MDedge Psychiatry

When Frances R. Levin, MD, began her clinical psychiatry career in the mid-1990s, she spent a lot of time educating colleagues about the validity of an ADHD diagnosis in adults.

“That’s no longer an issue,” Dr. Levin, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “But at the time, we often thought, ‘ADHD is something that’s specific to people who are stimulant users.’ In fact, what we found over the years was that these rates are elevated in a range of substance use populations.”

According to National Comorbidity Survey, a nontreatment sample of more than 3,000 adults, individuals who have SUD have two to three times the risk of having ADHD, while individuals who have ADHD have about three times the rate of having an SUD, compared with those who don’t (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[4]:716-23). “When you move to treatment samples, the rates also remain quite high,” said Dr. Levin, who is also chief of the division of substance use disorders at the medical center.

“In the general population, the rates of ADHD are 2%-4%. When we look at people who are coming in specifically for treatment of their SUD, the rates are substantially higher, ranging from 10% to 24%.”

According to a 2014 review of medical literature, potential reasons for the association between ADHD and SUD vary and include underlying biologic deficits, such as parental SUDs and genetics; conduct disorder symptoms, such as defiance, rule breaking, and delinquency; poor performance in school, such as low grades, grade retention, or drop-out; and social difficulties, such as rejection from conventional groups or few quality friendships (Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:607-39). Other potential pathways include neurocognitive deficits, stress-negative affect models, impulsive anger, and other underlying traits.

One key reason to treat ADHD in patients with SUDs is that they tend to develop the SUD earlier when the ADHD is present, Dr. Levin said. They’re also less likely to be retained in treatment and have a reduced likelihood of going into remission if dependence develops. “Even when they do achieve remission, it seems to take longer for people to reach remission,” she said. “They have more treatment exposure yet do less well in treatment. The other elephant in the room is that often people with ADHD and an SUD have other psychiatric comorbidities. This can make it more challenging to treat this population.”

One common assumption from clinicians regarding patients with ADHD and a concomitant SUD is that standard treatments for ADHD do not work in active substance users. Another is that, even if treatments work for ADHD, they do not affect the substance use disorder. “Understandably, there is also concern that active substance abusers will misuse and divert their medications,” she said. “Finally, there are often additional psychiatric comorbidities that may make it harder to effectively treat individuals with ADHD and SUD.”

Since 2002, 15 double-blind outpatient studies using stimulants/atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD have appeared in the medical literature, Dr. Levin said. Only three have included adolescents. “That’s surprising, because up to 40% of kids who come in for treatment, often for cannabis use disorder, will have ADHD, yet there is very little guidance from empirical studies as to how to best treat them,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD, but results have been mixed. In the cannabis use populations, atomoxetine has not been shown to be effective in treating the substance use disorder, and results are mixed regarding superiority in reducing ADHD symptoms. There is one study showing that ADHD is more likely to be improved in adults with alcohol use disorders with mixed results regarding the alcohol use.”

Overall, most of the outpatient and inpatient studies conducted in this population have demonstrated some signal in terms of reducing ADHD, she said, while a minority of the outpatient studies suggest some benefit in terms of substance use. “What’s interesting is that when you see a response in terms of the ADHD, you often see an improvement in the substance use as well,” Dr. Levin said. “This potentially suggests that patients may be self-medicating their ADHD symptoms or that if the ADHD responds to treatment, then the patient may benefit from the psychosocial interventions that targets the SUD.”

A separate meta-analysis involving more than 1,000 patients found mixed results from pharmacologic interventions and concluded that, while they modestly improved ADHD symptoms, no beneficial effect was seen on drug abstinence or on treatment discontinuation (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Jan;29[1]:15-23). “I would argue that you don’t need to be as nihilistic about this as the meta-analysis might suggest, because the devil’s in the details,” said Dr. Levin, whose own research was included in the work.

“First of all, many of the studies had high drop-out rates. The outcome measures were variable, and some of the studies used formulations with poor bioavailability. Also, trials that evaluated atomoxetine or stimulants were combined, which may be problematic given the different mechanisms of action. Further, the meta-analysis did not include two recent placebo-controlled trials in adults with stimulant-use disorders that both found that higher dosing of a long-acting stimulant resulted in greater improvements in ADHD symptoms and stimulant use” (Addict. 2014;109[3]:440-9 and JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72[6]:593-602).

Dr. Levin went on to note that there are few empirical data to guide treatment for those who have multiple psychiatric disorders, let alone treatment for ADHD and SUDs without additional psychiatric disorders. The challenge is what to treat first and/or how to treat the concomitant conditions safely.

“Generally, if possible, treat what is most clinically impairing first,” she said. “Overall, both stimulants and atomoxetine may work for ADHD even in the presence of additional depression, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders.”

She cautioned against treating a patient with ADHD medication if there is a preexisting psychosis or bipolar illness. “If you start a stimulant or atomoxetine and psychosis or mania occurs, you clearly want to stop the medication and reassess,” she said. Researchers found that the risk of precipitating mania with a stimulant is uncommon if you alleviate symptoms first with a mood stabilizer. “This is a situation where you probably want to treat the bipolar illness first, but it does not preclude the treatment of ADHD once the mood stabilization has occurred,” she said.

In patients with ADHD and anxiety, she often treats the ADHD first, “because oftentimes the anxiety is driven by the procrastination and the inability to get things done,” she explained. “It’s important to determine whether the anxiety is an independent disorder rather than symptoms of ADHD. Inner restlessness can be described as anxiety.”

When there are concerns that preclude the use of a controlled medication, there are medications, in addition to atomoxetine, that might be considered. While bupropion is not Food and Drug Administration approved for ADHD, it might be useful in comorbid mood disorders for nicotine dependence. Other off-label medications that may help include guanfacine, modafinil, and tricyclic antidepressants.

“To date, robust dosing of long-acting amphetamine or methylphenidate formulations have been shown to be effective for patients with stimulant-use disorder, but as mentioned earlier, the data only come from two studies,” she said.

In order to determine whether stimulant treatment is yielding a benefit in a patient with co-occurring ADHD and SUD, she recommends carrying out a structured assessment of ADHD symptoms. Monitoring for functional improvement is also key.

“If there is no improvement in social, occupational, or academic settings and the patient is still actively using drugs, then there is no reason to keep prescribing,” she said. Close monitoring for cardiovascular or other psychiatric symptoms are key as well. Further, for those individuals with both ADHD and a substance-use disorder, it is critical that both are targeted for treatment.

Dr. Levin reported that she has received research, training, or salary support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, New York state, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. She has also received or currently receives industry support from Indivior and U.S. World Meds and for medication and from Major League Baseball. In addition, Dr. Levin has been an unpaid scientific advisory board member for Alkermes, Indivior, and Novartis.

[email protected]

When Frances R. Levin, MD, began her clinical psychiatry career in the mid-1990s, she spent a lot of time educating colleagues about the validity of an ADHD diagnosis in adults.

