This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Recently immunized febrile infants aged 6-12 weeks exhibited a low risk for invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), with a significantly lower risk for non-IBI within the first 24 hours after immunization versus nonrecently immunized infants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 508 infants aged 6-12 weeks who presented with a fever of 38 °C or greater at two US military academic emergency departments (EDs) over a span of 4 years.
• The infants were categorized as “recently immunized” if they had received immunizations within 72 hours before ED presentation and “not recently immunized” if they had not. Among the 508 infants, 114 were immunized recently.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of a serious bacterial infection (SBI), categorized into IBI and non-IBI on the basis of culture and radiography findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of SBI was 3.5% in the recently immunized febrile infants and 13.7% in not recently immunized febrile infants.
• Among the recently immunized infants, the prevalence of SBI was lower in those immunized within the first 24 hours than those immunized more than 24 hours before ED presentation (2% vs 14.3%, respectively).
• Almost all identified SBI cases were of urinary tract infection (UTI), with the only non-UTI case being pneumonia in an infant who exhibited respiratory symptoms within 24 hours of receiving immunization.

IN PRACTICE:

Physicians should discuss the possibilities of a less invasive approach for evaluating recently immunized febrile infants. The study findings support the general recommendation to obtain a urinalysis for all recently immunized infants over 60 days presenting with fever, including those presenting less than 24 hours post immunization.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kyla Casey, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Naval Medical Center San Diego, was published online in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and retrospective design might have resulted in an overestimation of outcomes like IBIs within 24 hours after immunization. As the study was conducted in a specific clinical setting with febrile infants from military medical centers, the findings may have limited generalizability. Moreover, the inclusion of premature infants without age correction for prematurity could have impacted the prevalence of IBIs. Factors like missing vaccination history, healthcare referral patterns, and immunization practices in the military system may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURE:

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Recently immunized febrile infants aged 6-12 weeks exhibited a low risk for invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), with a significantly lower risk for non-IBI within the first 24 hours after immunization versus nonrecently immunized infants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 508 infants aged 6-12 weeks who presented with a fever of 38 °C or greater at two US military academic emergency departments (EDs) over a span of 4 years.
• The infants were categorized as “recently immunized” if they had received immunizations within 72 hours before ED presentation and “not recently immunized” if they had not. Among the 508 infants, 114 were immunized recently.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of a serious bacterial infection (SBI), categorized into IBI and non-IBI on the basis of culture and radiography findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of SBI was 3.5% in the recently immunized febrile infants and 13.7% in not recently immunized febrile infants.
• Among the recently immunized infants, the prevalence of SBI was lower in those immunized within the first 24 hours than those immunized more than 24 hours before ED presentation (2% vs 14.3%, respectively).
• Almost all identified SBI cases were of urinary tract infection (UTI), with the only non-UTI case being pneumonia in an infant who exhibited respiratory symptoms within 24 hours of receiving immunization.

IN PRACTICE:

Physicians should discuss the possibilities of a less invasive approach for evaluating recently immunized febrile infants. The study findings support the general recommendation to obtain a urinalysis for all recently immunized infants over 60 days presenting with fever, including those presenting less than 24 hours post immunization.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kyla Casey, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Naval Medical Center San Diego, was published online in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and retrospective design might have resulted in an overestimation of outcomes like IBIs within 24 hours after immunization. As the study was conducted in a specific clinical setting with febrile infants from military medical centers, the findings may have limited generalizability. Moreover, the inclusion of premature infants without age correction for prematurity could have impacted the prevalence of IBIs. Factors like missing vaccination history, healthcare referral patterns, and immunization practices in the military system may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURE:

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Recently immunized febrile infants aged 6-12 weeks exhibited a low risk for invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), with a significantly lower risk for non-IBI within the first 24 hours after immunization versus nonrecently immunized infants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 508 infants aged 6-12 weeks who presented with a fever of 38 °C or greater at two US military academic emergency departments (EDs) over a span of 4 years.
• The infants were categorized as “recently immunized” if they had received immunizations within 72 hours before ED presentation and “not recently immunized” if they had not. Among the 508 infants, 114 were immunized recently.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of a serious bacterial infection (SBI), categorized into IBI and non-IBI on the basis of culture and radiography findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of SBI was 3.5% in the recently immunized febrile infants and 13.7% in not recently immunized febrile infants.
• Among the recently immunized infants, the prevalence of SBI was lower in those immunized within the first 24 hours than those immunized more than 24 hours before ED presentation (2% vs 14.3%, respectively).
• Almost all identified SBI cases were of urinary tract infection (UTI), with the only non-UTI case being pneumonia in an infant who exhibited respiratory symptoms within 24 hours of receiving immunization.

IN PRACTICE:

Physicians should discuss the possibilities of a less invasive approach for evaluating recently immunized febrile infants. The study findings support the general recommendation to obtain a urinalysis for all recently immunized infants over 60 days presenting with fever, including those presenting less than 24 hours post immunization.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kyla Casey, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Naval Medical Center San Diego, was published online in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and retrospective design might have resulted in an overestimation of outcomes like IBIs within 24 hours after immunization. As the study was conducted in a specific clinical setting with febrile infants from military medical centers, the findings may have limited generalizability. Moreover, the inclusion of premature infants without age correction for prematurity could have impacted the prevalence of IBIs. Factors like missing vaccination history, healthcare referral patterns, and immunization practices in the military system may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURE:

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Reported burnout among internal medicine physicians decreased over the past year based on data from Medscape’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Approximately 80% of male internists and 85% of female internists said that their feelings of burnout and/or depression were driven by their jobs all or most of the time. The job-related stress and burnout come home with them — 76% of respondents overall said that burnout had negatively affected their personal relationships.

Too many bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were by far the top contributor to burnout, reported by 70% of respondents, with insufficient compensation and lack of respect from employers, colleagues, and staff as relatively distant second and third contributors (40% and 37%, respectively).

In addition, nearly half of the physicians said that their burnout was severe enough that they might leave medicine. 

To help manage burnout, more internists reported positive coping strategies such as exercise (51%), talking with friends and family (47%), spending time alone (41%), and sleeping (40%), compared to less healthy strategies such as eating junk food, drinking alcohol, and using nicotine or cannabis products.

When asked what workplace measures would help with burnout, no one strategy rose to the top, but the top three were increased compensation (49%), additional support staff (48%), and more flexible work schedules (45%).

Notably, 62% of internists reported depression they defined as colloquial (feeling down or sad) and 27% described their depression as clinical. However, only 9% said they had sought professional help for depression, and 15% said they had sought help for burnout.
 

Staying in Practice Despite Burnout

The percentage of physicians across specialties who report depression and burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in group practice in Antigo, Wisconsin, in an interview.

Since the pandemic, newer stressors have replaced the pandemic-related stressors, and increasing bureaucratic burdens and paperwork continue to cause more physicians to report burnout, he said.

“If not assessed and addressed, this will lead to attrition in the physician workforce leading to increased burden on other physicians and impact patient access to healthcare,” he added.

The survey findings reflect Dr. Deep’s observations. “When talking to physicians across specialties, I have heard universally from many physicians about their experiences and ongoing struggles with potential burnout and mood-related issues,” he said. “While many of them feel that they are getting to the point of burnout, most of them also stoically continue to provide care to patients because they feel an obligation to them,” he said.

