A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), told this news organization. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between August 26 and August 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, who is assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she says.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, says Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” says Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she says.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. Earlier this month, the American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to a boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” says Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” says Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

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

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), told this news organization. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between August 26 and August 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, who is assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she says.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, says Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” says Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she says.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. Earlier this month, the American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to a boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” says Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” says Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

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

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), told this news organization. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between August 26 and August 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, who is assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she says.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, says Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” says Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she says.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. Earlier this month, the American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to a boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” says Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” says Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

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

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Deployments in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and traumatic events such as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks affect everyone, but military personnel and veterans face unique circumstances that can present challenges to treatment. Much progress has been made in recent years in treating people with posttraumatic stress disorder and helping them recover after traumatic events.

asiseeit/Getty Images

To explore some of those changes and challenges, this news organization interviewed Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, who retired from the Army in 2010 after assignments and missions that took her to Korea, Somalia, Iraq, and Cuba, about her approaches to treating soldiers and veterans.

Dr. Ritchie is chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, and a professor of psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., and at Georgetown University and George Washington University, both in Washington.

She is the author of 250 publications, including the book, “Forensic and Ethical Issues in Military Behavioral Health” (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.: Borden Institute, 2015). In addition, Dr. Ritchie is coeditor of “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Related Diseases in Combat Veterans” (New York: Springer, 2015) and “Psychiatrists in Combat, Clinicians Experience in the War Zone” (New York: Springer, 2017).
 

Question: What are some of the interventions available in the aftermath of traumatic events?

Answer: What we thought the standard of care should be after a traumatic event was to have what’s called a critical incident stress debriefing (CISD). It was basically getting the members of the group who had been traumatized by a school shooting or plane crash, or the Oklahoma City bombing, getting them all together literally a few hours after the event, and having them tell what happened. And the idea is to get it all out. But what we discovered is that this could actually make people worse, because you’d be hearing not only about your own trauma, but other people’s traumas, and that it was too soon for the event.

So prior to 9/11, we had organized a conference, which was held in October 2001, just a month after 9/11. At that conference, we worked on mass violence and early intervention, which is the name of the book that came out from the (National Institute of Mental Health) as a result. It focused on basic principles of safety and security and communication, and knowing where your family was, rather than reliving the trauma. Now, we did think that sometimes you could have a CISD that would be helpful, but only when it was people who knew each other well, like an ED group who would work with each other or soldiers who served together.
 

Q: What was your involvement in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

A: At the time of 9/11, I was assigned at the Pentagon, but I wasn’t there. When the plane hit, I was actually across the river at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. And then for the next 3 weeks, all I did was work at the Pentagon. We used some of these principles of early intervention but not focusing on telling us what happened right afterward. We focused on how the service members and their families were coping in the here and now, and how they could support each other.

We knew that soldiers would not come out of their offices to go to a therapist. They are too strong for that. So, we did what was called “therapy by walking around.” We went to the service members’ offices.

There was also a Family Assistance Center. That was for the families of the people who died. And that was very helpful because you had all the services there in one place – medical care, mental health care, therapy dogs, massage, the people who collected the DNA to identify remains. You had it in one place, the Sheraton in Crystal City, Va.. That has become a model now, especially for mass transportation fatalities. There are a lot more in the literature about Family Assistance Centers now, mainly formed by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Right after 9/11, we went to war in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, and we had a lot of soldiers who developed both PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI). One of the good things that the military can do is they can really innovate with both medical treatment and mental health treatment because they don’t have to ask for an insurance company to pay for it. So for some years, starting in about 2004, Congress allocated a large sum of money every year to the Department of Defense to focus on treatment for PTSD and TBI.

And as a result of that, a couple of things happened. One was that the treatments that we had, we were able to study much better, exposure therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. We were able to do large trials, and then we continued with the use of medications when necessary. There are only two (Food and Drug Administration)–approved medicines for the treatment of PTSD: sertraline and paroxetine, but many others are used.

We also learned what didn’t work and what soldiers would not take. Most of these medications have sexual side effects. If you’re a young, healthy soldier, you really don’t want to be taking something that causes you erectile dysfunction, or in women a loss of libido. So many people wouldn’t take these therapies. As for exposure therapy, if you got into it and completed the program, usually your PTSD symptoms went down. But many people couldn’t complete it. In the exposure therapy, you’re talking about whatever trauma you’ve been through – maybe your best friend died next to you, and you don’t want to talk about that all the time.

When I talk to patients about this, I say the first bucket is medication, the second bucket is therapy, and the third bucket is everything else. And everything else includes meditation, yoga, exercise, and it also involves working with animals. There are programs where you’re paired with a service dog, who helps calm you down, and you feel protected.

