MDedge Psychiatry

U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.

Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.

“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”

Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.

“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”

He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.

The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.

After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.

Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).

More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).

The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).

These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.

Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.

It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.

“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.

The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.

The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.

U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.

Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.

“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”

Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.

“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”

He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.

The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.

After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.

Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).

More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).

The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).

These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.

Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.

It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.

“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.

The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.

The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.

U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.

Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.

“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”

Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.

“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”

He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.

The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.

After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.

Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).

More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).

The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).

These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.

Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.

It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.

“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.

The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.

The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past years, I have had the opportunity to attend countless lectures on burnout provided by colleagues spanning across many fields in mental health and health care in general. The talks generally follow a common narration: 1. Your work is important and meaningful to many. 2. Your work requires significant training, dedication, and passion. 3. While you get personal gratification from your work, it does come with a cost. 4. This cost can be great and can affect you physically and mentally. 5. This cost is called burnout.

Burnout is described as irritability (poor mood), low energy, poor concentration, difficulty appreciating enjoyable things (anhedonia), and poor sleep, among other symptoms, as a result of work stress. At this point in the lectures, I usually ask whomever is sitting next to me: “I came in late, is this a lecture on depression?” to which the answer is typically “No! Of course not, this is about ‘burnout’ not mental illness.” And here lies a concern about burnout: Is burnout a concept describing depression that we have repackaged to protect professionals from the stigmatization of mental illness? Does our tendency not to characterize patients’ struggles as burnout stigmatize them – and imply that their employment is not challenging to cause burnout?

According to the literature, a range of factors affects burnout in professionals: lack of control, unclear job expectations, dysfunctional workplace dynamics, extremes of activity, lack of social support, work-life imbalance. Contrary to depression, burnout is not caused by neurobiological problems. Patients with burnout don’t have chemical imbalances, hyperactive default mode networks, or overactive amygdalas. Burnout is caused by social factors and affects dedicated, caring, and exceptional individuals who have been pushed outside their window of tolerance.

Literature suggests a variety of remedies to treat burnout: Reevaluate your employment, discuss occupational concerns with your supervisor, discuss with colleagues, receive help from your social support system, and seek human resources services. In addition, experts recommend engaging in relaxing activities, improving your sleep hygiene, exercising regularly, and participating in mindfulness to reduce symptoms. Contrary to depression, burnout does not require individuals to fix their maladaptive thoughts or discover inadequate unconscious beliefs that may be affecting their work. Contrary to depression, burnout does not require the rebalancing of neurochemistry using psychotropic medication.

The concept of burnout engenders concerns. I fear that it divides physicians and patients into two different classes and thus further stigmatizes those with mental illness. It implies that we physicians are somehow immune from mental illness and its consequences. We do not suffer from brain abnormalities, we do not require mind-altering medications, we are not “mentally ill.” Contrarily, at times it might be implied that patients’ jobs are not important enough to cause burnout; if they feel sad, anhedonic, have poor energy and poor sleep, it is because they have mental illness. Their brains are inadequate and flawed. But for physicians, our brains are intact, just pushed beyond human capabilities.

I should point out that I do not think that burnout experts believe or desire to promote such concepts. I am not aware of burnout experts championing physician exceptionalism or promoting the stigmatization of patients. I believe that this problem is an unintended consequence, a side effect, of the idea of burnout itself.

Another concern I have is that the concept of burnout may actually hinder physicians from seeking necessary and appropriate professional services to address symptoms. Interestingly, most lectures I have attended on burnout have not discussed the concerning number of physicians who end their lives by suicide. Burnout can give physicians the impression that their problems are social and occupational, thus not requiring a medical solution or intervention. There was a time when I argued against the removal of the grief exclusion in the DSM; I worried that we were pathologizing natural emotional reactions to trauma. However, I have come to realize that, if someone is debilitated by depression, seeking professional help should not be predicated on the trigger. As such, I would recommend the vast number of physicians who state burnout in surveys to seriously consider the possibility that they may, in fact, be suffering from mental illness. We encourage our patients to seek help and speak out against stigmatization; isn’t it time that we as professionals should not be afraid to do the same?

I have concerns about the concept of burnout, but I certainly do not think that we should get rid of the idea. On the contrary, I applaud this attempt at de-pathologizing, and de-medicalizing human suffering. As many have argued with more or less success and controversy of the years, many emotional problems are not best suited to be treated by psychotropic medication or even psychiatry. I think that psychiatry should embrace paradigms that include social and occupational constructs of emotional pain, not rooted in diseases and/or chemical imbalances. Such paradigms should, furthermore, not be limited to certain professions or life circumstances. We are all affected by human suffering. Access and willingness to appropriate care or support should not be granted only to those with a mental illness diagnosis.

Burnout is a promising idea that challenges our conceptualization of mental disorders. Burnout brings a humanity to emotional pain frequently lost in the medicalized diagnoses of the DSM. Psychiatry should seriously consider opening its door to nonmedicalized understanding of psychological suffering. By opening those doors, we begin to create a less medicalized construct for human suffering. We begin to create one based on shared human experience.
 

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Springer, 2019).

Over the past years, I have had the opportunity to attend countless lectures on burnout provided by colleagues spanning across many fields in mental health and health care in general. The talks generally follow a common narration: 1. Your work is important and meaningful to many. 2. Your work requires significant training, dedication, and passion. 3. While you get personal gratification from your work, it does come with a cost. 4. This cost can be great and can affect you physically and mentally. 5. This cost is called burnout.

