic and they’ve worked themselves hard,” he said. “They’re now sort of putting their heads up above the wall,” and could realize that they want a change.

In his role as the wellness officer at the academic medical center, Dr. Yellowlees is proactively addressing burnout among the organization’s 14,000 employees. For example, during the pandemic, he developed a peer responder program. Under this initiative, 600 staff members received training in “psychological first aid,” essentially utilizing staff to become therapists for peers.

For example, if a clinician is struggling emotionally while dealing with a patient who has had significant trauma, a peer responder could talk with the clinician, helping him or her to better deal with the situation.

Marlene McDermott, senior director of therapy services at Array Behavioral Care, a national telepsychiatry provider with offices in New Jersey and Illinois, noted that her organization also addresses burnout by creating opportunities for peer-to-peer support.

“We’ve got hundreds of clinicians and we’ll take 10 to 15 of them, put them in small treatment teams and they have a live chat, a one-off virtual meeting with each other to vent and to ask clinical questions. It’s all clinicians, there’s no administrative staff in there,” Ms. McDermott said. The clinicians have found value in these meetings, as they can share their concerns as well as “silly images or quotes, just to keep things light at times. That’s made a big difference.”
 

Retraining, technology can help curb administrative burdens

In addition to providing peer support, both Dr. Yellowlees and Ms. McDermott are addressing the significant administrative burden that plagues physicians.

This burden is especially onerous for physicians in the United States, according to a study that compared the number of keystrokes required to produce clinical notes among physicians in several countries.

“What [the study] discovered was that the American notes were three to five times longer than the notes of the Australian or U.K. physicians. I’ve worked in all three countries and I can promise you there’s no difference in the quality of the doctors across those places,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

To address this issue, Dr. Yellowlees is training physicians to reduce the length of their clinical documentation.

“I am trying to retrain physicians who for many years have been trained to be defensive in their documentation – to write absurd amounts just to justify billing,” Dr. Yellowlees said. “We are trying to go back in some respects to the way that we used to write notes 20 years ago ... so much shorter. This is a huge retraining exercise but it’s an exercise that is essential.”

Ms. McDermott also is tackling the administrative burden at her organization.

“We are trying to make the workflow as efficient as possible, doing some asynchronous work where consumers are completing information before a session ... so clinicians are essentially reconciling information instead of gathering all nonpertinent information. They can just work at the top of the license and not be burdened by some of the questions that don’t directly affect treatment,” Ms. McDermott noted.

Encouraging and training physicians in concurrent documentation also can help reduce administrative burden.

“Being proficient at remaining in session and documenting as much as you can during a session can help. So that at the end, you’re pressing the button, closing the encounter and you’ve finished documenting,” Ms. McDermott said. “It’s definitely possible to do that without losing the connection with the patient.”

To accomplish this, physicians need to leverage touch-typing – the practice of typing without looking at the keyboard. Fortunately, telehealth makes this mode of documentation easily achievable. Consider the following: During an online session, clinicians can place the patient’s picture “right underneath the camera and make it small. And then you type with the note floating behind it. So you’re actually staring at the note and the person all at the same time,” Ms. McDermott said.

The continued uptake of telehealth in general could also reduce stress for physicians, added Dr. Yellowlees.

“One of the interesting things about that is just how much time we save the physicians because it actually takes quite a lot of time to room patients,” Dr. Yellowlees concluded. “We are now doing about 20% of all our outpatient visits in all disciplines by video. We were higher than that midway through COVID. I’m hoping we’ll go back to being higher than that.”

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

MI. HTN. hx. Although these abbreviations might make it easier for physicians and other health care professionals to create and consume clinical documentation, the shorthand confuses patients, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, who conducted clinical trials at three hospitals, found that expansion of 10 common medical abbreviations and acronyms in patient health records significantly increased overall comprehension.

Corresponding author Lisa Grossman Liu, PhD, MD, of Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “comprehension of abbreviations was much lower than we expected and much lower than the clinicians who participated in this study expected.”