“That’s no longer an issue,” Dr. Levin, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “But at the time, we often thought, ‘ADHD is something that’s specific to people who are stimulant users.’ In fact, what we found over the years was that these rates are elevated in a range of substance use populations.”

According to National Comorbidity Survey, a nontreatment sample of more than 3,000 adults, individuals who have SUD have two to three times the risk of having ADHD, while individuals who have ADHD have about three times the rate of having an SUD, compared with those who don’t (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[4]:716-23). “When you move to treatment samples, the rates also remain quite high,” said Dr. Levin, who is also chief of the division of substance use disorders at the medical center.

“In the general population, the rates of ADHD are 2%-4%. When we look at people who are coming in specifically for treatment of their SUD, the rates are substantially higher, ranging from 10% to 24%.”

According to a 2014 review of medical literature, potential reasons for the association between ADHD and SUD vary and include underlying biologic deficits, such as parental SUDs and genetics; conduct disorder symptoms, such as defiance, rule breaking, and delinquency; poor performance in school, such as low grades, grade retention, or drop-out; and social difficulties, such as rejection from conventional groups or few quality friendships (Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:607-39). Other potential pathways include neurocognitive deficits, stress-negative affect models, impulsive anger, and other underlying traits.

One key reason to treat ADHD in patients with SUDs is that they tend to develop the SUD earlier when the ADHD is present, Dr. Levin said. They’re also less likely to be retained in treatment and have a reduced likelihood of going into remission if dependence develops. “Even when they do achieve remission, it seems to take longer for people to reach remission,” she said. “They have more treatment exposure yet do less well in treatment. The other elephant in the room is that often people with ADHD and an SUD have other psychiatric comorbidities. This can make it more challenging to treat this population.”

One common assumption from clinicians regarding patients with ADHD and a concomitant SUD is that standard treatments for ADHD do not work in active substance users. Another is that, even if treatments work for ADHD, they do not affect the substance use disorder. “Understandably, there is also concern that active substance abusers will misuse and divert their medications,” she said. “Finally, there are often additional psychiatric comorbidities that may make it harder to effectively treat individuals with ADHD and SUD.”

Since 2002, 15 double-blind outpatient studies using stimulants/atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD have appeared in the medical literature, Dr. Levin said. Only three have included adolescents. “That’s surprising, because up to 40% of kids who come in for treatment, often for cannabis use disorder, will have ADHD, yet there is very little guidance from empirical studies as to how to best treat them,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD, but results have been mixed. In the cannabis use populations, atomoxetine has not been shown to be effective in treating the substance use disorder, and results are mixed regarding superiority in reducing ADHD symptoms. There is one study showing that ADHD is more likely to be improved in adults with alcohol use disorders with mixed results regarding the alcohol use.”

Overall, most of the outpatient and inpatient studies conducted in this population have demonstrated some signal in terms of reducing ADHD, she said, while a minority of the outpatient studies suggest some benefit in terms of substance use. “What’s interesting is that when you see a response in terms of the ADHD, you often see an improvement in the substance use as well,” Dr. Levin said. “This potentially suggests that patients may be self-medicating their ADHD symptoms or that if the ADHD responds to treatment, then the patient may benefit from the psychosocial interventions that targets the SUD.”

A separate meta-analysis involving more than 1,000 patients found mixed results from pharmacologic interventions and concluded that, while they modestly improved ADHD symptoms, no beneficial effect was seen on drug abstinence or on treatment discontinuation (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Jan;29[1]:15-23). “I would argue that you don’t need to be as nihilistic about this as the meta-analysis might suggest, because the devil’s in the details,” said Dr. Levin, whose own research was included in the work.

“First of all, many of the studies had high drop-out rates. The outcome measures were variable, and some of the studies used formulations with poor bioavailability. Also, trials that evaluated atomoxetine or stimulants were combined, which may be problematic given the different mechanisms of action. Further, the meta-analysis did not include two recent placebo-controlled trials in adults with stimulant-use disorders that both found that higher dosing of a long-acting stimulant resulted in greater improvements in ADHD symptoms and stimulant use” (Addict. 2014;109[3]:440-9 and JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72[6]:593-602).

Dr. Levin went on to note that there are few empirical data to guide treatment for those who have multiple psychiatric disorders, let alone treatment for ADHD and SUDs without additional psychiatric disorders. The challenge is what to treat first and/or how to treat the concomitant conditions safely.

“Generally, if possible, treat what is most clinically impairing first,” she said. “Overall, both stimulants and atomoxetine may work for ADHD even in the presence of additional depression, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders.”

She cautioned against treating a patient with ADHD medication if there is a preexisting psychosis or bipolar illness. “If you start a stimulant or atomoxetine and psychosis or mania occurs, you clearly want to stop the medication and reassess,” she said. Researchers found that the risk of precipitating mania with a stimulant is uncommon if you alleviate symptoms first with a mood stabilizer. “This is a situation where you probably want to treat the bipolar illness first, but it does not preclude the treatment of ADHD once the mood stabilization has occurred,” she said.

In patients with ADHD and anxiety, she often treats the ADHD first, “because oftentimes the anxiety is driven by the procrastination and the inability to get things done,” she explained. “It’s important to determine whether the anxiety is an independent disorder rather than symptoms of ADHD. Inner restlessness can be described as anxiety.”

When there are concerns that preclude the use of a controlled medication, there are medications, in addition to atomoxetine, that might be considered. While bupropion is not Food and Drug Administration approved for ADHD, it might be useful in comorbid mood disorders for nicotine dependence. Other off-label medications that may help include guanfacine, modafinil, and tricyclic antidepressants.

“To date, robust dosing of long-acting amphetamine or methylphenidate formulations have been shown to be effective for patients with stimulant-use disorder, but as mentioned earlier, the data only come from two studies,” she said.

In order to determine whether stimulant treatment is yielding a benefit in a patient with co-occurring ADHD and SUD, she recommends carrying out a structured assessment of ADHD symptoms. Monitoring for functional improvement is also key.

“If there is no improvement in social, occupational, or academic settings and the patient is still actively using drugs, then there is no reason to keep prescribing,” she said. Close monitoring for cardiovascular or other psychiatric symptoms are key as well. Further, for those individuals with both ADHD and a substance-use disorder, it is critical that both are targeted for treatment.

Dr. Levin reported that she has received research, training, or salary support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, New York state, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. She has also received or currently receives industry support from Indivior and U.S. World Meds and for medication and from Major League Baseball. In addition, Dr. Levin has been an unpaid scientific advisory board member for Alkermes, Indivior, and Novartis.

[email protected]

When Frances R. Levin, MD, began her clinical psychiatry career in the mid-1990s, she spent a lot of time educating colleagues about the validity of an ADHD diagnosis in adults.

“That’s no longer an issue,” Dr. Levin, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “But at the time, we often thought, ‘ADHD is something that’s specific to people who are stimulant users.’ In fact, what we found over the years was that these rates are elevated in a range of substance use populations.”