This feeling of obligation to patients is why less than one third of the physicians who consider retiring or leaving medicine because of burnout actually do, he said.

As for measures to reduce burnout, “I personally feel that increasing the compensation will not lead to decreased burnout,” Dr. Deep said. Although more money may provide temporary satisfaction, it will not yield long-term improvement in burnout, he said. “Based on personal experiences and my interactions with physicians, providing them more autonomy and control over their practices ... would contribute to decreasing the burnout,” Dr. Deep emphasized.
 

What Is to Be Done?

“I would favor having physician leaders in healthcare organizations take the time to talk to physicians [and] provide mentoring programs when new physicians are recruited, with ongoing discussions at operations and governance meetings about physician health and wellness,” Dr. Deep said. Providing frequent updates to physicians about wellness resources and encouraging them to seek out help anonymously through Employee Assistance Programs and other counseling services would be beneficial, he added.

“I would also consider peer mentoring when possible. Employers, healthcare organizations, and other key stakeholders should continue to work toward decreasing the stigma of depression and burnout,” Dr. Deep said.

Employers can help physicians manage and reduce burnout and depression by engaging with them, listening to their concerns, and trying to address them, said Dr. Deep. These actions will increase physicians’ trust in their administrations and promote a positive and healthy work environment, he said. “This will lead to reduced attrition in the workforce, retention of experienced physicians and support staff, and lead to increased patient satisfaction as well.”

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose; he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Reported burnout among internal medicine physicians decreased over the past year based on data from Medscape’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Approximately 80% of male internists and 85% of female internists said that their feelings of burnout and/or depression were driven by their jobs all or most of the time. The job-related stress and burnout come home with them — 76% of respondents overall said that burnout had negatively affected their personal relationships.

Too many bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were by far the top contributor to burnout, reported by 70% of respondents, with insufficient compensation and lack of respect from employers, colleagues, and staff as relatively distant second and third contributors (40% and 37%, respectively).

In addition, nearly half of the physicians said that their burnout was severe enough that they might leave medicine. 

To help manage burnout, more internists reported positive coping strategies such as exercise (51%), talking with friends and family (47%), spending time alone (41%), and sleeping (40%), compared to less healthy strategies such as eating junk food, drinking alcohol, and using nicotine or cannabis products.

When asked what workplace measures would help with burnout, no one strategy rose to the top, but the top three were increased compensation (49%), additional support staff (48%), and more flexible work schedules (45%).

Notably, 62% of internists reported depression they defined as colloquial (feeling down or sad) and 27% described their depression as clinical. However, only 9% said they had sought professional help for depression, and 15% said they had sought help for burnout.
 

Staying in Practice Despite Burnout

The percentage of physicians across specialties who report depression and burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in group practice in Antigo, Wisconsin, in an interview.

Since the pandemic, newer stressors have replaced the pandemic-related stressors, and increasing bureaucratic burdens and paperwork continue to cause more physicians to report burnout, he said.

“If not assessed and addressed, this will lead to attrition in the physician workforce leading to increased burden on other physicians and impact patient access to healthcare,” he added.

The survey findings reflect Dr. Deep’s observations. “When talking to physicians across specialties, I have heard universally from many physicians about their experiences and ongoing struggles with potential burnout and mood-related issues,” he said. “While many of them feel that they are getting to the point of burnout, most of them also stoically continue to provide care to patients because they feel an obligation to them,” he said.

This feeling of obligation to patients is why less than one third of the physicians who consider retiring or leaving medicine because of burnout actually do, he said.

As for measures to reduce burnout, “I personally feel that increasing the compensation will not lead to decreased burnout,” Dr. Deep said. Although more money may provide temporary satisfaction, it will not yield long-term improvement in burnout, he said. “Based on personal experiences and my interactions with physicians, providing them more autonomy and control over their practices ... would contribute to decreasing the burnout,” Dr. Deep emphasized.
 

What Is to Be Done?

“I would favor having physician leaders in healthcare organizations take the time to talk to physicians [and] provide mentoring programs when new physicians are recruited, with ongoing discussions at operations and governance meetings about physician health and wellness,” Dr. Deep said. Providing frequent updates to physicians about wellness resources and encouraging them to seek out help anonymously through Employee Assistance Programs and other counseling services would be beneficial, he added.

“I would also consider peer mentoring when possible. Employers, healthcare organizations, and other key stakeholders should continue to work toward decreasing the stigma of depression and burnout,” Dr. Deep said.

Employers can help physicians manage and reduce burnout and depression by engaging with them, listening to their concerns, and trying to address them, said Dr. Deep. These actions will increase physicians’ trust in their administrations and promote a positive and healthy work environment, he said. “This will lead to reduced attrition in the workforce, retention of experienced physicians and support staff, and lead to increased patient satisfaction as well.”

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose; he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Reported burnout among internal medicine physicians decreased over the past year based on data from Medscape’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Approximately 80% of male internists and 85% of female internists said that their feelings of burnout and/or depression were driven by their jobs all or most of the time. The job-related stress and burnout come home with them — 76% of respondents overall said that burnout had negatively affected their personal relationships.

Too many bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were by far the top contributor to burnout, reported by 70% of respondents, with insufficient compensation and lack of respect from employers, colleagues, and staff as relatively distant second and third contributors (40% and 37%, respectively).

In addition, nearly half of the physicians said that their burnout was severe enough that they might leave medicine. 

To help manage burnout, more internists reported positive coping strategies such as exercise (51%), talking with friends and family (47%), spending time alone (41%), and sleeping (40%), compared to less healthy strategies such as eating junk food, drinking alcohol, and using nicotine or cannabis products.

When asked what workplace measures would help with burnout, no one strategy rose to the top, but the top three were increased compensation (49%), additional support staff (48%), and more flexible work schedules (45%).

Notably, 62% of internists reported depression they defined as colloquial (feeling down or sad) and 27% described their depression as clinical. However, only 9% said they had sought professional help for depression, and 15% said they had sought help for burnout.
 

Staying in Practice Despite Burnout

The percentage of physicians across specialties who report depression and burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in group practice in Antigo, Wisconsin, in an interview.

Since the pandemic, newer stressors have replaced the pandemic-related stressors, and increasing bureaucratic burdens and paperwork continue to cause more physicians to report burnout, he said.

“If not assessed and addressed, this will lead to attrition in the physician workforce leading to increased burden on other physicians and impact patient access to healthcare,” he added.

The survey findings reflect Dr. Deep’s observations. “When talking to physicians across specialties, I have heard universally from many physicians about their experiences and ongoing struggles with potential burnout and mood-related issues,” he said. “While many of them feel that they are getting to the point of burnout, most of them also stoically continue to provide care to patients because they feel an obligation to them,” he said.

This feeling of obligation to patients is why less than one third of the physicians who consider retiring or leaving medicine because of burnout actually do, he said.

As for measures to reduce burnout, “I personally feel that increasing the compensation will not lead to decreased burnout,” Dr. Deep said. Although more money may provide temporary satisfaction, it will not yield long-term improvement in burnout, he said. “Based on personal experiences and my interactions with physicians, providing them more autonomy and control over their practices ... would contribute to decreasing the burnout,” Dr. Deep emphasized.
 

What Is to Be Done?