One of my favorites is called Warrior Canine Connection, where a soldier with PTSD trains a puppy to become a service animal. And in the training of the dog, you have to learn to control your emotions, you have to modulate your voice, you have to appear calm. Often soldiers have a background that they’re familiar with animals, especially dogs. So that’s been very successful.

A couple of other (treatments) to mention one is called stellate ganglion block, where a little lidocaine is injected into the back of the cervical spine. It was used initially for pain control, and they found that it was actually very helpful for PTSD. Another thing we’ve learned is that pain and PTSD often go hand in hand, because if you’re in pain, you’ll be feeling awful, you won’t sleep well, you’ll have more nightmares. But if you can control both of them together, then that’s going to help.
 

Q: One issue that veterans may face is moral injury. Can you talk about that?

A: Moral injury is a term that was first used after Vietnam. Moral injury is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It is feelings of shame and guilt that can be very corrosive and can lead to suicide. It overlaps with PTSD. You feel either you’ve let yourself down, or the government has let you down. And this can be very corrosive. Another thing that could happen is, say, you switched your tour of duty with a buddy, and he got killed and you didn’t. A very common scenario is you’re manning a checkpoint, and a car comes at you and doesn’t stop like it’s supposed to. You do what you’ve been trained to do, which is open fire, and check on the car afterward. And there’s four little kids and their parents in the car all dead. And that is something that even though that was your sort of duty, that it still eats at you because you have kids the same age as the ones who were dead in the car.

You can still have these feelings of shame and guilt, and it will often bleed into your relationships with your family. And that can lead to distance and divorce, which is a further risk factor for suicide.
 

Q: Are there are any specific treatments that have been designed for moral injury, different from PTSD or other conditions?

A: The Armed Services has set up a number of intensive programs at different places, and each is a little bit different. They usually integrate moral injury in with some of the other treatments. There was one at Fort Bliss, Tex., that had reiki; they had art therapy. And they had the chaplains working on moral injury. So there’s no medical treatment for it, but there certainly is talking about it, and for some people to go to a chaplain can be very helpful.

There’s a Military Health System Centers of Excellence, which is a place by the new Walter Reed on the campus, they have a marvelous wall full of masks. And the masks have been painted by soldiers with usually a combination of PTSD, TBI, and although it’s not an official psychiatric diagnosis, moral injury. They’re able to draw and paint. Another thing that’s been used quite a bit as writing therapy, and journaling, and just writing down how you feel about something, because you can do that without retraumatizing anybody else, except perhaps if you are working with a therapist.

Q: For therapists who are treating soldiers, veterans, are there specific challenges that they should be aware of? Are these patients maybe different from the patients that they might otherwise see? Are there specific pieces of advice as to how to engage them?

A: There are a few things that are different. One is that many people in the military are not used to talking about their feelings. And that’s especially if you’ve got a young man who only grunts and says: “Hooah!” That is going to be hard to break through. And that’s why some of these other ways of reaching somebody is very effective. Also, the military likes to have physical activity; they’re usually not comfortable sitting in a chair. If you’re a civilian psychiatrist, I don’t expect you to go bungee jumping with your patients. But what I’d recommend is that you recommend to your patients that they stay active.

Another thing about veterans is that they like to be self-sufficient. They really don’t like to ask for help, although they might ask for help for their buddy. After the Pentagon and 9/11, when I was working with senior officers, they never needed any help. No, but their buddy over here might, so I could help them in the guise of providing care for their buddy in a group setting. We could work with everybody and enhance cohesion, morale, bonding, “we’re all in this together” type of feeling.

I think one thing that’s really improved is that there is less stigma around PTSD. People are more willing to present for help, and some people have called PTSD the Purple Heart of mental disorders. People don’t feel like it’s as bad as having depression or anxiety. Even though PTSD often has depression and anxiety components to it – they run hand in hand – still, it’s sort of more honorable if you’ve been at war and have gotten PTSD.
 

Q: How have you been faring yourself, in the face of the 9/11 anniversary and recent events in Afghanistan?

A: (The Sept. 11 weekend) was very sad for me – and a lot of my colleagues [with] the combination of the 20th anniversary of 9/11, and the recent development. Fortunately, I have friends and people I can talk to. I walked with a colleague of mine who was in the Army. I’m following my own rule of the three buckets, so we took a walk around the hospital center for about 45 minutes, and we have five fish ponds here. And we went and looked at the fish, and talked to the fish. At the National Rehab Hospital, they were playing the guitar. So there’s are a variety of things that people can do.
 