According to National Comorbidity Survey, a nontreatment sample of more than 3,000 adults, individuals who have SUD have two to three times the risk of having ADHD, while individuals who have ADHD have about three times the rate of having an SUD, compared with those who don’t (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[4]:716-23). “When you move to treatment samples, the rates also remain quite high,” said Dr. Levin, who is also chief of the division of substance use disorders at the medical center.

“In the general population, the rates of ADHD are 2%-4%. When we look at people who are coming in specifically for treatment of their SUD, the rates are substantially higher, ranging from 10% to 24%.”

According to a 2014 review of medical literature, potential reasons for the association between ADHD and SUD vary and include underlying biologic deficits, such as parental SUDs and genetics; conduct disorder symptoms, such as defiance, rule breaking, and delinquency; poor performance in school, such as low grades, grade retention, or drop-out; and social difficulties, such as rejection from conventional groups or few quality friendships (Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:607-39). Other potential pathways include neurocognitive deficits, stress-negative affect models, impulsive anger, and other underlying traits.

One key reason to treat ADHD in patients with SUDs is that they tend to develop the SUD earlier when the ADHD is present, Dr. Levin said. They’re also less likely to be retained in treatment and have a reduced likelihood of going into remission if dependence develops. “Even when they do achieve remission, it seems to take longer for people to reach remission,” she said. “They have more treatment exposure yet do less well in treatment. The other elephant in the room is that often people with ADHD and an SUD have other psychiatric comorbidities. This can make it more challenging to treat this population.”

One common assumption from clinicians regarding patients with ADHD and a concomitant SUD is that standard treatments for ADHD do not work in active substance users. Another is that, even if treatments work for ADHD, they do not affect the substance use disorder. “Understandably, there is also concern that active substance abusers will misuse and divert their medications,” she said. “Finally, there are often additional psychiatric comorbidities that may make it harder to effectively treat individuals with ADHD and SUD.”

Since 2002, 15 double-blind outpatient studies using stimulants/atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD have appeared in the medical literature, Dr. Levin said. Only three have included adolescents. “That’s surprising, because up to 40% of kids who come in for treatment, often for cannabis use disorder, will have ADHD, yet there is very little guidance from empirical studies as to how to best treat them,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD, but results have been mixed. In the cannabis use populations, atomoxetine has not been shown to be effective in treating the substance use disorder, and results are mixed regarding superiority in reducing ADHD symptoms. There is one study showing that ADHD is more likely to be improved in adults with alcohol use disorders with mixed results regarding the alcohol use.”

Overall, most of the outpatient and inpatient studies conducted in this population have demonstrated some signal in terms of reducing ADHD, she said, while a minority of the outpatient studies suggest some benefit in terms of substance use. “What’s interesting is that when you see a response in terms of the ADHD, you often see an improvement in the substance use as well,” Dr. Levin said. “This potentially suggests that patients may be self-medicating their ADHD symptoms or that if the ADHD responds to treatment, then the patient may benefit from the psychosocial interventions that targets the SUD.”

A separate meta-analysis involving more than 1,000 patients found mixed results from pharmacologic interventions and concluded that, while they modestly improved ADHD symptoms, no beneficial effect was seen on drug abstinence or on treatment discontinuation (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Jan;29[1]:15-23). “I would argue that you don’t need to be as nihilistic about this as the meta-analysis might suggest, because the devil’s in the details,” said Dr. Levin, whose own research was included in the work.

“First of all, many of the studies had high drop-out rates. The outcome measures were variable, and some of the studies used formulations with poor bioavailability. Also, trials that evaluated atomoxetine or stimulants were combined, which may be problematic given the different mechanisms of action. Further, the meta-analysis did not include two recent placebo-controlled trials in adults with stimulant-use disorders that both found that higher dosing of a long-acting stimulant resulted in greater improvements in ADHD symptoms and stimulant use” (Addict. 2014;109[3]:440-9 and JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72[6]:593-602).

Dr. Levin went on to note that there are few empirical data to guide treatment for those who have multiple psychiatric disorders, let alone treatment for ADHD and SUDs without additional psychiatric disorders. The challenge is what to treat first and/or how to treat the concomitant conditions safely.

“Generally, if possible, treat what is most clinically impairing first,” she said. “Overall, both stimulants and atomoxetine may work for ADHD even in the presence of additional depression, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders.”

She cautioned against treating a patient with ADHD medication if there is a preexisting psychosis or bipolar illness. “If you start a stimulant or atomoxetine and psychosis or mania occurs, you clearly want to stop the medication and reassess,” she said. Researchers found that the risk of precipitating mania with a stimulant is uncommon if you alleviate symptoms first with a mood stabilizer. “This is a situation where you probably want to treat the bipolar illness first, but it does not preclude the treatment of ADHD once the mood stabilization has occurred,” she said.

In patients with ADHD and anxiety, she often treats the ADHD first, “because oftentimes the anxiety is driven by the procrastination and the inability to get things done,” she explained. “It’s important to determine whether the anxiety is an independent disorder rather than symptoms of ADHD. Inner restlessness can be described as anxiety.”

When there are concerns that preclude the use of a controlled medication, there are medications, in addition to atomoxetine, that might be considered. While bupropion is not Food and Drug Administration approved for ADHD, it might be useful in comorbid mood disorders for nicotine dependence. Other off-label medications that may help include guanfacine, modafinil, and tricyclic antidepressants.

“To date, robust dosing of long-acting amphetamine or methylphenidate formulations have been shown to be effective for patients with stimulant-use disorder, but as mentioned earlier, the data only come from two studies,” she said.

In order to determine whether stimulant treatment is yielding a benefit in a patient with co-occurring ADHD and SUD, she recommends carrying out a structured assessment of ADHD symptoms. Monitoring for functional improvement is also key.

“If there is no improvement in social, occupational, or academic settings and the patient is still actively using drugs, then there is no reason to keep prescribing,” she said. Close monitoring for cardiovascular or other psychiatric symptoms are key as well. Further, for those individuals with both ADHD and a substance-use disorder, it is critical that both are targeted for treatment.

Dr. Levin reported that she has received research, training, or salary support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, New York state, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. She has also received or currently receives industry support from Indivior and U.S. World Meds and for medication and from Major League Baseball. In addition, Dr. Levin has been an unpaid scientific advisory board member for Alkermes, Indivior, and Novartis.

[email protected]

In the days since recreational sales of marijuana became legal in Colorado in January 2014, concerning trends have emerged among the state’s young cannabis users.