“I would favor having physician leaders in healthcare organizations take the time to talk to physicians [and] provide mentoring programs when new physicians are recruited, with ongoing discussions at operations and governance meetings about physician health and wellness,” Dr. Deep said. Providing frequent updates to physicians about wellness resources and encouraging them to seek out help anonymously through Employee Assistance Programs and other counseling services would be beneficial, he added.

“I would also consider peer mentoring when possible. Employers, healthcare organizations, and other key stakeholders should continue to work toward decreasing the stigma of depression and burnout,” Dr. Deep said.

Employers can help physicians manage and reduce burnout and depression by engaging with them, listening to their concerns, and trying to address them, said Dr. Deep. These actions will increase physicians’ trust in their administrations and promote a positive and healthy work environment, he said. “This will lead to reduced attrition in the workforce, retention of experienced physicians and support staff, and lead to increased patient satisfaction as well.”

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose; he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

TOPLINE:

Biscuits reformulated with the sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) neotame and stevia rebaudioside M (StRebM) yield appetite responses similar to those of sucrose-sweetened ones but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
• This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
• Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
• Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
• The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
• Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
• The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
• Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biscuits reformulated with the sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) neotame and stevia rebaudioside M (StRebM) yield appetite responses similar to those of sucrose-sweetened ones but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
• This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
• Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
• Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
• The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
• Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
• The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
• Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biscuits reformulated with the sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) neotame and stevia rebaudioside M (StRebM) yield appetite responses similar to those of sucrose-sweetened ones but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
• This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
• Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
• Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
• The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
• Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
• The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
• Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may have earlier onset of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB) than their typically developing peers, according to a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics.

Suicide rates among all US children ages 10-14 years tripled between 2007 and 2021, becoming the second leading cause of death for this age bracket.  Between 2018 and 2021, 315 suicides were reported among US children ages 5 to 11 years.

People with ASD show increased rates of STB, although prevalence estimates vary by study, which led the authors to study the issue.

Lead author Benjamin Joffe Schindel, MD, MPH, a fellow in neurodevelopmental medicine at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Columbia, Maryland, and colleagues, analyzed responses from 968 caregivers of children ages 8-25 with ASD.

They found the following reported lifetime STB incidence:

• 392 (40.5%) reported wanting to die
• 187 (19.3%) reported wanting to end their own lives
• 72 (7.4%) reported having a suicide plan

Among those answering affirmatively to each of the above questions regarding STB, onset at 8 years or younger was reported in 142 (36.2%); 66 (35.3%); and 13 (18.1%) of the children, respectively. Included in the findings was one suicide attempt by cutting in an 8-year-old child.

Dr. Schindel said though there is no direct comparison with age of these thoughts among the general population, a previous study in 2013 showed that through age 10 prevalence of suicide ideation is very low (< 1%), then increases slowly through age 12 and then more rapidly until age 17.
 

Disturbing Findings

“The unexpectedly high frequency of STBs among children with ASD who were 8 years or younger is particularly disturbing given the lack of validated suicide risk screening tools and interventions for this age group,” the authors wrote. They added that early start of STB in children with ASD is important as this population has been underrepresented in suicide research and prevention efforts.

The average child age in this study was 13.4; 84.8% were White; and 81% were male. More than half of the children (54.8%) were taking medications for emotional, behavioral, or mood-related issues.

Data were collected from May to October 2017 from responses to the Mental Health and Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire, an online caregiver-answered survey. The survey was created and distributed by the Interactive Autism Network (IAN), an international autism registry, from 2006 to 2019 with approximately 55, 000 participating families.
 

Thoughts Come at a ‘Shockingly Young Age’

Suzanne Rybczynski, MD, chief medical officer at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital in Knoxville, who was not part of the research, said the study was small but will help get the message out that “kids start thinking about suicide, especially kids with autism,” at a “shockingly young age.”

The results demonstrate the great demand for studying thoughts and behaviors especially in younger children and in children with neurodiversity — autism or other neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Studying children with ASD in relation to suicidal thoughts is difficult, Dr. Rybczynski said, because the way they think about death and how much is understood about the finality of suicide has not been well studied. It’s also uncertain how well the children understood the questions in this study, she added.

This retrospective study also asked for responses from caregivers who may remember or interpret a child’s thoughts and words differently from the child’s true intent, Dr. Rybczynski said.

“We need more studies like this asking questions to kids directly,” she said, so researchers can figure what children think it means to die.
 

Current Screening Recommendations

Current recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are to screen children universally for suicide risk at age 12 using a validated tool and if there are behavioral health concerns, screen as needed from ages 8 to 12.

This study suggests that screening needs to start earlier, Dr. Rybczynski said. “But we also need to know that we’re asking the right questions” and whether questions might be different for children with different abilities.

Children who are less verbal are often not included in screening. Screening studies often specifically exclude children with neurodisabilities, she explained. Getting these youngsters involved and making appropriate screening available “would be lifesaving,” she said.

“There are no validated (screening) tools down to age 8, which is not to say that some organizations don’t use them, but they’re not validated,” she said.

Dr. Rybczynski pointed out that most of the children were White and male and future work investigating these thoughts in girls and other racial/ethnic groups with ASD will be important as well. In addition, it will be important to revisit the issue post-pandemic with the rise in mental health issues with COVID-19.

Identifying children struggling with thoughts of suicide is the key to preventing tragedy, Dr. Rybczynski said, adding, “All those deaths are avoidable.”

Various study coauthors disclosed ties to the Simons Foundation, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Social Security Administration, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Sarepta. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rybczynski, who provided commentary on the study, has no relevant financial relationships.

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may have earlier onset of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB) than their typically developing peers, according to a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics.

Suicide rates among all US children ages 10-14 years tripled between 2007 and 2021, becoming the second leading cause of death for this age bracket.  Between 2018 and 2021, 315 suicides were reported among US children ages 5 to 11 years.

People with ASD show increased rates of STB, although prevalence estimates vary by study, which led the authors to study the issue.

Lead author Benjamin Joffe Schindel, MD, MPH, a fellow in neurodevelopmental medicine at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Columbia, Maryland, and colleagues, analyzed responses from 968 caregivers of children ages 8-25 with ASD.

They found the following reported lifetime STB incidence:

• 392 (40.5%) reported wanting to die
• 187 (19.3%) reported wanting to end their own lives
• 72 (7.4%) reported having a suicide plan

Among those answering affirmatively to each of the above questions regarding STB, onset at 8 years or younger was reported in 142 (36.2%); 66 (35.3%); and 13 (18.1%) of the children, respectively. Included in the findings was one suicide attempt by cutting in an 8-year-old child.

Dr. Schindel said though there is no direct comparison with age of these thoughts among the general population, a previous study in 2013 showed that through age 10 prevalence of suicide ideation is very low (< 1%), then increases slowly through age 12 and then more rapidly until age 17.
 

Disturbing Findings

“The unexpectedly high frequency of STBs among children with ASD who were 8 years or younger is particularly disturbing given the lack of validated suicide risk screening tools and interventions for this age group,” the authors wrote. They added that early start of STB in children with ASD is important as this population has been underrepresented in suicide research and prevention efforts.

The average child age in this study was 13.4; 84.8% were White; and 81% were male. More than half of the children (54.8%) were taking medications for emotional, behavioral, or mood-related issues.