Deployments in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and traumatic events such as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks affect everyone, but military personnel and veterans face unique circumstances that can present challenges to treatment. Much progress has been made in recent years in treating people with posttraumatic stress disorder and helping them recover after traumatic events.

asiseeit/Getty Images

To explore some of those changes and challenges, this news organization interviewed Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, who retired from the Army in 2010 after assignments and missions that took her to Korea, Somalia, Iraq, and Cuba, about her approaches to treating soldiers and veterans.

Dr. Ritchie is chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, and a professor of psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., and at Georgetown University and George Washington University, both in Washington.

She is the author of 250 publications, including the book, “Forensic and Ethical Issues in Military Behavioral Health” (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.: Borden Institute, 2015). In addition, Dr. Ritchie is coeditor of “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Related Diseases in Combat Veterans” (New York: Springer, 2015) and “Psychiatrists in Combat, Clinicians Experience in the War Zone” (New York: Springer, 2017).
 

Question: What are some of the interventions available in the aftermath of traumatic events?

Answer: What we thought the standard of care should be after a traumatic event was to have what’s called a critical incident stress debriefing (CISD). It was basically getting the members of the group who had been traumatized by a school shooting or plane crash, or the Oklahoma City bombing, getting them all together literally a few hours after the event, and having them tell what happened. And the idea is to get it all out. But what we discovered is that this could actually make people worse, because you’d be hearing not only about your own trauma, but other people’s traumas, and that it was too soon for the event.

So prior to 9/11, we had organized a conference, which was held in October 2001, just a month after 9/11. At that conference, we worked on mass violence and early intervention, which is the name of the book that came out from the (National Institute of Mental Health) as a result. It focused on basic principles of safety and security and communication, and knowing where your family was, rather than reliving the trauma. Now, we did think that sometimes you could have a CISD that would be helpful, but only when it was people who knew each other well, like an ED group who would work with each other or soldiers who served together.
 

Q: What was your involvement in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

A: At the time of 9/11, I was assigned at the Pentagon, but I wasn’t there. When the plane hit, I was actually across the river at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. And then for the next 3 weeks, all I did was work at the Pentagon. We used some of these principles of early intervention but not focusing on telling us what happened right afterward. We focused on how the service members and their families were coping in the here and now, and how they could support each other.

We knew that soldiers would not come out of their offices to go to a therapist. They are too strong for that. So, we did what was called “therapy by walking around.” We went to the service members’ offices.

There was also a Family Assistance Center. That was for the families of the people who died. And that was very helpful because you had all the services there in one place – medical care, mental health care, therapy dogs, massage, the people who collected the DNA to identify remains. You had it in one place, the Sheraton in Crystal City, Va.. That has become a model now, especially for mass transportation fatalities. There are a lot more in the literature about Family Assistance Centers now, mainly formed by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Right after 9/11, we went to war in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, and we had a lot of soldiers who developed both PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI). One of the good things that the military can do is they can really innovate with both medical treatment and mental health treatment because they don’t have to ask for an insurance company to pay for it. So for some years, starting in about 2004, Congress allocated a large sum of money every year to the Department of Defense to focus on treatment for PTSD and TBI.

And as a result of that, a couple of things happened. One was that the treatments that we had, we were able to study much better, exposure therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. We were able to do large trials, and then we continued with the use of medications when necessary. There are only two (Food and Drug Administration)–approved medicines for the treatment of PTSD: sertraline and paroxetine, but many others are used.

We also learned what didn’t work and what soldiers would not take. Most of these medications have sexual side effects. If you’re a young, healthy soldier, you really don’t want to be taking something that causes you erectile dysfunction, or in women a loss of libido. So many people wouldn’t take these therapies. As for exposure therapy, if you got into it and completed the program, usually your PTSD symptoms went down. But many people couldn’t complete it. In the exposure therapy, you’re talking about whatever trauma you’ve been through – maybe your best friend died next to you, and you don’t want to talk about that all the time.

When I talk to patients about this, I say the first bucket is medication, the second bucket is therapy, and the third bucket is everything else. And everything else includes meditation, yoga, exercise, and it also involves working with animals. There are programs where you’re paired with a service dog, who helps calm you down, and you feel protected.

One of my favorites is called Warrior Canine Connection, where a soldier with PTSD trains a puppy to become a service animal. And in the training of the dog, you have to learn to control your emotions, you have to modulate your voice, you have to appear calm. Often soldiers have a background that they’re familiar with animals, especially dogs. So that’s been very successful.

A couple of other (treatments) to mention one is called stellate ganglion block, where a little lidocaine is injected into the back of the cervical spine. It was used initially for pain control, and they found that it was actually very helpful for PTSD. Another thing we’ve learned is that pain and PTSD often go hand in hand, because if you’re in pain, you’ll be feeling awful, you won’t sleep well, you’ll have more nightmares. But if you can control both of them together, then that’s going to help.
 