Courtesy Dr. Paula D. Riggs

According to a report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, between 2014 and 2017, the number of suicides positive for marijuana increased 250% among those aged 10-19 years (from 4 to 14) and 22% among those aged 20 and older (from 118 to 144). “Other states are seeing something similar, and there is an emerging research showing a relationship between suicidality and the use of marijuana, especially high-potency products that are available in legalized markets,” Paula D. Riggs, MD, reported during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

 During that same 3-year time span, the proportion of Colorado youth aged 12 years and older who used marijuana in the past month jumped by 45%, which is more than 85% above the national average. “Similarly, among college-age students, we’ve seen an 18% increase in past-month marijuana use, which is 60% above the national average,” said Dr. Riggs, professor and vice chair of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Among adolescents, state health officials have observed a 5% increase in the proportion of those who used marijuana in the past month, which is more than 54% above the national average. “But a concerning trend is that we’re seeing an increase in the use of concentrates such as dabs and waxes,” she said. “That’s worrisome in terms of exposure to high-potency products.”

In other findings, 48% of young marijuana users reported going to work high (40% at least once per week), and there has been a 170% increase in youth ED urgent care visits for marijuana-related illnesses such as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or first-episode psychosis. State health officials have also observed a 148% increase in marijuana-related hospitalizations.

According to Dr. Riggs, who also directs the University of Colorado’s division of addiction science, prevention, and treatment, the average marijuana joint in the 1960s contained about 3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a level that crept up to the 4%-6% range in 2002. In today’s postlegalization era, the average joint now contains 13%-23% THC. “What’s concerning is that the concentrates – the dabs, waxes, shatter, and butane hash oils – contain upward of 70%-95% THC,” Dr. Riggs said. “Those are highly potent products that represent about 25% of the market share now. That’s a very big concern because the higher the potency the cannabis product used, the greater the abuse liability and addictive potential.”

The use of high-potency products also doubles the risk of developing generalized anxiety disorder, triples the risk of tobacco dependence, doubles the risk of other illicit substance disorders, and it at least quadruples the risk of developing first-episode psychosis in young people. “So, when you’re taking a cannabis use history, it’s important to ask patients about the potency of the products being used,” she said.

In the 2019 Monitoring the Future survey, 12% of U.S. 8th graders self-reported marijuana use in the past year and 7% in the past month, compared with 29% and 18% of 10th graders, respectively. Self-reported use by 12th graders was even more elevated (36% in the past year and 29% in the past month). “The concern is, this survey doesn’t really capture what’s happening with marijuana concentrates,” Dr. Riggs said.

A survey of Colorado youth conducted by the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment found that the percentage of students who reported using concentrated forms of marijuana has risen steadily in recent years and now stands at roughly 34%. “The use of edibles has also crept up,” said Dr. Riggs, who noted that marijuana dispensaries in Colorado outnumber Starbucks locations and McDonald’s restaurants. “You might not think that’s particularly concerning, except that the use of edibles is even more associated with onset of psychosis than other forms. This is probably because when you eat a marijuana product, you can’t control the exposure or the dose that you’re ingesting. We need to be concerned about these trends.”

European studies report that 30%-50% of new cases of first-onset psychosis are attributed to high-potency cannabis. “There is a dose-response relationship between cannabis and psychosis,” Dr. Riggs said. “That is, the frequency and duration of cannabis use, or the use of high-potency products, and the age of onset, are strongly associated with the risk of first-episode psychosis.

Researchers have known for some time that alterations in the endocannabinoid system are associated with psychosis independent of cannabis exposure. “Dysregulation of that endocannabinoid system occurs in patients at all stages of the psychosis continuum,” she continued. “It also means that the endocannabinoid system is a potential therapeutic target for psychosis.”

According to Dr. Riggs, THC exposure acutely increases dopamine in the ventral striatum and it can produce transient psychotomimetic effects in clinical and nonclinical populations. Genetic differences in the dopaminergic system can also interact with cannabis use to increase the risk of psychosis.

“For example, the COMT (catechol-O-methyltransferase) breaks down catecholamines such as dopamine in the prefrontal cortex,” she explained. “If you have a COMT gene polymorphism, that increases your risk of developing psychosis due to increased levels of dopamine signaling.”

She emphasized the importance of clinicians to understand that the age of cannabis use onset, the duration, frequency, and THC potency is related to the psychosis risk and worse prognosis. The earlier the initiation of marijuana use, the greater potential for first-episode psychosis. “Those who continue using cannabis after a first-episode psychosis have greater severity of psychotic illness and more treatment resistance, and they’re less likely to engage or be compliant with treatment recommendations,” Dr. Riggs said. “So, after that first-episode psychosis, it’s important to help a patient get abstinent. Because if they resume cannabis use, this can turn into a more chronic psychotic disorder.”

She added that, while insufficient evidence exists to determine whether cannabis plays a causal role in the development of schizophrenia or not, mounting evidence suggests that cannabis use may precipitate earlier onset of schizophrenia in those with other risk factors for the disorder. “There is considerable evidence that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis in a dose-related manner, especially with an onset before age 16,” Dr. Riggs said. “However, this does not mean that cannabis is safe for young adults. Cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms often develop during young adulthood and may become chronic.”

Dr. Riggs disclosed that she had received grant funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. She is also executive director for Encompass, which provides integrated treatment for adolescents and young adults.

[email protected]

In the days since recreational sales of marijuana became legal in Colorado in January 2014, concerning trends have emerged among the state’s young cannabis users.

Courtesy Dr. Paula D. Riggs

According to a report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, between 2014 and 2017, the number of suicides positive for marijuana increased 250% among those aged 10-19 years (from 4 to 14) and 22% among those aged 20 and older (from 118 to 144). “Other states are seeing something similar, and there is an emerging research showing a relationship between suicidality and the use of marijuana, especially high-potency products that are available in legalized markets,” Paula D. Riggs, MD, reported during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

 During that same 3-year time span, the proportion of Colorado youth aged 12 years and older who used marijuana in the past month jumped by 45%, which is more than 85% above the national average. “Similarly, among college-age students, we’ve seen an 18% increase in past-month marijuana use, which is 60% above the national average,” said Dr. Riggs, professor and vice chair of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Among adolescents, state health officials have observed a 5% increase in the proportion of those who used marijuana in the past month, which is more than 54% above the national average. “But a concerning trend is that we’re seeing an increase in the use of concentrates such as dabs and waxes,” she said. “That’s worrisome in terms of exposure to high-potency products.”

In other findings, 48% of young marijuana users reported going to work high (40% at least once per week), and there has been a 170% increase in youth ED urgent care visits for marijuana-related illnesses such as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or first-episode psychosis. State health officials have also observed a 148% increase in marijuana-related hospitalizations.

According to Dr. Riggs, who also directs the University of Colorado’s division of addiction science, prevention, and treatment, the average marijuana joint in the 1960s contained about 3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a level that crept up to the 4%-6% range in 2002. In today’s postlegalization era, the average joint now contains 13%-23% THC. “What’s concerning is that the concentrates – the dabs, waxes, shatter, and butane hash oils – contain upward of 70%-95% THC,” Dr. Riggs said. “Those are highly potent products that represent about 25% of the market share now. That’s a very big concern because the higher the potency the cannabis product used, the greater the abuse liability and addictive potential.”