Data were collected from May to October 2017 from responses to the Mental Health and Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire, an online caregiver-answered survey. The survey was created and distributed by the Interactive Autism Network (IAN), an international autism registry, from 2006 to 2019 with approximately 55, 000 participating families.
 

Thoughts Come at a ‘Shockingly Young Age’

Suzanne Rybczynski, MD, chief medical officer at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital in Knoxville, who was not part of the research, said the study was small but will help get the message out that “kids start thinking about suicide, especially kids with autism,” at a “shockingly young age.”

The results demonstrate the great demand for studying thoughts and behaviors especially in younger children and in children with neurodiversity — autism or other neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Studying children with ASD in relation to suicidal thoughts is difficult, Dr. Rybczynski said, because the way they think about death and how much is understood about the finality of suicide has not been well studied. It’s also uncertain how well the children understood the questions in this study, she added.

This retrospective study also asked for responses from caregivers who may remember or interpret a child’s thoughts and words differently from the child’s true intent, Dr. Rybczynski said.

“We need more studies like this asking questions to kids directly,” she said, so researchers can figure what children think it means to die.
 

Current Screening Recommendations

Current recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are to screen children universally for suicide risk at age 12 using a validated tool and if there are behavioral health concerns, screen as needed from ages 8 to 12.

This study suggests that screening needs to start earlier, Dr. Rybczynski said. “But we also need to know that we’re asking the right questions” and whether questions might be different for children with different abilities.

Children who are less verbal are often not included in screening. Screening studies often specifically exclude children with neurodisabilities, she explained. Getting these youngsters involved and making appropriate screening available “would be lifesaving,” she said.

“There are no validated (screening) tools down to age 8, which is not to say that some organizations don’t use them, but they’re not validated,” she said.

Dr. Rybczynski pointed out that most of the children were White and male and future work investigating these thoughts in girls and other racial/ethnic groups with ASD will be important as well. In addition, it will be important to revisit the issue post-pandemic with the rise in mental health issues with COVID-19.

Identifying children struggling with thoughts of suicide is the key to preventing tragedy, Dr. Rybczynski said, adding, “All those deaths are avoidable.”

Various study coauthors disclosed ties to the Simons Foundation, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Social Security Administration, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Sarepta. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rybczynski, who provided commentary on the study, has no relevant financial relationships.

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may have earlier onset of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB) than their typically developing peers, according to a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics.

Suicide rates among all US children ages 10-14 years tripled between 2007 and 2021, becoming the second leading cause of death for this age bracket.  Between 2018 and 2021, 315 suicides were reported among US children ages 5 to 11 years.

People with ASD show increased rates of STB, although prevalence estimates vary by study, which led the authors to study the issue.

Lead author Benjamin Joffe Schindel, MD, MPH, a fellow in neurodevelopmental medicine at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Columbia, Maryland, and colleagues, analyzed responses from 968 caregivers of children ages 8-25 with ASD.

They found the following reported lifetime STB incidence:

• 392 (40.5%) reported wanting to die
• 187 (19.3%) reported wanting to end their own lives
• 72 (7.4%) reported having a suicide plan

Among those answering affirmatively to each of the above questions regarding STB, onset at 8 years or younger was reported in 142 (36.2%); 66 (35.3%); and 13 (18.1%) of the children, respectively. Included in the findings was one suicide attempt by cutting in an 8-year-old child.

Dr. Schindel said though there is no direct comparison with age of these thoughts among the general population, a previous study in 2013 showed that through age 10 prevalence of suicide ideation is very low (< 1%), then increases slowly through age 12 and then more rapidly until age 17.
 

Disturbing Findings

“The unexpectedly high frequency of STBs among children with ASD who were 8 years or younger is particularly disturbing given the lack of validated suicide risk screening tools and interventions for this age group,” the authors wrote. They added that early start of STB in children with ASD is important as this population has been underrepresented in suicide research and prevention efforts.

The average child age in this study was 13.4; 84.8% were White; and 81% were male. More than half of the children (54.8%) were taking medications for emotional, behavioral, or mood-related issues.

Data were collected from May to October 2017 from responses to the Mental Health and Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire, an online caregiver-answered survey. The survey was created and distributed by the Interactive Autism Network (IAN), an international autism registry, from 2006 to 2019 with approximately 55, 000 participating families.
 

Thoughts Come at a ‘Shockingly Young Age’

Suzanne Rybczynski, MD, chief medical officer at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital in Knoxville, who was not part of the research, said the study was small but will help get the message out that “kids start thinking about suicide, especially kids with autism,” at a “shockingly young age.”

The results demonstrate the great demand for studying thoughts and behaviors especially in younger children and in children with neurodiversity — autism or other neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Studying children with ASD in relation to suicidal thoughts is difficult, Dr. Rybczynski said, because the way they think about death and how much is understood about the finality of suicide has not been well studied. It’s also uncertain how well the children understood the questions in this study, she added.

This retrospective study also asked for responses from caregivers who may remember or interpret a child’s thoughts and words differently from the child’s true intent, Dr. Rybczynski said.

“We need more studies like this asking questions to kids directly,” she said, so researchers can figure what children think it means to die.
 

Current Screening Recommendations

Current recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are to screen children universally for suicide risk at age 12 using a validated tool and if there are behavioral health concerns, screen as needed from ages 8 to 12.

This study suggests that screening needs to start earlier, Dr. Rybczynski said. “But we also need to know that we’re asking the right questions” and whether questions might be different for children with different abilities.

Children who are less verbal are often not included in screening. Screening studies often specifically exclude children with neurodisabilities, she explained. Getting these youngsters involved and making appropriate screening available “would be lifesaving,” she said.

“There are no validated (screening) tools down to age 8, which is not to say that some organizations don’t use them, but they’re not validated,” she said.

Dr. Rybczynski pointed out that most of the children were White and male and future work investigating these thoughts in girls and other racial/ethnic groups with ASD will be important as well. In addition, it will be important to revisit the issue post-pandemic with the rise in mental health issues with COVID-19.

Identifying children struggling with thoughts of suicide is the key to preventing tragedy, Dr. Rybczynski said, adding, “All those deaths are avoidable.”

Various study coauthors disclosed ties to the Simons Foundation, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Social Security Administration, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Sarepta. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rybczynski, who provided commentary on the study, has no relevant financial relationships.

Psychiatry, like all medical disciplines, changes over time. For many decades, psychiatrists were primarily psychotherapists. As medications slowly became available, these became a second tool for treatment — so much so that by the 21st century many, if not most, psychiatrists saw themselves primarily as psychopharmacologists and diagnosticians who were skilled at identifying various forms of mental illness and using medications in the hopes of inducing a clinically meaningful “response” in symptoms. While still belonging to the umbrella category of a mental health professional, more and more psychiatrists trained and practiced as mental illness professionals.