Q: One issue that veterans may face is moral injury. Can you talk about that?

A: Moral injury is a term that was first used after Vietnam. Moral injury is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It is feelings of shame and guilt that can be very corrosive and can lead to suicide. It overlaps with PTSD. You feel either you’ve let yourself down, or the government has let you down. And this can be very corrosive. Another thing that could happen is, say, you switched your tour of duty with a buddy, and he got killed and you didn’t. A very common scenario is you’re manning a checkpoint, and a car comes at you and doesn’t stop like it’s supposed to. You do what you’ve been trained to do, which is open fire, and check on the car afterward. And there’s four little kids and their parents in the car all dead. And that is something that even though that was your sort of duty, that it still eats at you because you have kids the same age as the ones who were dead in the car.

You can still have these feelings of shame and guilt, and it will often bleed into your relationships with your family. And that can lead to distance and divorce, which is a further risk factor for suicide.
 

Q: Are there are any specific treatments that have been designed for moral injury, different from PTSD or other conditions?

A: The Armed Services has set up a number of intensive programs at different places, and each is a little bit different. They usually integrate moral injury in with some of the other treatments. There was one at Fort Bliss, Tex., that had reiki; they had art therapy. And they had the chaplains working on moral injury. So there’s no medical treatment for it, but there certainly is talking about it, and for some people to go to a chaplain can be very helpful.

There’s a Military Health System Centers of Excellence, which is a place by the new Walter Reed on the campus, they have a marvelous wall full of masks. And the masks have been painted by soldiers with usually a combination of PTSD, TBI, and although it’s not an official psychiatric diagnosis, moral injury. They’re able to draw and paint. Another thing that’s been used quite a bit as writing therapy, and journaling, and just writing down how you feel about something, because you can do that without retraumatizing anybody else, except perhaps if you are working with a therapist.

Q: For therapists who are treating soldiers, veterans, are there specific challenges that they should be aware of? Are these patients maybe different from the patients that they might otherwise see? Are there specific pieces of advice as to how to engage them?

A: There are a few things that are different. One is that many people in the military are not used to talking about their feelings. And that’s especially if you’ve got a young man who only grunts and says: “Hooah!” That is going to be hard to break through. And that’s why some of these other ways of reaching somebody is very effective. Also, the military likes to have physical activity; they’re usually not comfortable sitting in a chair. If you’re a civilian psychiatrist, I don’t expect you to go bungee jumping with your patients. But what I’d recommend is that you recommend to your patients that they stay active.

Another thing about veterans is that they like to be self-sufficient. They really don’t like to ask for help, although they might ask for help for their buddy. After the Pentagon and 9/11, when I was working with senior officers, they never needed any help. No, but their buddy over here might, so I could help them in the guise of providing care for their buddy in a group setting. We could work with everybody and enhance cohesion, morale, bonding, “we’re all in this together” type of feeling.

I think one thing that’s really improved is that there is less stigma around PTSD. People are more willing to present for help, and some people have called PTSD the Purple Heart of mental disorders. People don’t feel like it’s as bad as having depression or anxiety. Even though PTSD often has depression and anxiety components to it – they run hand in hand – still, it’s sort of more honorable if you’ve been at war and have gotten PTSD.
 

Q: How have you been faring yourself, in the face of the 9/11 anniversary and recent events in Afghanistan?

A: (The Sept. 11 weekend) was very sad for me – and a lot of my colleagues [with] the combination of the 20th anniversary of 9/11, and the recent development. Fortunately, I have friends and people I can talk to. I walked with a colleague of mine who was in the Army. I’m following my own rule of the three buckets, so we took a walk around the hospital center for about 45 minutes, and we have five fish ponds here. And we went and looked at the fish, and talked to the fish. At the National Rehab Hospital, they were playing the guitar. So there’s are a variety of things that people can do.
 

Deployments in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and traumatic events such as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks affect everyone, but military personnel and veterans face unique circumstances that can present challenges to treatment. Much progress has been made in recent years in treating people with posttraumatic stress disorder and helping them recover after traumatic events.

asiseeit/Getty Images

To explore some of those changes and challenges, this news organization interviewed Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, who retired from the Army in 2010 after assignments and missions that took her to Korea, Somalia, Iraq, and Cuba, about her approaches to treating soldiers and veterans.

Dr. Ritchie is chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, and a professor of psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., and at Georgetown University and George Washington University, both in Washington.