The use of high-potency products also doubles the risk of developing generalized anxiety disorder, triples the risk of tobacco dependence, doubles the risk of other illicit substance disorders, and it at least quadruples the risk of developing first-episode psychosis in young people. “So, when you’re taking a cannabis use history, it’s important to ask patients about the potency of the products being used,” she said.

In the 2019 Monitoring the Future survey, 12% of U.S. 8th graders self-reported marijuana use in the past year and 7% in the past month, compared with 29% and 18% of 10th graders, respectively. Self-reported use by 12th graders was even more elevated (36% in the past year and 29% in the past month). “The concern is, this survey doesn’t really capture what’s happening with marijuana concentrates,” Dr. Riggs said.

A survey of Colorado youth conducted by the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment found that the percentage of students who reported using concentrated forms of marijuana has risen steadily in recent years and now stands at roughly 34%. “The use of edibles has also crept up,” said Dr. Riggs, who noted that marijuana dispensaries in Colorado outnumber Starbucks locations and McDonald’s restaurants. “You might not think that’s particularly concerning, except that the use of edibles is even more associated with onset of psychosis than other forms. This is probably because when you eat a marijuana product, you can’t control the exposure or the dose that you’re ingesting. We need to be concerned about these trends.”

European studies report that 30%-50% of new cases of first-onset psychosis are attributed to high-potency cannabis. “There is a dose-response relationship between cannabis and psychosis,” Dr. Riggs said. “That is, the frequency and duration of cannabis use, or the use of high-potency products, and the age of onset, are strongly associated with the risk of first-episode psychosis.

Researchers have known for some time that alterations in the endocannabinoid system are associated with psychosis independent of cannabis exposure. “Dysregulation of that endocannabinoid system occurs in patients at all stages of the psychosis continuum,” she continued. “It also means that the endocannabinoid system is a potential therapeutic target for psychosis.”

According to Dr. Riggs, THC exposure acutely increases dopamine in the ventral striatum and it can produce transient psychotomimetic effects in clinical and nonclinical populations. Genetic differences in the dopaminergic system can also interact with cannabis use to increase the risk of psychosis.

“For example, the COMT (catechol-O-methyltransferase) breaks down catecholamines such as dopamine in the prefrontal cortex,” she explained. “If you have a COMT gene polymorphism, that increases your risk of developing psychosis due to increased levels of dopamine signaling.”

She emphasized the importance of clinicians to understand that the age of cannabis use onset, the duration, frequency, and THC potency is related to the psychosis risk and worse prognosis. The earlier the initiation of marijuana use, the greater potential for first-episode psychosis. “Those who continue using cannabis after a first-episode psychosis have greater severity of psychotic illness and more treatment resistance, and they’re less likely to engage or be compliant with treatment recommendations,” Dr. Riggs said. “So, after that first-episode psychosis, it’s important to help a patient get abstinent. Because if they resume cannabis use, this can turn into a more chronic psychotic disorder.”

She added that, while insufficient evidence exists to determine whether cannabis plays a causal role in the development of schizophrenia or not, mounting evidence suggests that cannabis use may precipitate earlier onset of schizophrenia in those with other risk factors for the disorder. “There is considerable evidence that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis in a dose-related manner, especially with an onset before age 16,” Dr. Riggs said. “However, this does not mean that cannabis is safe for young adults. Cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms often develop during young adulthood and may become chronic.”

Dr. Riggs disclosed that she had received grant funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. She is also executive director for Encompass, which provides integrated treatment for adolescents and young adults.

[email protected]

In the days since recreational sales of marijuana became legal in Colorado in January 2014, concerning trends have emerged among the state’s young cannabis users.

Courtesy Dr. Paula D. Riggs

According to a report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, between 2014 and 2017, the number of suicides positive for marijuana increased 250% among those aged 10-19 years (from 4 to 14) and 22% among those aged 20 and older (from 118 to 144). “Other states are seeing something similar, and there is an emerging research showing a relationship between suicidality and the use of marijuana, especially high-potency products that are available in legalized markets,” Paula D. Riggs, MD, reported during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

 During that same 3-year time span, the proportion of Colorado youth aged 12 years and older who used marijuana in the past month jumped by 45%, which is more than 85% above the national average. “Similarly, among college-age students, we’ve seen an 18% increase in past-month marijuana use, which is 60% above the national average,” said Dr. Riggs, professor and vice chair of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Among adolescents, state health officials have observed a 5% increase in the proportion of those who used marijuana in the past month, which is more than 54% above the national average. “But a concerning trend is that we’re seeing an increase in the use of concentrates such as dabs and waxes,” she said. “That’s worrisome in terms of exposure to high-potency products.”

In other findings, 48% of young marijuana users reported going to work high (40% at least once per week), and there has been a 170% increase in youth ED urgent care visits for marijuana-related illnesses such as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or first-episode psychosis. State health officials have also observed a 148% increase in marijuana-related hospitalizations.

According to Dr. Riggs, who also directs the University of Colorado’s division of addiction science, prevention, and treatment, the average marijuana joint in the 1960s contained about 3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a level that crept up to the 4%-6% range in 2002. In today’s postlegalization era, the average joint now contains 13%-23% THC. “What’s concerning is that the concentrates – the dabs, waxes, shatter, and butane hash oils – contain upward of 70%-95% THC,” Dr. Riggs said. “Those are highly potent products that represent about 25% of the market share now. That’s a very big concern because the higher the potency the cannabis product used, the greater the abuse liability and addictive potential.”

The use of high-potency products also doubles the risk of developing generalized anxiety disorder, triples the risk of tobacco dependence, doubles the risk of other illicit substance disorders, and it at least quadruples the risk of developing first-episode psychosis in young people. “So, when you’re taking a cannabis use history, it’s important to ask patients about the potency of the products being used,” she said.

In the 2019 Monitoring the Future survey, 12% of U.S. 8th graders self-reported marijuana use in the past year and 7% in the past month, compared with 29% and 18% of 10th graders, respectively. Self-reported use by 12th graders was even more elevated (36% in the past year and 29% in the past month). “The concern is, this survey doesn’t really capture what’s happening with marijuana concentrates,” Dr. Riggs said.

A survey of Colorado youth conducted by the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment found that the percentage of students who reported using concentrated forms of marijuana has risen steadily in recent years and now stands at roughly 34%. “The use of edibles has also crept up,” said Dr. Riggs, who noted that marijuana dispensaries in Colorado outnumber Starbucks locations and McDonald’s restaurants. “You might not think that’s particularly concerning, except that the use of edibles is even more associated with onset of psychosis than other forms. This is probably because when you eat a marijuana product, you can’t control the exposure or the dose that you’re ingesting. We need to be concerned about these trends.”

European studies report that 30%-50% of new cases of first-onset psychosis are attributed to high-potency cannabis. “There is a dose-response relationship between cannabis and psychosis,” Dr. Riggs said. “That is, the frequency and duration of cannabis use, or the use of high-potency products, and the age of onset, are strongly associated with the risk of first-episode psychosis.