Slowly, however, there have been stirrings within the field by many who have found the identity of the psychiatrist as a “prescriber” to be too narrow, and the current “med check” model of treatment too confining. This change was partly inspired by our colleagues in clinical psychology who were challenged in the 1990s by then American Psychological Association President Martin Seligman, PhD, to develop knowledge and expertise not only in alleviating mental suffering but also in promoting true mental well-being, a construct that still was often vaguely defined. One framework of well-being that was advanced at the time was the PERMA model, representing the five well-being dimensions of Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment.¹

Dr. Rettew

While there have always been those in psychiatry who have advocated for a broad emphasis that incorporates the full spectrum of mental health, there has been a surge of interest in the past 10-15 years, urging a focus on well-being and the tools that can help a person achieve it. This trend has variably been referred to as positive psychiatry, lifestyle psychiatry, and other terms.² As one might expect, child and adolescent psychiatry has been particularly fertile ground for such principles, and models such as the Vermont Family Based Approach have expanded the concept beyond the individual to the family and even community.³

It is important to note here that embracing the concept of well-being in treatment does not in any way require one to abandon the idea that genetic or environmental factors can lead to negative outcomes in brain development, nor does it mandate that one leaves behind important treatment modalities such as traditional psychotherapy and medication treatment. Further, this approach should not be confused with some “wellness” activities that offer quick fixes and lack scientific rigor. Positive psychiatry does, however, offer a third pathway to advance positive emotional behavioral growth, namely through health promotion activities ranging from exercise to good nutrition to positive parenting in ways that have been shown to benefit both those who are already doing fairly well as well as those who are actively struggling with significant psychiatric disorders.⁴

Primary care clinicians already have extensive familiarity talking about these kinds of health promoting activities with families. That said, it’s been my observation from many years of doing consultations and reviewing notes that these conversations happen almost exclusively during well-check visits and can get forgotten when a child presents with emotional behavioral challenges.

So how can the primary care clinician who is interested in more fully incorporating the burgeoning science on well-being work these principles into routine practice? Here are three suggestions.
 

Ask Some New Questions

It’s difficult to treat things that aren’t assessed. To best incorporate true mental health within one’s work with families, it can be very helpful to expand the regular questions one asks to include those that address some of the PERMA and health promotion areas described above. Some examples could include the following:

• Hopes. What would a perfect life look like for you when you’re older?
• Connection. Is there anything that you just love doing, so much so that time sometimes just seems to go away?
• Strengths. What are you good at? What good things would your friends say about you?
• Parenting. What are you most proud of as a parent, and where are your biggest challenges?
• Nutrition. What does a typical school day breakfast look like for you?
• Screens. Do you have any restrictions related to what you do on screens?
• Sleep. Tell me about your typical bedtime routine.

Add Some New Interventions

Counseling and medications can be powerful ways to bring improvement in a child’s life, but thinking about health promotion opens up a whole new avenue for intervention. This domain includes areas like physical activity, nutrition, sleep practices, parenting, participation in music and the arts, practicing kindness towards others, and mindfulness, among others.

For someone newly diagnosed with ADHD, for example, consider expanding your treatment plan to include not only medications but also specific guidance to exercise more, limit screen usage, practice good bedtime routines, eat a real breakfast, and reduce the helicopter parenting. Monitor these areas over time.

Another example relates to common sleep problems. Before making that melatonin recommendation, ask yourself if you understand what is happening in that child’s environment at night. Are they allowed to play video games until 2 a.m.? Are they taking naps during the day because they have nothing to do? Are they downing caffeinated drinks with dinner? Does the child get zero physical activity outside of the PE class? Maybe you still will need the melatonin, but perhaps other areas need to be addressed first.
 

Find Some New Colleagues

While it can be challenging sometimes to find anyone in mental health who sees new patients, there is value is finding out the approach and methodology that psychiatric clinicians and therapists apply in their practice. Working collaboratively with those who value a well-being orientation and who can work productively with the whole family to increase health promotion can yield benefits for a patient’s long-term physical and mental health.

The renewed interest and attention on well-being and health promotion activities that can optimize brain growth are a welcome and overdue development in mental health treatment. Pediatricians and other primary care clinicians can be a critical part of this growing initiative by gaining knowledge about youth well-being, applying this knowledge in day-to-day practice, and working collaboratively with those who share a similar perspective.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child & adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Oregon. He is on the psychiatry faculty at Oregon Health & Science University. You can follow him on Facebook and X @PediPsych. His latest book is Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.

References

1. Seligman, MEP. Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2011.

2. Jeste DV, Palmer BW. (Eds.). Positive psychiatry: a clinical handbook. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2015. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9781615370818.

3. Hudziak J, Ivanova MY. The Vermont family based approach: Family based health promotion, illness prevention, and intervention. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2016 Apr;25(2):167-78. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2015.11.002.

4. Rettew DC. Incorporating positive psychiatry with children and adolescents. Current Psychiatry. 2022 November;21(11):12-16,45. doi: 10.12788/cp.0303.

Psychiatry, like all medical disciplines, changes over time. For many decades, psychiatrists were primarily psychotherapists. As medications slowly became available, these became a second tool for treatment — so much so that by the 21st century many, if not most, psychiatrists saw themselves primarily as psychopharmacologists and diagnosticians who were skilled at identifying various forms of mental illness and using medications in the hopes of inducing a clinically meaningful “response” in symptoms. While still belonging to the umbrella category of a mental health professional, more and more psychiatrists trained and practiced as mental illness professionals.

Slowly, however, there have been stirrings within the field by many who have found the identity of the psychiatrist as a “prescriber” to be too narrow, and the current “med check” model of treatment too confining. This change was partly inspired by our colleagues in clinical psychology who were challenged in the 1990s by then American Psychological Association President Martin Seligman, PhD, to develop knowledge and expertise not only in alleviating mental suffering but also in promoting true mental well-being, a construct that still was often vaguely defined. One framework of well-being that was advanced at the time was the PERMA model, representing the five well-being dimensions of Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment.¹

Dr. Rettew

While there have always been those in psychiatry who have advocated for a broad emphasis that incorporates the full spectrum of mental health, there has been a surge of interest in the past 10-15 years, urging a focus on well-being and the tools that can help a person achieve it. This trend has variably been referred to as positive psychiatry, lifestyle psychiatry, and other terms.² As one might expect, child and adolescent psychiatry has been particularly fertile ground for such principles, and models such as the Vermont Family Based Approach have expanded the concept beyond the individual to the family and even community.³

It is important to note here that embracing the concept of well-being in treatment does not in any way require one to abandon the idea that genetic or environmental factors can lead to negative outcomes in brain development, nor does it mandate that one leaves behind important treatment modalities such as traditional psychotherapy and medication treatment. Further, this approach should not be confused with some “wellness” activities that offer quick fixes and lack scientific rigor. Positive psychiatry does, however, offer a third pathway to advance positive emotional behavioral growth, namely through health promotion activities ranging from exercise to good nutrition to positive parenting in ways that have been shown to benefit both those who are already doing fairly well as well as those who are actively struggling with significant psychiatric disorders.⁴

Primary care clinicians already have extensive familiarity talking about these kinds of health promoting activities with families. That said, it’s been my observation from many years of doing consultations and reviewing notes that these conversations happen almost exclusively during well-check visits and can get forgotten when a child presents with emotional behavioral challenges.

So how can the primary care clinician who is interested in more fully incorporating the burgeoning science on well-being work these principles into routine practice? Here are three suggestions.
 