This discovery is particularly relevant in this era of digital care, where providers are now communicating with patients electronically more than ever before – and are required by rules emanating from the 21st Century Cures Act to provide online access to electronic health records.
 

Using elongated terms

Although the study found that expansion of medical abbreviations and acronyms can improve patient understanding, identifying all of the medical abbreviations that exist is difficult because the terms vary by specialty and geography. The fact that many abbreviations and acronyms have multiple meanings complicates matters even more. For example, the abbreviation PA has 128 possible meanings, Dr. Grossman Liu pointed out.

Technology, fortunately, has advanced in the last few years and is on the cusp of providing a solution. Artificial intelligence systems could help to develop large compendiums of abbreviations and acronyms and then machine learning could elongate the words.

“We’re almost to the point where we have these automated systems that can actually expand abbreviations pretty well and with a great degree of accuracy and ... where those can actually be used in medicine to help with patient communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

Such intervention, however, is not a cure-all.

“There are abbreviations that are really hard to understand even after you expand them, such as MI for myocardial infarction, which is really a tough term all around. It means heart attack. So even if you tell patients, MI means myocardial infarction, they’re still not going to understand it,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

On the flip side, patients are likely to understand some abbreviations such as hrs, which stands for hours, without elongating the words.
 

Moving from in-person to online communication

A look at the evolution of clinical documentation explains how this abbreviation problem came to fruition. Prior to this digital age where providers communicate with patients through portals, secure messaging, and other electronic methods, patients and providers would talk face to face. Now, however, electronic written communication is becoming the norm.

“We are not only seeing direct written communication through things like messaging systems or email, but also patients are now reading their medical records online and you can consider that as a form of communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said. “It’s really interesting that the electronic health record itself has essentially become a medium for communication between patients and providers when previously it was only a way for providers to communicate with themselves and document patient care. So, clinicians use abbreviations because they aren’t intending for patients to see the records.”

Requiring physicians to use complete words in clinical documentation now that electronic records are relied on for patient communication, however, is not a practical solution.

“Abbreviations are so commonly used because they are more efficient to read and more efficient to write. We really shouldn’t be putting the onus on providers to spell out all the abbreviations in their notes. That’s realistically not going to work, because it compromises clinical efficiency,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

While physicians should not be forced to use complete words in documentation, they should be wary of patients’ unfamiliarity with abbreviations as they communicate in person.

“I use terms like ED constantly when I talk to patients, and it turns out that only 67% of patients understand what you’re talking about when you say ED in reference to the emergency department. So it’s important to be mindful of that,” Dr. Grossman Liu concluded.

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

MI. HTN. hx. Although these abbreviations might make it easier for physicians and other health care professionals to create and consume clinical documentation, the shorthand confuses patients, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, who conducted clinical trials at three hospitals, found that expansion of 10 common medical abbreviations and acronyms in patient health records significantly increased overall comprehension.

Corresponding author Lisa Grossman Liu, PhD, MD, of Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “comprehension of abbreviations was much lower than we expected and much lower than the clinicians who participated in this study expected.”

This discovery is particularly relevant in this era of digital care, where providers are now communicating with patients electronically more than ever before – and are required by rules emanating from the 21st Century Cures Act to provide online access to electronic health records.
 

Using elongated terms

Although the study found that expansion of medical abbreviations and acronyms can improve patient understanding, identifying all of the medical abbreviations that exist is difficult because the terms vary by specialty and geography. The fact that many abbreviations and acronyms have multiple meanings complicates matters even more. For example, the abbreviation PA has 128 possible meanings, Dr. Grossman Liu pointed out.

Technology, fortunately, has advanced in the last few years and is on the cusp of providing a solution. Artificial intelligence systems could help to develop large compendiums of abbreviations and acronyms and then machine learning could elongate the words.

“We’re almost to the point where we have these automated systems that can actually expand abbreviations pretty well and with a great degree of accuracy and ... where those can actually be used in medicine to help with patient communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

Such intervention, however, is not a cure-all.