She is the author of 250 publications, including the book, “Forensic and Ethical Issues in Military Behavioral Health” (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.: Borden Institute, 2015). In addition, Dr. Ritchie is coeditor of “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Related Diseases in Combat Veterans” (New York: Springer, 2015) and “Psychiatrists in Combat, Clinicians Experience in the War Zone” (New York: Springer, 2017).
 

Question: What are some of the interventions available in the aftermath of traumatic events?

Answer: What we thought the standard of care should be after a traumatic event was to have what’s called a critical incident stress debriefing (CISD). It was basically getting the members of the group who had been traumatized by a school shooting or plane crash, or the Oklahoma City bombing, getting them all together literally a few hours after the event, and having them tell what happened. And the idea is to get it all out. But what we discovered is that this could actually make people worse, because you’d be hearing not only about your own trauma, but other people’s traumas, and that it was too soon for the event.

So prior to 9/11, we had organized a conference, which was held in October 2001, just a month after 9/11. At that conference, we worked on mass violence and early intervention, which is the name of the book that came out from the (National Institute of Mental Health) as a result. It focused on basic principles of safety and security and communication, and knowing where your family was, rather than reliving the trauma. Now, we did think that sometimes you could have a CISD that would be helpful, but only when it was people who knew each other well, like an ED group who would work with each other or soldiers who served together.
 

Q: What was your involvement in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

A: At the time of 9/11, I was assigned at the Pentagon, but I wasn’t there. When the plane hit, I was actually across the river at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. And then for the next 3 weeks, all I did was work at the Pentagon. We used some of these principles of early intervention but not focusing on telling us what happened right afterward. We focused on how the service members and their families were coping in the here and now, and how they could support each other.

We knew that soldiers would not come out of their offices to go to a therapist. They are too strong for that. So, we did what was called “therapy by walking around.” We went to the service members’ offices.

There was also a Family Assistance Center. That was for the families of the people who died. And that was very helpful because you had all the services there in one place – medical care, mental health care, therapy dogs, massage, the people who collected the DNA to identify remains. You had it in one place, the Sheraton in Crystal City, Va.. That has become a model now, especially for mass transportation fatalities. There are a lot more in the literature about Family Assistance Centers now, mainly formed by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Right after 9/11, we went to war in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, and we had a lot of soldiers who developed both PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI). One of the good things that the military can do is they can really innovate with both medical treatment and mental health treatment because they don’t have to ask for an insurance company to pay for it. So for some years, starting in about 2004, Congress allocated a large sum of money every year to the Department of Defense to focus on treatment for PTSD and TBI.

And as a result of that, a couple of things happened. One was that the treatments that we had, we were able to study much better, exposure therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. We were able to do large trials, and then we continued with the use of medications when necessary. There are only two (Food and Drug Administration)–approved medicines for the treatment of PTSD: sertraline and paroxetine, but many others are used.

We also learned what didn’t work and what soldiers would not take. Most of these medications have sexual side effects. If you’re a young, healthy soldier, you really don’t want to be taking something that causes you erectile dysfunction, or in women a loss of libido. So many people wouldn’t take these therapies. As for exposure therapy, if you got into it and completed the program, usually your PTSD symptoms went down. But many people couldn’t complete it. In the exposure therapy, you’re talking about whatever trauma you’ve been through – maybe your best friend died next to you, and you don’t want to talk about that all the time.

When I talk to patients about this, I say the first bucket is medication, the second bucket is therapy, and the third bucket is everything else. And everything else includes meditation, yoga, exercise, and it also involves working with animals. There are programs where you’re paired with a service dog, who helps calm you down, and you feel protected.

One of my favorites is called Warrior Canine Connection, where a soldier with PTSD trains a puppy to become a service animal. And in the training of the dog, you have to learn to control your emotions, you have to modulate your voice, you have to appear calm. Often soldiers have a background that they’re familiar with animals, especially dogs. So that’s been very successful.

A couple of other (treatments) to mention one is called stellate ganglion block, where a little lidocaine is injected into the back of the cervical spine. It was used initially for pain control, and they found that it was actually very helpful for PTSD. Another thing we’ve learned is that pain and PTSD often go hand in hand, because if you’re in pain, you’ll be feeling awful, you won’t sleep well, you’ll have more nightmares. But if you can control both of them together, then that’s going to help.
 

Q: One issue that veterans may face is moral injury. Can you talk about that?