Researchers have known for some time that alterations in the endocannabinoid system are associated with psychosis independent of cannabis exposure. “Dysregulation of that endocannabinoid system occurs in patients at all stages of the psychosis continuum,” she continued. “It also means that the endocannabinoid system is a potential therapeutic target for psychosis.”

According to Dr. Riggs, THC exposure acutely increases dopamine in the ventral striatum and it can produce transient psychotomimetic effects in clinical and nonclinical populations. Genetic differences in the dopaminergic system can also interact with cannabis use to increase the risk of psychosis.

“For example, the COMT (catechol-O-methyltransferase) breaks down catecholamines such as dopamine in the prefrontal cortex,” she explained. “If you have a COMT gene polymorphism, that increases your risk of developing psychosis due to increased levels of dopamine signaling.”

She emphasized the importance of clinicians to understand that the age of cannabis use onset, the duration, frequency, and THC potency is related to the psychosis risk and worse prognosis. The earlier the initiation of marijuana use, the greater potential for first-episode psychosis. “Those who continue using cannabis after a first-episode psychosis have greater severity of psychotic illness and more treatment resistance, and they’re less likely to engage or be compliant with treatment recommendations,” Dr. Riggs said. “So, after that first-episode psychosis, it’s important to help a patient get abstinent. Because if they resume cannabis use, this can turn into a more chronic psychotic disorder.”

She added that, while insufficient evidence exists to determine whether cannabis plays a causal role in the development of schizophrenia or not, mounting evidence suggests that cannabis use may precipitate earlier onset of schizophrenia in those with other risk factors for the disorder. “There is considerable evidence that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis in a dose-related manner, especially with an onset before age 16,” Dr. Riggs said. “However, this does not mean that cannabis is safe for young adults. Cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms often develop during young adulthood and may become chronic.”

Dr. Riggs disclosed that she had received grant funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. She is also executive director for Encompass, which provides integrated treatment for adolescents and young adults.

[email protected]

When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.

Courtesy Dr. Carol A. Bernstein

“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”

According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.

“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”

Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.

“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”

Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.

“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because focusing on ourselves – with worries like ‘are we okay? Are we going to get sick?’ – compromises our focus on patients. This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’

“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”

Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”

To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”

She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”

Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”

She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”

Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.

Courtesy Dr. Carol A. Bernstein

“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”

According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.

“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”

Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.

“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”

Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.

“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because focusing on ourselves – with worries like ‘are we okay? Are we going to get sick?’ – compromises our focus on patients. This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’

“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”

Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”

To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”

She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”

Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”

She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”

Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.

Courtesy Dr. Carol A. Bernstein

“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”

According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.

“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”

Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.

“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”

Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.

“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because focusing on ourselves – with worries like ‘are we okay? Are we going to get sick?’ – compromises our focus on patients. This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’

“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”

Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”

To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”

She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”

Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”

She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”

Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

More evidence has emerged linking sleep deficiency, dementia, and mortality.

amenic181/Getty Images

“Sleep disturbance and insufficiency have been shown to be associated with both the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease and with all-cause mortality,” wrote Rebecca S. Robbins, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, research on this topic has yielded conflicting results, and “few studies have included a comprehensive set of sleep characteristics in a single examination of incident dementia and all-cause mortality.”

In a study published in Aging, the researchers identified 2,812 adults aged 65 years and older from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a nationally representative longitudinal study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older in the United States.

Participants completed surveys about sleep disturbance and duration in 2013 (1,575 individuals) and in 2014 (1,237 individuals), and the researchers examined the relationship between sleep disturbance and deficiency and incident dementia and all-cause mortality over the next 5 years. The average age of the study participants was 76.9 years, 60% were women, and 72% were White.

Overall, approximately 60% of the participants reported never or rarely having problems with alertness, approximately half said that they rarely or never napped, and more than half said they fell asleep in 15 minutes or less. Approximately 70% rated their sleep quality as good or very good, and more than 90% said they rarely or never snored.

The researchers examined the relationships between sleep characteristics and the development of incident dementia over 5 years. In a fully adjusted Cox multivariate analysis, individuals who slept 5 hours or less per night had approximately twice the risk for incident dementia as those who slept longer (hazard ratio, 2.04); risk of dementia also was higher among those who took 30 minutes or longer to fall asleep (HR, 1.45).

In addition, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals who reported difficulty maintaining alertness some days or most days/every day (HR, 1.49 and HR, 1.65, respectively), routinely napping some days or most days/every day (HR, 1.38 and HR, 1.73, respectively), poor or very poor sleep quality (HR, 1.75), and sleeping 5 hours or less each night (HR, 2.38).

The study findings were limited by several factors including a population representing only one-quarter of the NHATS cohort, which prevented nationally representative estimates, the availability of only 2 years of sleep data, and small sample size for certain response categories, the researchers noted.

However, “our study offers a contribution to the literature on sleep among aging populations in its assessment of incident dementia and all-cause mortality and a range of sleep characteristics among older adults,” they said. In particular, “short sleep duration was a strong predictor of both incident dementia and all-cause mortality, suggesting this may be a sleep characteristic that is important – over and above the other predictors – of adverse outcomes among older adults,” and future areas for research include the development of novel behavioral interventions to improve sleep in this population.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute on Aging; and the Brigham Research Institute Fund to Sustain Research Excellence. Lead author Dr. Robbins disclosed fees from Denihan Hospitality, Rituals Cosmetics, Dagmejan, Asystem, and SleepCycle. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, and support from various philanthropic organizations.

More evidence has emerged linking sleep deficiency, dementia, and mortality.

amenic181/Getty Images

“Sleep disturbance and insufficiency have been shown to be associated with both the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease and with all-cause mortality,” wrote Rebecca S. Robbins, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, research on this topic has yielded conflicting results, and “few studies have included a comprehensive set of sleep characteristics in a single examination of incident dementia and all-cause mortality.”

In a study published in Aging, the researchers identified 2,812 adults aged 65 years and older from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a nationally representative longitudinal study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older in the United States.

Participants completed surveys about sleep disturbance and duration in 2013 (1,575 individuals) and in 2014 (1,237 individuals), and the researchers examined the relationship between sleep disturbance and deficiency and incident dementia and all-cause mortality over the next 5 years. The average age of the study participants was 76.9 years, 60% were women, and 72% were White.

Overall, approximately 60% of the participants reported never or rarely having problems with alertness, approximately half said that they rarely or never napped, and more than half said they fell asleep in 15 minutes or less. Approximately 70% rated their sleep quality as good or very good, and more than 90% said they rarely or never snored.

The researchers examined the relationships between sleep characteristics and the development of incident dementia over 5 years. In a fully adjusted Cox multivariate analysis, individuals who slept 5 hours or less per night had approximately twice the risk for incident dementia as those who slept longer (hazard ratio, 2.04); risk of dementia also was higher among those who took 30 minutes or longer to fall asleep (HR, 1.45).