“There are abbreviations that are really hard to understand even after you expand them, such as MI for myocardial infarction, which is really a tough term all around. It means heart attack. So even if you tell patients, MI means myocardial infarction, they’re still not going to understand it,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

On the flip side, patients are likely to understand some abbreviations such as hrs, which stands for hours, without elongating the words.
 

Moving from in-person to online communication

A look at the evolution of clinical documentation explains how this abbreviation problem came to fruition. Prior to this digital age where providers communicate with patients through portals, secure messaging, and other electronic methods, patients and providers would talk face to face. Now, however, electronic written communication is becoming the norm.

“We are not only seeing direct written communication through things like messaging systems or email, but also patients are now reading their medical records online and you can consider that as a form of communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said. “It’s really interesting that the electronic health record itself has essentially become a medium for communication between patients and providers when previously it was only a way for providers to communicate with themselves and document patient care. So, clinicians use abbreviations because they aren’t intending for patients to see the records.”

Requiring physicians to use complete words in clinical documentation now that electronic records are relied on for patient communication, however, is not a practical solution.

“Abbreviations are so commonly used because they are more efficient to read and more efficient to write. We really shouldn’t be putting the onus on providers to spell out all the abbreviations in their notes. That’s realistically not going to work, because it compromises clinical efficiency,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

While physicians should not be forced to use complete words in documentation, they should be wary of patients’ unfamiliarity with abbreviations as they communicate in person.

“I use terms like ED constantly when I talk to patients, and it turns out that only 67% of patients understand what you’re talking about when you say ED in reference to the emergency department. So it’s important to be mindful of that,” Dr. Grossman Liu concluded.

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

MI. HTN. hx. Although these abbreviations might make it easier for physicians and other health care professionals to create and consume clinical documentation, the shorthand confuses patients, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, who conducted clinical trials at three hospitals, found that expansion of 10 common medical abbreviations and acronyms in patient health records significantly increased overall comprehension.

Corresponding author Lisa Grossman Liu, PhD, MD, of Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “comprehension of abbreviations was much lower than we expected and much lower than the clinicians who participated in this study expected.”

This discovery is particularly relevant in this era of digital care, where providers are now communicating with patients electronically more than ever before – and are required by rules emanating from the 21st Century Cures Act to provide online access to electronic health records.
 

Using elongated terms

Although the study found that expansion of medical abbreviations and acronyms can improve patient understanding, identifying all of the medical abbreviations that exist is difficult because the terms vary by specialty and geography. The fact that many abbreviations and acronyms have multiple meanings complicates matters even more. For example, the abbreviation PA has 128 possible meanings, Dr. Grossman Liu pointed out.

Technology, fortunately, has advanced in the last few years and is on the cusp of providing a solution. Artificial intelligence systems could help to develop large compendiums of abbreviations and acronyms and then machine learning could elongate the words.

“We’re almost to the point where we have these automated systems that can actually expand abbreviations pretty well and with a great degree of accuracy and ... where those can actually be used in medicine to help with patient communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

Such intervention, however, is not a cure-all.

“There are abbreviations that are really hard to understand even after you expand them, such as MI for myocardial infarction, which is really a tough term all around. It means heart attack. So even if you tell patients, MI means myocardial infarction, they’re still not going to understand it,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

On the flip side, patients are likely to understand some abbreviations such as hrs, which stands for hours, without elongating the words.
 

Moving from in-person to online communication

A look at the evolution of clinical documentation explains how this abbreviation problem came to fruition. Prior to this digital age where providers communicate with patients through portals, secure messaging, and other electronic methods, patients and providers would talk face to face. Now, however, electronic written communication is becoming the norm.

“We are not only seeing direct written communication through things like messaging systems or email, but also patients are now reading their medical records online and you can consider that as a form of communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said. “It’s really interesting that the electronic health record itself has essentially become a medium for communication between patients and providers when previously it was only a way for providers to communicate with themselves and document patient care. So, clinicians use abbreviations because they aren’t intending for patients to see the records.”