Ask Some New Questions

It’s difficult to treat things that aren’t assessed. To best incorporate true mental health within one’s work with families, it can be very helpful to expand the regular questions one asks to include those that address some of the PERMA and health promotion areas described above. Some examples could include the following:

• Hopes. What would a perfect life look like for you when you’re older?
• Connection. Is there anything that you just love doing, so much so that time sometimes just seems to go away?
• Strengths. What are you good at? What good things would your friends say about you?
• Parenting. What are you most proud of as a parent, and where are your biggest challenges?
• Nutrition. What does a typical school day breakfast look like for you?
• Screens. Do you have any restrictions related to what you do on screens?
• Sleep. Tell me about your typical bedtime routine.

Add Some New Interventions

Counseling and medications can be powerful ways to bring improvement in a child’s life, but thinking about health promotion opens up a whole new avenue for intervention. This domain includes areas like physical activity, nutrition, sleep practices, parenting, participation in music and the arts, practicing kindness towards others, and mindfulness, among others.

For someone newly diagnosed with ADHD, for example, consider expanding your treatment plan to include not only medications but also specific guidance to exercise more, limit screen usage, practice good bedtime routines, eat a real breakfast, and reduce the helicopter parenting. Monitor these areas over time.

Another example relates to common sleep problems. Before making that melatonin recommendation, ask yourself if you understand what is happening in that child’s environment at night. Are they allowed to play video games until 2 a.m.? Are they taking naps during the day because they have nothing to do? Are they downing caffeinated drinks with dinner? Does the child get zero physical activity outside of the PE class? Maybe you still will need the melatonin, but perhaps other areas need to be addressed first.
 

Find Some New Colleagues

While it can be challenging sometimes to find anyone in mental health who sees new patients, there is value is finding out the approach and methodology that psychiatric clinicians and therapists apply in their practice. Working collaboratively with those who value a well-being orientation and who can work productively with the whole family to increase health promotion can yield benefits for a patient’s long-term physical and mental health.

The renewed interest and attention on well-being and health promotion activities that can optimize brain growth are a welcome and overdue development in mental health treatment. Pediatricians and other primary care clinicians can be a critical part of this growing initiative by gaining knowledge about youth well-being, applying this knowledge in day-to-day practice, and working collaboratively with those who share a similar perspective.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child & adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Oregon. He is on the psychiatry faculty at Oregon Health & Science University. You can follow him on Facebook and X @PediPsych. His latest book is Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.

References

1. Seligman, MEP. Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2011.

2. Jeste DV, Palmer BW. (Eds.). Positive psychiatry: a clinical handbook. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2015. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9781615370818.

3. Hudziak J, Ivanova MY. The Vermont family based approach: Family based health promotion, illness prevention, and intervention. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2016 Apr;25(2):167-78. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2015.11.002.

4. Rettew DC. Incorporating positive psychiatry with children and adolescents. Current Psychiatry. 2022 November;21(11):12-16,45. doi: 10.12788/cp.0303.

Psychiatry, like all medical disciplines, changes over time. For many decades, psychiatrists were primarily psychotherapists. As medications slowly became available, these became a second tool for treatment — so much so that by the 21st century many, if not most, psychiatrists saw themselves primarily as psychopharmacologists and diagnosticians who were skilled at identifying various forms of mental illness and using medications in the hopes of inducing a clinically meaningful “response” in symptoms. While still belonging to the umbrella category of a mental health professional, more and more psychiatrists trained and practiced as mental illness professionals.

Slowly, however, there have been stirrings within the field by many who have found the identity of the psychiatrist as a “prescriber” to be too narrow, and the current “med check” model of treatment too confining. This change was partly inspired by our colleagues in clinical psychology who were challenged in the 1990s by then American Psychological Association President Martin Seligman, PhD, to develop knowledge and expertise not only in alleviating mental suffering but also in promoting true mental well-being, a construct that still was often vaguely defined. One framework of well-being that was advanced at the time was the PERMA model, representing the five well-being dimensions of Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment.¹

Dr. Rettew

While there have always been those in psychiatry who have advocated for a broad emphasis that incorporates the full spectrum of mental health, there has been a surge of interest in the past 10-15 years, urging a focus on well-being and the tools that can help a person achieve it. This trend has variably been referred to as positive psychiatry, lifestyle psychiatry, and other terms.² As one might expect, child and adolescent psychiatry has been particularly fertile ground for such principles, and models such as the Vermont Family Based Approach have expanded the concept beyond the individual to the family and even community.³

It is important to note here that embracing the concept of well-being in treatment does not in any way require one to abandon the idea that genetic or environmental factors can lead to negative outcomes in brain development, nor does it mandate that one leaves behind important treatment modalities such as traditional psychotherapy and medication treatment. Further, this approach should not be confused with some “wellness” activities that offer quick fixes and lack scientific rigor. Positive psychiatry does, however, offer a third pathway to advance positive emotional behavioral growth, namely through health promotion activities ranging from exercise to good nutrition to positive parenting in ways that have been shown to benefit both those who are already doing fairly well as well as those who are actively struggling with significant psychiatric disorders.⁴

Primary care clinicians already have extensive familiarity talking about these kinds of health promoting activities with families. That said, it’s been my observation from many years of doing consultations and reviewing notes that these conversations happen almost exclusively during well-check visits and can get forgotten when a child presents with emotional behavioral challenges.

So how can the primary care clinician who is interested in more fully incorporating the burgeoning science on well-being work these principles into routine practice? Here are three suggestions.
 

Ask Some New Questions

It’s difficult to treat things that aren’t assessed. To best incorporate true mental health within one’s work with families, it can be very helpful to expand the regular questions one asks to include those that address some of the PERMA and health promotion areas described above. Some examples could include the following:

• Hopes. What would a perfect life look like for you when you’re older?
• Connection. Is there anything that you just love doing, so much so that time sometimes just seems to go away?
• Strengths. What are you good at? What good things would your friends say about you?
• Parenting. What are you most proud of as a parent, and where are your biggest challenges?
• Nutrition. What does a typical school day breakfast look like for you?
• Screens. Do you have any restrictions related to what you do on screens?
• Sleep. Tell me about your typical bedtime routine.

Add Some New Interventions

Counseling and medications can be powerful ways to bring improvement in a child’s life, but thinking about health promotion opens up a whole new avenue for intervention. This domain includes areas like physical activity, nutrition, sleep practices, parenting, participation in music and the arts, practicing kindness towards others, and mindfulness, among others.

For someone newly diagnosed with ADHD, for example, consider expanding your treatment plan to include not only medications but also specific guidance to exercise more, limit screen usage, practice good bedtime routines, eat a real breakfast, and reduce the helicopter parenting. Monitor these areas over time.

Another example relates to common sleep problems. Before making that melatonin recommendation, ask yourself if you understand what is happening in that child’s environment at night. Are they allowed to play video games until 2 a.m.? Are they taking naps during the day because they have nothing to do? Are they downing caffeinated drinks with dinner? Does the child get zero physical activity outside of the PE class? Maybe you still will need the melatonin, but perhaps other areas need to be addressed first.
 

Find Some New Colleagues

While it can be challenging sometimes to find anyone in mental health who sees new patients, there is value is finding out the approach and methodology that psychiatric clinicians and therapists apply in their practice. Working collaboratively with those who value a well-being orientation and who can work productively with the whole family to increase health promotion can yield benefits for a patient’s long-term physical and mental health.