In addition, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals who reported difficulty maintaining alertness some days or most days/every day (HR, 1.49 and HR, 1.65, respectively), routinely napping some days or most days/every day (HR, 1.38 and HR, 1.73, respectively), poor or very poor sleep quality (HR, 1.75), and sleeping 5 hours or less each night (HR, 2.38).

The study findings were limited by several factors including a population representing only one-quarter of the NHATS cohort, which prevented nationally representative estimates, the availability of only 2 years of sleep data, and small sample size for certain response categories, the researchers noted.

However, “our study offers a contribution to the literature on sleep among aging populations in its assessment of incident dementia and all-cause mortality and a range of sleep characteristics among older adults,” they said. In particular, “short sleep duration was a strong predictor of both incident dementia and all-cause mortality, suggesting this may be a sleep characteristic that is important – over and above the other predictors – of adverse outcomes among older adults,” and future areas for research include the development of novel behavioral interventions to improve sleep in this population.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute on Aging; and the Brigham Research Institute Fund to Sustain Research Excellence. Lead author Dr. Robbins disclosed fees from Denihan Hospitality, Rituals Cosmetics, Dagmejan, Asystem, and SleepCycle. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, and support from various philanthropic organizations.

More evidence has emerged linking sleep deficiency, dementia, and mortality.

amenic181/Getty Images

“Sleep disturbance and insufficiency have been shown to be associated with both the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease and with all-cause mortality,” wrote Rebecca S. Robbins, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, research on this topic has yielded conflicting results, and “few studies have included a comprehensive set of sleep characteristics in a single examination of incident dementia and all-cause mortality.”

In a study published in Aging, the researchers identified 2,812 adults aged 65 years and older from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a nationally representative longitudinal study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older in the United States.

Participants completed surveys about sleep disturbance and duration in 2013 (1,575 individuals) and in 2014 (1,237 individuals), and the researchers examined the relationship between sleep disturbance and deficiency and incident dementia and all-cause mortality over the next 5 years. The average age of the study participants was 76.9 years, 60% were women, and 72% were White.

Overall, approximately 60% of the participants reported never or rarely having problems with alertness, approximately half said that they rarely or never napped, and more than half said they fell asleep in 15 minutes or less. Approximately 70% rated their sleep quality as good or very good, and more than 90% said they rarely or never snored.

The researchers examined the relationships between sleep characteristics and the development of incident dementia over 5 years. In a fully adjusted Cox multivariate analysis, individuals who slept 5 hours or less per night had approximately twice the risk for incident dementia as those who slept longer (hazard ratio, 2.04); risk of dementia also was higher among those who took 30 minutes or longer to fall asleep (HR, 1.45).

In addition, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals who reported difficulty maintaining alertness some days or most days/every day (HR, 1.49 and HR, 1.65, respectively), routinely napping some days or most days/every day (HR, 1.38 and HR, 1.73, respectively), poor or very poor sleep quality (HR, 1.75), and sleeping 5 hours or less each night (HR, 2.38).

The study findings were limited by several factors including a population representing only one-quarter of the NHATS cohort, which prevented nationally representative estimates, the availability of only 2 years of sleep data, and small sample size for certain response categories, the researchers noted.

However, “our study offers a contribution to the literature on sleep among aging populations in its assessment of incident dementia and all-cause mortality and a range of sleep characteristics among older adults,” they said. In particular, “short sleep duration was a strong predictor of both incident dementia and all-cause mortality, suggesting this may be a sleep characteristic that is important – over and above the other predictors – of adverse outcomes among older adults,” and future areas for research include the development of novel behavioral interventions to improve sleep in this population.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute on Aging; and the Brigham Research Institute Fund to Sustain Research Excellence. Lead author Dr. Robbins disclosed fees from Denihan Hospitality, Rituals Cosmetics, Dagmejan, Asystem, and SleepCycle. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, and support from various philanthropic organizations.

Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.

The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.

“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.

As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.

Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.

The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
 

Results

Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.

The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).

Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.

Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.

The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).

Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.

The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
 

Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout

Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.

“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.

“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.

One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”

Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.

“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”

Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.

Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.

“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”

Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.

“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”

The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.

The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.

“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.

As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.

Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.

The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
 

Results

Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.

The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).

Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.

Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.

The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).

Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.

The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
 

Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout

Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.

“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.

“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.

One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”

Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.

“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”

Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.

Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.

“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”

Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.

“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”

The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.

The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.

“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.

As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.

Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.

The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
 

Results

Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.

The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).

Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.

Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.

The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).

Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.

The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
 

Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout

Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.

“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.

“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.

One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”

Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.

“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”

Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.

Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.

“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”

Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.

“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”

The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, walked through a multiagency attack plan for halting the spread of three COVID-19 variants earlier this week.

As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.

In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.

Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.

As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.

In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.

She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.

She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.

Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.

Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.

Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.

As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
 

Top three threats

She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.

Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.

“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.

The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.

The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
 

Outlook for March and April

Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.

“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”

CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.

“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.

“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.

Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.

Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.

“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.

In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.

Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.

She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.

“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.

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

Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, walked through a multiagency attack plan for halting the spread of three COVID-19 variants earlier this week.

As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.

In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.

Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.

As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.

In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.

She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.

She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.

Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.

Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.

Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.

As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
 

Top three threats

She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.

Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.

“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.

The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.

The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
 

Outlook for March and April

Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.

“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”

CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.

“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.

“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.

Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.

Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.

“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.

In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.

Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.

She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.

“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.

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

Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, walked through a multiagency attack plan for halting the spread of three COVID-19 variants earlier this week.

As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.

In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.

Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.

As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.

In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.

She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.

She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.

Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.

Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.

Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.

As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
 

Top three threats

She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.

Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.

“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.

The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.

The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
 

Outlook for March and April

Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.

“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”

CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.

“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.

“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.

Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.

Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.

“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.

In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.

Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.

She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.

“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.

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

Schizophrenia-related genes in the placenta are predictive of the size of a baby’s brain at birth and the rate of cognitive development. In a complicated pregnancy, such genes could raise the risk of developing schizophrenia later in life, new research suggests.

“This is further evidence that early life matters in schizophrenia, and the placenta plays a bigger role than we imagined,” Daniel R. Weinberger, MD, director and CEO, Lieber Institute for Brain Development, and professor of neurology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

A therapeutic target?

As reported by this news organization, in 2018, the same group of researchers reported that genes associated with schizophrenia are activated in the placenta during a complicated pregnancy, increasing a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later in life.

In this latest study, they further explored the biological interplay between placental health and neurodevelopment.

They found that a higher placental genomic risk score for schizophrenia, in conjunction with early-life complications during pregnancy, at labor/delivery, and early in neonatal life, is associated with changes in early brain growth and function, particularly in males.

“The higher the placental schizophrenia gene risk score, the smaller the brain size at birth, and this was associated with slower cognitive development over the first 2 years of life – particularly in the first year of life,” said Dr. Weinberger.