Requiring physicians to use complete words in clinical documentation now that electronic records are relied on for patient communication, however, is not a practical solution.

“Abbreviations are so commonly used because they are more efficient to read and more efficient to write. We really shouldn’t be putting the onus on providers to spell out all the abbreviations in their notes. That’s realistically not going to work, because it compromises clinical efficiency,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

While physicians should not be forced to use complete words in documentation, they should be wary of patients’ unfamiliarity with abbreviations as they communicate in person.

“I use terms like ED constantly when I talk to patients, and it turns out that only 67% of patients understand what you’re talking about when you say ED in reference to the emergency department. So it’s important to be mindful of that,” Dr. Grossman Liu concluded.

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

The continuing changes in medicine have led to a significant erosion of physician autonomy, and to ever-increasing administrative burdens that affect small practices far more severely than larger ones. While there are some smaller offices offering unique services that may be able to remain small, most small general practices will be forced to at least consider a larger alternative. Recently, I discussed one option – merging individual practices into a larger one – but others are available.

One alternate strategy is to form a cooperative group. If you look around your area of practice, you will likely find other small practices in similar situations that might be willing to collaborate with you for the purpose of pooling your billing and purchasing resources. This allows each participant to maintain independence, yet share office overhead expenses and employee salaries for mutual benefit. If that arrangement works, and remains satisfactory for all participants, you can consider expanding your sharing of expenditures, such as collective purchasing of supplies and equipment, and centralizing appointment scheduling. Such an arrangement might be particularly attractive to physicians in later stages of their careers who need to alleviate financial burdens but don’t wish to close up shop just yet.

After more time has passed, if everyone remains happy with the arrangement, an outright merger can be considered, allowing the group to negotiate higher insurance remunerations and even lower overhead costs. Obviously, projects of this size and scope require careful planning and implementation, and should not be undertaken without the help of competent legal counsel and an experienced business consultant.

Another option is to join an independent practice association (IPA), if one is operating in your area. IPAs are physician-directed legal entities, formed to provide the same advantages enjoyed by large group practices while allowing individual members to remain independent. IPAs have greater purchasing power, allowing members to cut costs on medical and office supplies. They can also negotiate more favorable contracts with insurance companies and other payers.

Before joining such an organization, examine its legal status carefully. Some IPAs have been charged with antitrust violations because their member practices are, in reality, competitors. Make certain that any IPA you consider joining abides by antitrust and price fixing laws. Look carefully at its financial solvency as well, as IPAs have also been known to fail, leaving former members to pick up the tab.

An alternative to the IPA is the accountable care organization (ACO), a relatively new entity created as part of the Affordable Care Act. Like an IPA, an ACO’s basic purpose is to limit unnecessary spending; but ACOs are typically limited to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and involve a larger network of doctors and hospitals sharing financial and medical responsibility for patient care. Criteria for limits on spending are established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

ACOs offer financial incentives to cooperate, and to save money by avoiding unnecessary tests and procedures. A key component is the sharing of information. Providers who save money while also meeting quality targets are theoretically entitled to a portion of the savings. According to federal data, ACOs saved Medicare $4.1 billion in 2020). As of January 2022, 483 ACOs were participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program. A similar entity designed for private-sector patients is the clinically integrated network (CIN), created by the Federal Trade Commission to serve the commercial or self-insured market, while ACOs treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. Like ACOs, the idea is to work together to improve care and reduce costs by sharing records and tracking data.

When joining any group, read the agreement carefully for any clauses that might infringe on your clinical judgment. In particular, be sure that there are no restrictions on patient treatment or physician referral options for your patients. You should also negotiate an escape clause, allowing you to opt out if you become unhappy with the arrangement.

Clearly, the price of remaining autonomous is significant, and many private practitioners are unwilling to pay it. In 2019, the American Medical Association reported that for the first time, there were fewer physician owners (45.9%) than employees (47.4%).