A: Moral injury is a term that was first used after Vietnam. Moral injury is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It is feelings of shame and guilt that can be very corrosive and can lead to suicide. It overlaps with PTSD. You feel either you’ve let yourself down, or the government has let you down. And this can be very corrosive. Another thing that could happen is, say, you switched your tour of duty with a buddy, and he got killed and you didn’t. A very common scenario is you’re manning a checkpoint, and a car comes at you and doesn’t stop like it’s supposed to. You do what you’ve been trained to do, which is open fire, and check on the car afterward. And there’s four little kids and their parents in the car all dead. And that is something that even though that was your sort of duty, that it still eats at you because you have kids the same age as the ones who were dead in the car.

You can still have these feelings of shame and guilt, and it will often bleed into your relationships with your family. And that can lead to distance and divorce, which is a further risk factor for suicide.
 

Q: Are there are any specific treatments that have been designed for moral injury, different from PTSD or other conditions?

A: The Armed Services has set up a number of intensive programs at different places, and each is a little bit different. They usually integrate moral injury in with some of the other treatments. There was one at Fort Bliss, Tex., that had reiki; they had art therapy. And they had the chaplains working on moral injury. So there’s no medical treatment for it, but there certainly is talking about it, and for some people to go to a chaplain can be very helpful.

There’s a Military Health System Centers of Excellence, which is a place by the new Walter Reed on the campus, they have a marvelous wall full of masks. And the masks have been painted by soldiers with usually a combination of PTSD, TBI, and although it’s not an official psychiatric diagnosis, moral injury. They’re able to draw and paint. Another thing that’s been used quite a bit as writing therapy, and journaling, and just writing down how you feel about something, because you can do that without retraumatizing anybody else, except perhaps if you are working with a therapist.

Q: For therapists who are treating soldiers, veterans, are there specific challenges that they should be aware of? Are these patients maybe different from the patients that they might otherwise see? Are there specific pieces of advice as to how to engage them?

A: There are a few things that are different. One is that many people in the military are not used to talking about their feelings. And that’s especially if you’ve got a young man who only grunts and says: “Hooah!” That is going to be hard to break through. And that’s why some of these other ways of reaching somebody is very effective. Also, the military likes to have physical activity; they’re usually not comfortable sitting in a chair. If you’re a civilian psychiatrist, I don’t expect you to go bungee jumping with your patients. But what I’d recommend is that you recommend to your patients that they stay active.

Another thing about veterans is that they like to be self-sufficient. They really don’t like to ask for help, although they might ask for help for their buddy. After the Pentagon and 9/11, when I was working with senior officers, they never needed any help. No, but their buddy over here might, so I could help them in the guise of providing care for their buddy in a group setting. We could work with everybody and enhance cohesion, morale, bonding, “we’re all in this together” type of feeling.

I think one thing that’s really improved is that there is less stigma around PTSD. People are more willing to present for help, and some people have called PTSD the Purple Heart of mental disorders. People don’t feel like it’s as bad as having depression or anxiety. Even though PTSD often has depression and anxiety components to it – they run hand in hand – still, it’s sort of more honorable if you’ve been at war and have gotten PTSD.
 

Q: How have you been faring yourself, in the face of the 9/11 anniversary and recent events in Afghanistan?

A: (The Sept. 11 weekend) was very sad for me – and a lot of my colleagues [with] the combination of the 20th anniversary of 9/11, and the recent development. Fortunately, I have friends and people I can talk to. I walked with a colleague of mine who was in the Army. I’m following my own rule of the three buckets, so we took a walk around the hospital center for about 45 minutes, and we have five fish ponds here. And we went and looked at the fish, and talked to the fish. At the National Rehab Hospital, they were playing the guitar. So there’s are a variety of things that people can do.
 

There was over a 12-month improvement in median overall survival when the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib was added to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole for postmenopausal hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative metastatic breast cancer, according to phase 3 results (abstract LBA17_PR) presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 19.

“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.

At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).

It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.

“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.

Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.

The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.

Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.

In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”

However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.

“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.

“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.

Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.

The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

[email protected]

There was over a 12-month improvement in median overall survival when the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib was added to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole for postmenopausal hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative metastatic breast cancer, according to phase 3 results (abstract LBA17_PR) presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 19.

“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.

At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).

It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.

“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.

Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.

The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.

Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.

In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”

However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.

“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.

“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.

Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.

The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

[email protected]

There was over a 12-month improvement in median overall survival when the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib was added to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole for postmenopausal hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative metastatic breast cancer, according to phase 3 results (abstract LBA17_PR) presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 19.

“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.

At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).

It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.

“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.

Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.

The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.

Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.

In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”

However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.

“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.

“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.

Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.

Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.