The renewed interest and attention on well-being and health promotion activities that can optimize brain growth are a welcome and overdue development in mental health treatment. Pediatricians and other primary care clinicians can be a critical part of this growing initiative by gaining knowledge about youth well-being, applying this knowledge in day-to-day practice, and working collaboratively with those who share a similar perspective.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child & adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Oregon. He is on the psychiatry faculty at Oregon Health & Science University. You can follow him on Facebook and X @PediPsych. His latest book is Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.

References

1. Seligman, MEP. Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2011.

2. Jeste DV, Palmer BW. (Eds.). Positive psychiatry: a clinical handbook. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2015. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9781615370818.

3. Hudziak J, Ivanova MY. The Vermont family based approach: Family based health promotion, illness prevention, and intervention. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2016 Apr;25(2):167-78. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2015.11.002.

4. Rettew DC. Incorporating positive psychiatry with children and adolescents. Current Psychiatry. 2022 November;21(11):12-16,45. doi: 10.12788/cp.0303.

TOPLINE:

A natural sugar used to treat recurring urinary tract infections (rUTIs) did not reduce future episodes, outpatient visits, the use of antibiotics, or symptoms compared with a placebo, according to a new study.

METHODOLOGY:

• D-Mannose is recommended as a natural alternative to antibiotics and sold as a dietary supplement; research showing the efficacy of D-mannose in treating UTIs is mixed.
• The double-blind, randomized controlled trial followed 598 women older than 18 years (median age, 61.3; range 18.2-93.5 years) with a history of rUTIs over 6 months from nearly 100 primary care clinics in the United Kingdom.
• Patients took 2 g of D-mannose or placebo powder daily and recorded their symptoms using a daily diary or through responses to health surveys, weekly questionnaires, and phone calls.
• Researchers checked medical records for urine culture results, antibiotic prescriptions, hospitalizations, and outpatient visits for UTIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 51% of participants who took D-mannose and 55.7% of those who took a placebo contacted a healthcare professional reporting a UTI (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05; P = .22).
• Women in both groups reported similar durations of “moderately bad” or “worse” symptoms, and the number of antibiotic courses, instances of clinically suspected UTIs, and hospital admissions were similar between the two groups.
• Some studies have reported that synthetic mannosides are promising alternatives to D-mannose.

IN PRACTICE:

“D-Mannose should not be recommended to prevent future episodes of medically attended UTI in women with recurrent UTI in primary care,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gail Hayward, DPhil, associate professor at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England, and was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Some participants may have taken less than 2 mg/d or skipped days. Because researchers used powder rather than capsules, dosing could have been inconsistent. Researchers did not obtain a microbiologic confirmation for each rUTI. A small percentage of women were taking antibiotics.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Various authors reported receiving support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance and were NIHR investigators.

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

TOPLINE:

A natural sugar used to treat recurring urinary tract infections (rUTIs) did not reduce future episodes, outpatient visits, the use of antibiotics, or symptoms compared with a placebo, according to a new study.

METHODOLOGY:

• D-Mannose is recommended as a natural alternative to antibiotics and sold as a dietary supplement; research showing the efficacy of D-mannose in treating UTIs is mixed.
• The double-blind, randomized controlled trial followed 598 women older than 18 years (median age, 61.3; range 18.2-93.5 years) with a history of rUTIs over 6 months from nearly 100 primary care clinics in the United Kingdom.
• Patients took 2 g of D-mannose or placebo powder daily and recorded their symptoms using a daily diary or through responses to health surveys, weekly questionnaires, and phone calls.
• Researchers checked medical records for urine culture results, antibiotic prescriptions, hospitalizations, and outpatient visits for UTIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 51% of participants who took D-mannose and 55.7% of those who took a placebo contacted a healthcare professional reporting a UTI (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05; P = .22).
• Women in both groups reported similar durations of “moderately bad” or “worse” symptoms, and the number of antibiotic courses, instances of clinically suspected UTIs, and hospital admissions were similar between the two groups.
• Some studies have reported that synthetic mannosides are promising alternatives to D-mannose.

IN PRACTICE:

“D-Mannose should not be recommended to prevent future episodes of medically attended UTI in women with recurrent UTI in primary care,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gail Hayward, DPhil, associate professor at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England, and was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Some participants may have taken less than 2 mg/d or skipped days. Because researchers used powder rather than capsules, dosing could have been inconsistent. Researchers did not obtain a microbiologic confirmation for each rUTI. A small percentage of women were taking antibiotics.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Various authors reported receiving support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance and were NIHR investigators.

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

TOPLINE:

A natural sugar used to treat recurring urinary tract infections (rUTIs) did not reduce future episodes, outpatient visits, the use of antibiotics, or symptoms compared with a placebo, according to a new study.

METHODOLOGY:

• D-Mannose is recommended as a natural alternative to antibiotics and sold as a dietary supplement; research showing the efficacy of D-mannose in treating UTIs is mixed.
• The double-blind, randomized controlled trial followed 598 women older than 18 years (median age, 61.3; range 18.2-93.5 years) with a history of rUTIs over 6 months from nearly 100 primary care clinics in the United Kingdom.
• Patients took 2 g of D-mannose or placebo powder daily and recorded their symptoms using a daily diary or through responses to health surveys, weekly questionnaires, and phone calls.
• Researchers checked medical records for urine culture results, antibiotic prescriptions, hospitalizations, and outpatient visits for UTIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 51% of participants who took D-mannose and 55.7% of those who took a placebo contacted a healthcare professional reporting a UTI (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05; P = .22).
• Women in both groups reported similar durations of “moderately bad” or “worse” symptoms, and the number of antibiotic courses, instances of clinically suspected UTIs, and hospital admissions were similar between the two groups.
• Some studies have reported that synthetic mannosides are promising alternatives to D-mannose.

IN PRACTICE:

“D-Mannose should not be recommended to prevent future episodes of medically attended UTI in women with recurrent UTI in primary care,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gail Hayward, DPhil, associate professor at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England, and was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Some participants may have taken less than 2 mg/d or skipped days. Because researchers used powder rather than capsules, dosing could have been inconsistent. Researchers did not obtain a microbiologic confirmation for each rUTI. A small percentage of women were taking antibiotics.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Various authors reported receiving support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance and were NIHR investigators.

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

Reported burnout among family physicians was down slightly in 2023 from the previous year, but burnout lasted longer, based on data from this news organization’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Overall, 70% of internists surveyed said they had felt burned out for at least 13 months, compared with 60% in the 2023 survey. Of these, 41% said they had experienced feelings of burnout out for more than 2 years.

Overall, 82% of both male and female family physicians who reported feeling burned out or depressed attributed their burnout or depression to job stress rather than stress in their personal lives.

Bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were cited by 73% of respondents as the greatest contributor to family physicians’ burnout, followed by too many hours at work (39%) and lack of respect from administrators, colleagues, or staff.

Notably, 45% responded with either a 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale that their burnout was severe enough that they might consider leaving practice, and 73% of respondents said that burnout was taking a negative toll on their personal relationships, up from 67% in last year’s survey.

Depression also remains a problem for family physicians, but fewer than 20% reported seeking help for either depression or burnout (15% and 16%, respectively)

Among the 27% of respondents who reported clinical depression, 69% cited job burnout as a significant contributor.

The top three strategies cited by respondents to reduce burnout were more support staff, more flexible work schedules, and lighter patient loads.
 