But as I have written many times, those of us who remain committed to independence will find ways to preserve it. In medicine, as in life, those most responsive to change will survive and flourish.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The continuing changes in medicine have led to a significant erosion of physician autonomy, and to ever-increasing administrative burdens that affect small practices far more severely than larger ones. While there are some smaller offices offering unique services that may be able to remain small, most small general practices will be forced to at least consider a larger alternative. Recently, I discussed one option – merging individual practices into a larger one – but others are available.

One alternate strategy is to form a cooperative group. If you look around your area of practice, you will likely find other small practices in similar situations that might be willing to collaborate with you for the purpose of pooling your billing and purchasing resources. This allows each participant to maintain independence, yet share office overhead expenses and employee salaries for mutual benefit. If that arrangement works, and remains satisfactory for all participants, you can consider expanding your sharing of expenditures, such as collective purchasing of supplies and equipment, and centralizing appointment scheduling. Such an arrangement might be particularly attractive to physicians in later stages of their careers who need to alleviate financial burdens but don’t wish to close up shop just yet.

After more time has passed, if everyone remains happy with the arrangement, an outright merger can be considered, allowing the group to negotiate higher insurance remunerations and even lower overhead costs. Obviously, projects of this size and scope require careful planning and implementation, and should not be undertaken without the help of competent legal counsel and an experienced business consultant.

Another option is to join an independent practice association (IPA), if one is operating in your area. IPAs are physician-directed legal entities, formed to provide the same advantages enjoyed by large group practices while allowing individual members to remain independent. IPAs have greater purchasing power, allowing members to cut costs on medical and office supplies. They can also negotiate more favorable contracts with insurance companies and other payers.

Before joining such an organization, examine its legal status carefully. Some IPAs have been charged with antitrust violations because their member practices are, in reality, competitors. Make certain that any IPA you consider joining abides by antitrust and price fixing laws. Look carefully at its financial solvency as well, as IPAs have also been known to fail, leaving former members to pick up the tab.

An alternative to the IPA is the accountable care organization (ACO), a relatively new entity created as part of the Affordable Care Act. Like an IPA, an ACO’s basic purpose is to limit unnecessary spending; but ACOs are typically limited to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and involve a larger network of doctors and hospitals sharing financial and medical responsibility for patient care. Criteria for limits on spending are established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

ACOs offer financial incentives to cooperate, and to save money by avoiding unnecessary tests and procedures. A key component is the sharing of information. Providers who save money while also meeting quality targets are theoretically entitled to a portion of the savings. According to federal data, ACOs saved Medicare $4.1 billion in 2020). As of January 2022, 483 ACOs were participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program. A similar entity designed for private-sector patients is the clinically integrated network (CIN), created by the Federal Trade Commission to serve the commercial or self-insured market, while ACOs treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. Like ACOs, the idea is to work together to improve care and reduce costs by sharing records and tracking data.

When joining any group, read the agreement carefully for any clauses that might infringe on your clinical judgment. In particular, be sure that there are no restrictions on patient treatment or physician referral options for your patients. You should also negotiate an escape clause, allowing you to opt out if you become unhappy with the arrangement.

Clearly, the price of remaining autonomous is significant, and many private practitioners are unwilling to pay it. In 2019, the American Medical Association reported that for the first time, there were fewer physician owners (45.9%) than employees (47.4%).

But as I have written many times, those of us who remain committed to independence will find ways to preserve it. In medicine, as in life, those most responsive to change will survive and flourish.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The continuing changes in medicine have led to a significant erosion of physician autonomy, and to ever-increasing administrative burdens that affect small practices far more severely than larger ones. While there are some smaller offices offering unique services that may be able to remain small, most small general practices will be forced to at least consider a larger alternative. Recently, I discussed one option – merging individual practices into a larger one – but others are available.

One alternate strategy is to form a cooperative group. If you look around your area of practice, you will likely find other small practices in similar situations that might be willing to collaborate with you for the purpose of pooling your billing and purchasing resources. This allows each participant to maintain independence, yet share office overhead expenses and employee salaries for mutual benefit. If that arrangement works, and remains satisfactory for all participants, you can consider expanding your sharing of expenditures, such as collective purchasing of supplies and equipment, and centralizing appointment scheduling. Such an arrangement might be particularly attractive to physicians in later stages of their careers who need to alleviate financial burdens but don’t wish to close up shop just yet.