The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

[email protected]

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), said in an interview. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she said.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, said Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, in Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” said Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she said.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. The American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to the boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” said Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” said Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

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

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), said in an interview. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she said.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, said Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, in Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” said Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she said.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. The American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to the boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” said Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” said Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

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

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), said in an interview. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she said.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, said Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, in Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” said Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she said.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. The American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to the boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” said Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” said Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

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

A Texas doctor revealed in a Washington Post op-ed Sept. 18 that he violated the state ban on abortions performed beyond 6 weeks -- a move he knows could come with legal consequences.

San Antonio doctor Alan Braid, MD, said the new statewide restrictions reminded him of darker days during his 1972 obstetrics and gynecology residency, when he saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions.

“For me, it is 1972 all over again,” he wrote. “And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.”

“I fully understood that there could be legal consequences -- but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested,” he continued.

According to The Washington Post, Dr. Braid’s wish may come true. Two lawsuits against were filed Sept. 20. In one, a prisoner in Arkansas said he filed the suit in part because he could receive $10,000 if successful, according to the Post. The second was filed by a man in Chicago who wants the law struck down.

Dr. Braid’s op-ed is the first public admission to violating a Texas state law that took effect Sept. 1 banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The controversial policy gives private citizens the right to bring civil litigation -- resulting in at least $10,000 in damages -- against providers and anyone else involved in the process.

Since the law went into effect, most patients seeking abortions are too far along to qualify, Dr. Braid wrote.

“I tell them that we can offer services only if we cannot see the presence of cardiac activity on an ultrasound, which usually occurs at about six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant. The tension is unbearable as they lie there, waiting to hear their fate,” he wrote.

“I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” he continued. “Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8.”
 

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

A Texas doctor revealed in a Washington Post op-ed Sept. 18 that he violated the state ban on abortions performed beyond 6 weeks -- a move he knows could come with legal consequences.

San Antonio doctor Alan Braid, MD, said the new statewide restrictions reminded him of darker days during his 1972 obstetrics and gynecology residency, when he saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions.

“For me, it is 1972 all over again,” he wrote. “And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.”

“I fully understood that there could be legal consequences -- but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested,” he continued.

According to The Washington Post, Dr. Braid’s wish may come true. Two lawsuits against were filed Sept. 20. In one, a prisoner in Arkansas said he filed the suit in part because he could receive $10,000 if successful, according to the Post. The second was filed by a man in Chicago who wants the law struck down.

Dr. Braid’s op-ed is the first public admission to violating a Texas state law that took effect Sept. 1 banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The controversial policy gives private citizens the right to bring civil litigation -- resulting in at least $10,000 in damages -- against providers and anyone else involved in the process.

Since the law went into effect, most patients seeking abortions are too far along to qualify, Dr. Braid wrote.

“I tell them that we can offer services only if we cannot see the presence of cardiac activity on an ultrasound, which usually occurs at about six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant. The tension is unbearable as they lie there, waiting to hear their fate,” he wrote.

“I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” he continued. “Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8.”
 

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

A Texas doctor revealed in a Washington Post op-ed Sept. 18 that he violated the state ban on abortions performed beyond 6 weeks -- a move he knows could come with legal consequences.

San Antonio doctor Alan Braid, MD, said the new statewide restrictions reminded him of darker days during his 1972 obstetrics and gynecology residency, when he saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions.

“For me, it is 1972 all over again,” he wrote. “And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.”

“I fully understood that there could be legal consequences -- but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested,” he continued.

According to The Washington Post, Dr. Braid’s wish may come true. Two lawsuits against were filed Sept. 20. In one, a prisoner in Arkansas said he filed the suit in part because he could receive $10,000 if successful, according to the Post. The second was filed by a man in Chicago who wants the law struck down.

Dr. Braid’s op-ed is the first public admission to violating a Texas state law that took effect Sept. 1 banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The controversial policy gives private citizens the right to bring civil litigation -- resulting in at least $10,000 in damages -- against providers and anyone else involved in the process.

Since the law went into effect, most patients seeking abortions are too far along to qualify, Dr. Braid wrote.

“I tell them that we can offer services only if we cannot see the presence of cardiac activity on an ultrasound, which usually occurs at about six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant. The tension is unbearable as they lie there, waiting to hear their fate,” he wrote.

“I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” he continued. “Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8.”
 

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

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

The patient is probably presenting with a moderate asthma exacerbation. To confirm the diagnosis, spirometry assessments should be performed to establish the presence of baseline airway obstruction and determine its severity. Measurements should be obtained before and after inhalation of a short-acting bronchodilator. In addition, chest radiography can help to exclude other diagnoses, and pulse oximetry can exclude hypoxemia.

Asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease and the most common chronic condition among children. Histologically, it is marked by vascular congestion, increased vascular permeability, increased tissue volume, and the presence of an exudate. Because the asthmatic lung undergoes a cycle of injury, repair, and regeneration, inflammation creates histologic changes and functional abnormalities in the airway mucosal epithelium. It is hypothesized that these changes play a major role in the pathophysiology of asthma. 

Eosinophilic infiltration is a hallmark of this inflammatory activity. Histologic evaluations of the large airways may also reveal narrowing of lumina, bronchial and bronchiolar epithelial denudation, and mucus plugs. Other relevant findings can include epithelial desquamation and hyperplasia, goblet cell metaplasia, subbasement membrane thickening, smooth muscle hypertrophy or hyperplasia, and submucosal gland hypertrophy. In patients with severe asthma, the basement membrane may be significantly thickened. In terms of the small airways, pathologic study from the lungs of living patients is rarely undertaken, and therefore the histopathologic findings of asthma at the level of the distal airways and alveolated lung parenchyma remains largely unknown.

Asthma is treated using a stepwise approach. As directed for pediatric patients younger than 5 years, the patient in this case may be provided with an as-needed inhaled short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) and should be followed up every 2-6 weeks while gaining control of her symptoms.

Nathan L. Boyer, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland; Chief of Critical Care, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany.

Nathan L. Boyer, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
 

The patient is probably presenting with a moderate asthma exacerbation. To confirm the diagnosis, spirometry assessments should be performed to establish the presence of baseline airway obstruction and determine its severity. Measurements should be obtained before and after inhalation of a short-acting bronchodilator. In addition, chest radiography can help to exclude other diagnoses, and pulse oximetry can exclude hypoxemia.

Asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease and the most common chronic condition among children. Histologically, it is marked by vascular congestion, increased vascular permeability, increased tissue volume, and the presence of an exudate. Because the asthmatic lung undergoes a cycle of injury, repair, and regeneration, inflammation creates histologic changes and functional abnormalities in the airway mucosal epithelium. It is hypothesized that these changes play a major role in the pathophysiology of asthma. 

Eosinophilic infiltration is a hallmark of this inflammatory activity. Histologic evaluations of the large airways may also reveal narrowing of lumina, bronchial and bronchiolar epithelial denudation, and mucus plugs. Other relevant findings can include epithelial desquamation and hyperplasia, goblet cell metaplasia, subbasement membrane thickening, smooth muscle hypertrophy or hyperplasia, and submucosal gland hypertrophy. In patients with severe asthma, the basement membrane may be significantly thickened. In terms of the small airways, pathologic study from the lungs of living patients is rarely undertaken, and therefore the histopathologic findings of asthma at the level of the distal airways and alveolated lung parenchyma remains largely unknown.

Asthma is treated using a stepwise approach. As directed for pediatric patients younger than 5 years, the patient in this case may be provided with an as-needed inhaled short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) and should be followed up every 2-6 weeks while gaining control of her symptoms.

Nathan L. Boyer, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland; Chief of Critical Care, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany.

Nathan L. Boyer, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
 

The patient is probably presenting with a moderate asthma exacerbation. To confirm the diagnosis, spirometry assessments should be performed to establish the presence of baseline airway obstruction and determine its severity. Measurements should be obtained before and after inhalation of a short-acting bronchodilator. In addition, chest radiography can help to exclude other diagnoses, and pulse oximetry can exclude hypoxemia.

Asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease and the most common chronic condition among children. Histologically, it is marked by vascular congestion, increased vascular permeability, increased tissue volume, and the presence of an exudate. Because the asthmatic lung undergoes a cycle of injury, repair, and regeneration, inflammation creates histologic changes and functional abnormalities in the airway mucosal epithelium. It is hypothesized that these changes play a major role in the pathophysiology of asthma. 

Eosinophilic infiltration is a hallmark of this inflammatory activity. Histologic evaluations of the large airways may also reveal narrowing of lumina, bronchial and bronchiolar epithelial denudation, and mucus plugs. Other relevant findings can include epithelial desquamation and hyperplasia, goblet cell metaplasia, subbasement membrane thickening, smooth muscle hypertrophy or hyperplasia, and submucosal gland hypertrophy. In patients with severe asthma, the basement membrane may be significantly thickened. In terms of the small airways, pathologic study from the lungs of living patients is rarely undertaken, and therefore the histopathologic findings of asthma at the level of the distal airways and alveolated lung parenchyma remains largely unknown.

Asthma is treated using a stepwise approach. As directed for pediatric patients younger than 5 years, the patient in this case may be provided with an as-needed inhaled short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) and should be followed up every 2-6 weeks while gaining control of her symptoms.

Nathan L. Boyer, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland; Chief of Critical Care, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany.

Nathan L. Boyer, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.