This research defines a “potentially reversible neurodevelopmental path of risk that may be unique to schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

Although most individuals on this altered neurodevelopmental path likely “canalize” back toward normal development, some may not be rescued and instead “decanalize” toward illness, they add.

To date, prevention of schizophrenia from early life has seemed “unapproachable if not unimaginable, but these new insights offer possibilities to change the paradigm,” Dr. Weinberger said in the news release.

“Measuring schizophrenia genetic scores in the placenta combined with studying the first 2 years of cognitive developmental patterns and early life complications could prove to be an important approach to identify those babies with increased risks,” he added.
 

Important research

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Christopher A. Ross, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that this is “an interesting and important paper that replicates and extends previous findings of the relationship of placenta genes to schizophrenia in adults.”

“The hypothesis continues to be – and they are continuing to support it – that events in early development could set a person up for a risk of schizophrenia later in life,” said Dr. Ross.

This research, he added, also supports the concept that there are at least two broad classes of genetic risk for schizophrenia.

“One acts through genes that are expressed in the brain and doesn’t relate to early life events, and the other acts through genes expressed in the placenta in patients with these early life events,” said Dr. Ross.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Weinberger and Dr. Ross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Schizophrenia-related genes in the placenta are predictive of the size of a baby’s brain at birth and the rate of cognitive development. In a complicated pregnancy, such genes could raise the risk of developing schizophrenia later in life, new research suggests.

“This is further evidence that early life matters in schizophrenia, and the placenta plays a bigger role than we imagined,” Daniel R. Weinberger, MD, director and CEO, Lieber Institute for Brain Development, and professor of neurology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

A therapeutic target?

As reported by this news organization, in 2018, the same group of researchers reported that genes associated with schizophrenia are activated in the placenta during a complicated pregnancy, increasing a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later in life.

In this latest study, they further explored the biological interplay between placental health and neurodevelopment.

They found that a higher placental genomic risk score for schizophrenia, in conjunction with early-life complications during pregnancy, at labor/delivery, and early in neonatal life, is associated with changes in early brain growth and function, particularly in males.

“The higher the placental schizophrenia gene risk score, the smaller the brain size at birth, and this was associated with slower cognitive development over the first 2 years of life – particularly in the first year of life,” said Dr. Weinberger.

This research defines a “potentially reversible neurodevelopmental path of risk that may be unique to schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

Although most individuals on this altered neurodevelopmental path likely “canalize” back toward normal development, some may not be rescued and instead “decanalize” toward illness, they add.

To date, prevention of schizophrenia from early life has seemed “unapproachable if not unimaginable, but these new insights offer possibilities to change the paradigm,” Dr. Weinberger said in the news release.

“Measuring schizophrenia genetic scores in the placenta combined with studying the first 2 years of cognitive developmental patterns and early life complications could prove to be an important approach to identify those babies with increased risks,” he added.
 

Important research

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Christopher A. Ross, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that this is “an interesting and important paper that replicates and extends previous findings of the relationship of placenta genes to schizophrenia in adults.”

“The hypothesis continues to be – and they are continuing to support it – that events in early development could set a person up for a risk of schizophrenia later in life,” said Dr. Ross.

This research, he added, also supports the concept that there are at least two broad classes of genetic risk for schizophrenia.

“One acts through genes that are expressed in the brain and doesn’t relate to early life events, and the other acts through genes expressed in the placenta in patients with these early life events,” said Dr. Ross.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Weinberger and Dr. Ross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Schizophrenia-related genes in the placenta are predictive of the size of a baby’s brain at birth and the rate of cognitive development. In a complicated pregnancy, such genes could raise the risk of developing schizophrenia later in life, new research suggests.

“This is further evidence that early life matters in schizophrenia, and the placenta plays a bigger role than we imagined,” Daniel R. Weinberger, MD, director and CEO, Lieber Institute for Brain Development, and professor of neurology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

A therapeutic target?

As reported by this news organization, in 2018, the same group of researchers reported that genes associated with schizophrenia are activated in the placenta during a complicated pregnancy, increasing a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later in life.

In this latest study, they further explored the biological interplay between placental health and neurodevelopment.

They found that a higher placental genomic risk score for schizophrenia, in conjunction with early-life complications during pregnancy, at labor/delivery, and early in neonatal life, is associated with changes in early brain growth and function, particularly in males.

“The higher the placental schizophrenia gene risk score, the smaller the brain size at birth, and this was associated with slower cognitive development over the first 2 years of life – particularly in the first year of life,” said Dr. Weinberger.

This research defines a “potentially reversible neurodevelopmental path of risk that may be unique to schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

Although most individuals on this altered neurodevelopmental path likely “canalize” back toward normal development, some may not be rescued and instead “decanalize” toward illness, they add.

To date, prevention of schizophrenia from early life has seemed “unapproachable if not unimaginable, but these new insights offer possibilities to change the paradigm,” Dr. Weinberger said in the news release.

“Measuring schizophrenia genetic scores in the placenta combined with studying the first 2 years of cognitive developmental patterns and early life complications could prove to be an important approach to identify those babies with increased risks,” he added.
 

Important research

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Christopher A. Ross, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that this is “an interesting and important paper that replicates and extends previous findings of the relationship of placenta genes to schizophrenia in adults.”

“The hypothesis continues to be – and they are continuing to support it – that events in early development could set a person up for a risk of schizophrenia later in life,” said Dr. Ross.

This research, he added, also supports the concept that there are at least two broad classes of genetic risk for schizophrenia.

“One acts through genes that are expressed in the brain and doesn’t relate to early life events, and the other acts through genes expressed in the placenta in patients with these early life events,” said Dr. Ross.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Weinberger and Dr. Ross have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The long-term neurologic symptoms such as “brain fog” experienced by some patients with COVID-19 may be caused by a unique pathology – the occlusion of brain capillaries by large megakaryocyte cells, a new report suggests.

The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.

They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.

The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Bone marrow cells in the brain

Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.

“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.

On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.

“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.

Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”  

By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.

“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.

Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
 

New neurologic complication

Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.

The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.

“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.

“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.

The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.

“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.

Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.

“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.

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

The long-term neurologic symptoms such as “brain fog” experienced by some patients with COVID-19 may be caused by a unique pathology – the occlusion of brain capillaries by large megakaryocyte cells, a new report suggests.

The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.

They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.

The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Bone marrow cells in the brain

Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.

“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.

On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.

“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.

Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”  

By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.

“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.

Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
 

New neurologic complication

Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.

The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.

“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.

“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.

The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.

“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.

Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.

“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.

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

The long-term neurologic symptoms such as “brain fog” experienced by some patients with COVID-19 may be caused by a unique pathology – the occlusion of brain capillaries by large megakaryocyte cells, a new report suggests.

The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.

They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.

The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Bone marrow cells in the brain

Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.

“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.

On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.

“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.

Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”  

By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.

“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.

Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
 

New neurologic complication

Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.

The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.

“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.

“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.

The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.

“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.

Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.

“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.

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

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

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

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

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

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

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