After more time has passed, if everyone remains happy with the arrangement, an outright merger can be considered, allowing the group to negotiate higher insurance remunerations and even lower overhead costs. Obviously, projects of this size and scope require careful planning and implementation, and should not be undertaken without the help of competent legal counsel and an experienced business consultant.

Another option is to join an independent practice association (IPA), if one is operating in your area. IPAs are physician-directed legal entities, formed to provide the same advantages enjoyed by large group practices while allowing individual members to remain independent. IPAs have greater purchasing power, allowing members to cut costs on medical and office supplies. They can also negotiate more favorable contracts with insurance companies and other payers.

Before joining such an organization, examine its legal status carefully. Some IPAs have been charged with antitrust violations because their member practices are, in reality, competitors. Make certain that any IPA you consider joining abides by antitrust and price fixing laws. Look carefully at its financial solvency as well, as IPAs have also been known to fail, leaving former members to pick up the tab.

An alternative to the IPA is the accountable care organization (ACO), a relatively new entity created as part of the Affordable Care Act. Like an IPA, an ACO’s basic purpose is to limit unnecessary spending; but ACOs are typically limited to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and involve a larger network of doctors and hospitals sharing financial and medical responsibility for patient care. Criteria for limits on spending are established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

ACOs offer financial incentives to cooperate, and to save money by avoiding unnecessary tests and procedures. A key component is the sharing of information. Providers who save money while also meeting quality targets are theoretically entitled to a portion of the savings. According to federal data, ACOs saved Medicare $4.1 billion in 2020). As of January 2022, 483 ACOs were participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program. A similar entity designed for private-sector patients is the clinically integrated network (CIN), created by the Federal Trade Commission to serve the commercial or self-insured market, while ACOs treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. Like ACOs, the idea is to work together to improve care and reduce costs by sharing records and tracking data.

When joining any group, read the agreement carefully for any clauses that might infringe on your clinical judgment. In particular, be sure that there are no restrictions on patient treatment or physician referral options for your patients. You should also negotiate an escape clause, allowing you to opt out if you become unhappy with the arrangement.

Clearly, the price of remaining autonomous is significant, and many private practitioners are unwilling to pay it. In 2019, the American Medical Association reported that for the first time, there were fewer physician owners (45.9%) than employees (47.4%).

But as I have written many times, those of us who remain committed to independence will find ways to preserve it. In medicine, as in life, those most responsive to change will survive and flourish.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Only 43% of early child care programs in the United States met guidelines for both sufficient opportunities outdoors and 60-90 minutes of physical activity daily, according to researchers.

To date, no national study has examined these factors, according to Maria H. Boyle, MS, RD, with Abt Associates in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. They conducted the study published online in Pediatrics.

The results came “even employing a relatively lenient interpretation of the guidance,” the authors noted, and have particular significance because about 60% of preschool children in the United States are enrolled in center-based care.

Nearly three-fourths of the programs (74%) met the outdoor-opportunities guideline, but only 50% met the physical activity guideline.

Caring for Our Children (CFOC) guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends at least two outdoor physical activity opportunities (weather permitting) and at least 60-90 minutes allotted for moderate and vigorous physical activities each day during care for children aged 1-6 years.

Still, “children are frequently observed to be sedentary or inactive when in child care settings,” the authors wrote.

They found that some of the main barriers included weather and staff not joining outdoor play.

The researchers used the Study of Nutrition and Activity in Child Care Settings (SNACS), which assesses opportunities for physical activity opportunities and sedentary occasions for children aged 1-5 years at programs participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Their sample included 227 classrooms: 96 in child care centers and 131 in Head Start programs.

On 1 day (from February to July 2017) an observer in each sampled classroom recorded whether there were designated outdoor and indoor spaces for physical activity, whether that was a playground or other outdoor play space, such as a field, grassy area, or other open area, or parking lot used for play.