Take Needs for Support Seriously

The findings reflect the need not only of increased administrative support, but also personal and emotional support to reduce burnout among family physicians, Susan K. Fidler, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Family physicians are a critically important societal resource to support the health of communities,” she said.

“It takes at least 7 years to train a family physician, and we need to create a culture in medicine to keep these highly-trained specialists engaged in their work to continue to provide continuity of care to their communities,” said Dr. Fidler. “Losing a family physician to burnout directly impacts the care that community receives and further worsens someone’s ability to access care,” she said.

Dr. Fidler was not surprised by the impact of administrative work on a physicians’ experience of burnout. “Physicians are energized by taking care of patients, and it is hard to feel like you are helping people by wading through the paperwork and administrative burden associated with our healthcare system,” she said.

However, she was surprised by the higher burnout rate in female physicians compared with males (55% vs. 45%, respectively). “As the proportion of the family physician workforce becomes increasing female, it becomes critical to understand this difference and provide support to address their specific needs,” she said.

Dr. Fidler said she agreed with the reported top three measures that might reduce burnout among family physicians. “In order to take care of the complex needs of our patients, more support staff and more time with patients can increase satisfaction with the practice of medicine,” she added.

Currently, physicians are often choosing between staying on time in short appointment slots and taking the necessary time to address patients’ needs, said Dr. Fidler.

“Longer appointments and more support staff allow family physicians to use their excellent training to provide whole-person care,” she said.

Previous research has shown that helping family physicians identify the most meaningful aspects of their work can reduce burnout, Dr. Fidler said. “It is up to healthcare administrators to allow physicians the flexibility to find their meaning in work and to support the systems that allow physicians to practice efficiently and effectively,” she said.

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Fidler had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Reported burnout among family physicians was down slightly in 2023 from the previous year, but burnout lasted longer, based on data from this news organization’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Overall, 70% of internists surveyed said they had felt burned out for at least 13 months, compared with 60% in the 2023 survey. Of these, 41% said they had experienced feelings of burnout out for more than 2 years.

Overall, 82% of both male and female family physicians who reported feeling burned out or depressed attributed their burnout or depression to job stress rather than stress in their personal lives.

Bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were cited by 73% of respondents as the greatest contributor to family physicians’ burnout, followed by too many hours at work (39%) and lack of respect from administrators, colleagues, or staff.

Notably, 45% responded with either a 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale that their burnout was severe enough that they might consider leaving practice, and 73% of respondents said that burnout was taking a negative toll on their personal relationships, up from 67% in last year’s survey.

Depression also remains a problem for family physicians, but fewer than 20% reported seeking help for either depression or burnout (15% and 16%, respectively)

Among the 27% of respondents who reported clinical depression, 69% cited job burnout as a significant contributor.

The top three strategies cited by respondents to reduce burnout were more support staff, more flexible work schedules, and lighter patient loads.
 

Take Needs for Support Seriously

The findings reflect the need not only of increased administrative support, but also personal and emotional support to reduce burnout among family physicians, Susan K. Fidler, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Family physicians are a critically important societal resource to support the health of communities,” she said.

“It takes at least 7 years to train a family physician, and we need to create a culture in medicine to keep these highly-trained specialists engaged in their work to continue to provide continuity of care to their communities,” said Dr. Fidler. “Losing a family physician to burnout directly impacts the care that community receives and further worsens someone’s ability to access care,” she said.

Dr. Fidler was not surprised by the impact of administrative work on a physicians’ experience of burnout. “Physicians are energized by taking care of patients, and it is hard to feel like you are helping people by wading through the paperwork and administrative burden associated with our healthcare system,” she said.

However, she was surprised by the higher burnout rate in female physicians compared with males (55% vs. 45%, respectively). “As the proportion of the family physician workforce becomes increasing female, it becomes critical to understand this difference and provide support to address their specific needs,” she said.

Dr. Fidler said she agreed with the reported top three measures that might reduce burnout among family physicians. “In order to take care of the complex needs of our patients, more support staff and more time with patients can increase satisfaction with the practice of medicine,” she added.

Currently, physicians are often choosing between staying on time in short appointment slots and taking the necessary time to address patients’ needs, said Dr. Fidler.

“Longer appointments and more support staff allow family physicians to use their excellent training to provide whole-person care,” she said.

Previous research has shown that helping family physicians identify the most meaningful aspects of their work can reduce burnout, Dr. Fidler said. “It is up to healthcare administrators to allow physicians the flexibility to find their meaning in work and to support the systems that allow physicians to practice efficiently and effectively,” she said.

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Fidler had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Reported burnout among family physicians was down slightly in 2023 from the previous year, but burnout lasted longer, based on data from this news organization’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Overall, 70% of internists surveyed said they had felt burned out for at least 13 months, compared with 60% in the 2023 survey. Of these, 41% said they had experienced feelings of burnout out for more than 2 years.

Overall, 82% of both male and female family physicians who reported feeling burned out or depressed attributed their burnout or depression to job stress rather than stress in their personal lives.

Bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were cited by 73% of respondents as the greatest contributor to family physicians’ burnout, followed by too many hours at work (39%) and lack of respect from administrators, colleagues, or staff.

Notably, 45% responded with either a 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale that their burnout was severe enough that they might consider leaving practice, and 73% of respondents said that burnout was taking a negative toll on their personal relationships, up from 67% in last year’s survey.

Depression also remains a problem for family physicians, but fewer than 20% reported seeking help for either depression or burnout (15% and 16%, respectively)

Among the 27% of respondents who reported clinical depression, 69% cited job burnout as a significant contributor.

The top three strategies cited by respondents to reduce burnout were more support staff, more flexible work schedules, and lighter patient loads.
 

Take Needs for Support Seriously

The findings reflect the need not only of increased administrative support, but also personal and emotional support to reduce burnout among family physicians, Susan K. Fidler, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Family physicians are a critically important societal resource to support the health of communities,” she said.

“It takes at least 7 years to train a family physician, and we need to create a culture in medicine to keep these highly-trained specialists engaged in their work to continue to provide continuity of care to their communities,” said Dr. Fidler. “Losing a family physician to burnout directly impacts the care that community receives and further worsens someone’s ability to access care,” she said.

Dr. Fidler was not surprised by the impact of administrative work on a physicians’ experience of burnout. “Physicians are energized by taking care of patients, and it is hard to feel like you are helping people by wading through the paperwork and administrative burden associated with our healthcare system,” she said.

However, she was surprised by the higher burnout rate in female physicians compared with males (55% vs. 45%, respectively). “As the proportion of the family physician workforce becomes increasing female, it becomes critical to understand this difference and provide support to address their specific needs,” she said.

Dr. Fidler said she agreed with the reported top three measures that might reduce burnout among family physicians. “In order to take care of the complex needs of our patients, more support staff and more time with patients can increase satisfaction with the practice of medicine,” she added.

Currently, physicians are often choosing between staying on time in short appointment slots and taking the necessary time to address patients’ needs, said Dr. Fidler.

“Longer appointments and more support staff allow family physicians to use their excellent training to provide whole-person care,” she said.

Previous research has shown that helping family physicians identify the most meaningful aspects of their work can reduce burnout, Dr. Fidler said. “It is up to healthcare administrators to allow physicians the flexibility to find their meaning in work and to support the systems that allow physicians to practice efficiently and effectively,” she said.

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Fidler had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.