They looked for a separate indoor room or gym for active play and how many minutes the class spent in these spaces, and whether there were physical activity facilitators. They made note of barriers, including weather that was too hot or too cold or involved precipitation.

The data show that while almost all programs observed (97%) had dedicated outdoor play space, only 34% had a separate dedicated indoor play space – a gym, for example, or another room separate from main classrooms.

“Of those without a separate indoor play space, virtually all (99.8%) indicated a classroom was available for indoor play.”


 

Weather and staff not participating in play are barriers

After adjustment for program characteristics, weather barriers resulted in an average 74 fewer minutes daily allotted to physical activity (P < .001).

Another large barrier was staff not participating in play. That was associated with 31 fewer minutes per day allotted for physical activity (P < .001).

“Given the critical role of child care staff as gatekeepers in allowing and encouraging physical activity, it is as important to measure sedentary time when children are not permitted to be active as to measure time when they have opportunity to be active,” the authors wrote. “Best practice guidelines emphasize limiting time children are expected to stay seated during care.”

William Roberts, MD, professor in the department of family medicine and community health at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, said in an interview that the findings in this paper help quantify a public health concern as inactivity early sets a harmful precedent.

“Inactive kids too often become inactive adults subject to the long list of noncommunicable chronic diseases associated with lack of regular exercise,” he said.

Lack of movement in childhood, in a program setting or at home, contributes to the obesity epidemic, he pointed out.

“They also do not develop the motor and social skills associated with free play and physical activity,” he said.

He said the findings in this study can guide questions when choosing a child care program. He noted that parents should ask: “What are the opportunities for free play and physical activity?”

The authors and Dr. Roberts declared no relevant financial relationships.

Only 43% of early child care programs in the United States met guidelines for both sufficient opportunities outdoors and 60-90 minutes of physical activity daily, according to researchers.

To date, no national study has examined these factors, according to Maria H. Boyle, MS, RD, with Abt Associates in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. They conducted the study published online in Pediatrics.

The results came “even employing a relatively lenient interpretation of the guidance,” the authors noted, and have particular significance because about 60% of preschool children in the United States are enrolled in center-based care.

Nearly three-fourths of the programs (74%) met the outdoor-opportunities guideline, but only 50% met the physical activity guideline.

Caring for Our Children (CFOC) guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends at least two outdoor physical activity opportunities (weather permitting) and at least 60-90 minutes allotted for moderate and vigorous physical activities each day during care for children aged 1-6 years.

Still, “children are frequently observed to be sedentary or inactive when in child care settings,” the authors wrote.

They found that some of the main barriers included weather and staff not joining outdoor play.

The researchers used the Study of Nutrition and Activity in Child Care Settings (SNACS), which assesses opportunities for physical activity opportunities and sedentary occasions for children aged 1-5 years at programs participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Their sample included 227 classrooms: 96 in child care centers and 131 in Head Start programs.

On 1 day (from February to July 2017) an observer in each sampled classroom recorded whether there were designated outdoor and indoor spaces for physical activity, whether that was a playground or other outdoor play space, such as a field, grassy area, or other open area, or parking lot used for play.

They looked for a separate indoor room or gym for active play and how many minutes the class spent in these spaces, and whether there were physical activity facilitators. They made note of barriers, including weather that was too hot or too cold or involved precipitation.

The data show that while almost all programs observed (97%) had dedicated outdoor play space, only 34% had a separate dedicated indoor play space – a gym, for example, or another room separate from main classrooms.

“Of those without a separate indoor play space, virtually all (99.8%) indicated a classroom was available for indoor play.”


 

Weather and staff not participating in play are barriers

After adjustment for program characteristics, weather barriers resulted in an average 74 fewer minutes daily allotted to physical activity (P < .001).

Another large barrier was staff not participating in play. That was associated with 31 fewer minutes per day allotted for physical activity (P < .001).

“Given the critical role of child care staff as gatekeepers in allowing and encouraging physical activity, it is as important to measure sedentary time when children are not permitted to be active as to measure time when they have opportunity to be active,” the authors wrote. “Best practice guidelines emphasize limiting time children are expected to stay seated during care.”

William Roberts, MD, professor in the department of family medicine and community health at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, said in an interview that the findings in this paper help quantify a public health concern as inactivity early sets a harmful precedent.

“Inactive kids too often become inactive adults subject to the long list of noncommunicable chronic diseases associated with lack of regular exercise,” he said.

Lack of movement in childhood, in a program setting or at home, contributes to the obesity epidemic, he pointed out.

“They also do not develop the motor and social skills associated with free play and physical activity,” he said.

He said the findings in this study can guide questions when choosing a child care program. He noted that parents should ask: “What are the opportunities for free play and physical activity?”

The authors and Dr. Roberts declared no relevant financial relationships.

Only 43% of early child care programs in the United States met guidelines for both sufficient opportunities outdoors and 60-90 minutes of physical activity daily, according to researchers.

To date, no national study has examined these factors, according to Maria H. Boyle, MS, RD, with Abt Associates in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. They conducted the study published online in Pediatrics.

The results came “even employing a relatively lenient interpretation of the guidance,” the authors noted, and have particular significance because about 60% of preschool children in the United States are enrolled in center-based care.

Nearly three-fourths of the programs (74%) met the outdoor-opportunities guideline, but only 50% met the physical activity guideline.

Caring for Our Children (CFOC) guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends at least two outdoor physical activity opportunities (weather permitting) and at least 60-90 minutes allotted for moderate and vigorous physical activities each day during care for children aged 1-6 years.

Still, “children are frequently observed to be sedentary or inactive when in child care settings,” the authors wrote.

They found that some of the main barriers included weather and staff not joining outdoor play.

The researchers used the Study of Nutrition and Activity in Child Care Settings (SNACS), which assesses opportunities for physical activity opportunities and sedentary occasions for children aged 1-5 years at programs participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Their sample included 227 classrooms: 96 in child care centers and 131 in Head Start programs.

On 1 day (from February to July 2017) an observer in each sampled classroom recorded whether there were designated outdoor and indoor spaces for physical activity, whether that was a playground or other outdoor play space, such as a field, grassy area, or other open area, or parking lot used for play.

They looked for a separate indoor room or gym for active play and how many minutes the class spent in these spaces, and whether there were physical activity facilitators. They made note of barriers, including weather that was too hot or too cold or involved precipitation.

The data show that while almost all programs observed (97%) had dedicated outdoor play space, only 34% had a separate dedicated indoor play space – a gym, for example, or another room separate from main classrooms.

“Of those without a separate indoor play space, virtually all (99.8%) indicated a classroom was available for indoor play.”


 

Weather and staff not participating in play are barriers

After adjustment for program characteristics, weather barriers resulted in an average 74 fewer minutes daily allotted to physical activity (P < .001).

Another large barrier was staff not participating in play. That was associated with 31 fewer minutes per day allotted for physical activity (P < .001).

“Given the critical role of child care staff as gatekeepers in allowing and encouraging physical activity, it is as important to measure sedentary time when children are not permitted to be active as to measure time when they have opportunity to be active,” the authors wrote. “Best practice guidelines emphasize limiting time children are expected to stay seated during care.”

William Roberts, MD, professor in the department of family medicine and community health at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, said in an interview that the findings in this paper help quantify a public health concern as inactivity early sets a harmful precedent.

“Inactive kids too often become inactive adults subject to the long list of noncommunicable chronic diseases associated with lack of regular exercise,” he said.

Lack of movement in childhood, in a program setting or at home, contributes to the obesity epidemic, he pointed out.

“They also do not develop the motor and social skills associated with free play and physical activity,” he said.

He said the findings in this study can guide questions when choosing a child care program. He noted that parents should ask: “What are the opportunities for free play and physical activity?”

The authors and Dr. Roberts declared no relevant financial relationships.