Burnout is described as irritability (poor mood), low energy, poor concentration, difficulty appreciating enjoyable things (anhedonia), and poor sleep, among other symptoms, as a result of work stress. At this point in the lectures, I usually ask whomever is sitting next to me: “I came in late, is this a lecture on depression?” to which the answer is typically “No! Of course not, this is about ‘burnout’ not mental illness.” And here lies a concern about burnout: Is burnout a concept describing depression that we have repackaged to protect professionals from the stigmatization of mental illness? Does our tendency not to characterize patients’ struggles as burnout stigmatize them – and imply that their employment is not challenging to cause burnout?

According to the literature, a range of factors affects burnout in professionals: lack of control, unclear job expectations, dysfunctional workplace dynamics, extremes of activity, lack of social support, work-life imbalance. Contrary to depression, burnout is not caused by neurobiological problems. Patients with burnout don’t have chemical imbalances, hyperactive default mode networks, or overactive amygdalas. Burnout is caused by social factors and affects dedicated, caring, and exceptional individuals who have been pushed outside their window of tolerance.

Literature suggests a variety of remedies to treat burnout: Reevaluate your employment, discuss occupational concerns with your supervisor, discuss with colleagues, receive help from your social support system, and seek human resources services. In addition, experts recommend engaging in relaxing activities, improving your sleep hygiene, exercising regularly, and participating in mindfulness to reduce symptoms. Contrary to depression, burnout does not require individuals to fix their maladaptive thoughts or discover inadequate unconscious beliefs that may be affecting their work. Contrary to depression, burnout does not require the rebalancing of neurochemistry using psychotropic medication.

The concept of burnout engenders concerns. I fear that it divides physicians and patients into two different classes and thus further stigmatizes those with mental illness. It implies that we physicians are somehow immune from mental illness and its consequences. We do not suffer from brain abnormalities, we do not require mind-altering medications, we are not “mentally ill.” Contrarily, at times it might be implied that patients’ jobs are not important enough to cause burnout; if they feel sad, anhedonic, have poor energy and poor sleep, it is because they have mental illness. Their brains are inadequate and flawed. But for physicians, our brains are intact, just pushed beyond human capabilities.

I should point out that I do not think that burnout experts believe or desire to promote such concepts. I am not aware of burnout experts championing physician exceptionalism or promoting the stigmatization of patients. I believe that this problem is an unintended consequence, a side effect, of the idea of burnout itself.

Another concern I have is that the concept of burnout may actually hinder physicians from seeking necessary and appropriate professional services to address symptoms. Interestingly, most lectures I have attended on burnout have not discussed the concerning number of physicians who end their lives by suicide. Burnout can give physicians the impression that their problems are social and occupational, thus not requiring a medical solution or intervention. There was a time when I argued against the removal of the grief exclusion in the DSM; I worried that we were pathologizing natural emotional reactions to trauma. However, I have come to realize that, if someone is debilitated by depression, seeking professional help should not be predicated on the trigger. As such, I would recommend the vast number of physicians who state burnout in surveys to seriously consider the possibility that they may, in fact, be suffering from mental illness. We encourage our patients to seek help and speak out against stigmatization; isn’t it time that we as professionals should not be afraid to do the same?

I have concerns about the concept of burnout, but I certainly do not think that we should get rid of the idea. On the contrary, I applaud this attempt at de-pathologizing, and de-medicalizing human suffering. As many have argued with more or less success and controversy of the years, many emotional problems are not best suited to be treated by psychotropic medication or even psychiatry. I think that psychiatry should embrace paradigms that include social and occupational constructs of emotional pain, not rooted in diseases and/or chemical imbalances. Such paradigms should, furthermore, not be limited to certain professions or life circumstances. We are all affected by human suffering. Access and willingness to appropriate care or support should not be granted only to those with a mental illness diagnosis.

Burnout is a promising idea that challenges our conceptualization of mental disorders. Burnout brings a humanity to emotional pain frequently lost in the medicalized diagnoses of the DSM. Psychiatry should seriously consider opening its door to nonmedicalized understanding of psychological suffering. By opening those doors, we begin to create a less medicalized construct for human suffering. We begin to create one based on shared human experience.
 

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Springer, 2019).

Over the past years, I have had the opportunity to attend countless lectures on burnout provided by colleagues spanning across many fields in mental health and health care in general. The talks generally follow a common narration: 1. Your work is important and meaningful to many. 2. Your work requires significant training, dedication, and passion. 3. While you get personal gratification from your work, it does come with a cost. 4. This cost can be great and can affect you physically and mentally. 5. This cost is called burnout.

Burnout is described as irritability (poor mood), low energy, poor concentration, difficulty appreciating enjoyable things (anhedonia), and poor sleep, among other symptoms, as a result of work stress. At this point in the lectures, I usually ask whomever is sitting next to me: “I came in late, is this a lecture on depression?” to which the answer is typically “No! Of course not, this is about ‘burnout’ not mental illness.” And here lies a concern about burnout: Is burnout a concept describing depression that we have repackaged to protect professionals from the stigmatization of mental illness? Does our tendency not to characterize patients’ struggles as burnout stigmatize them – and imply that their employment is not challenging to cause burnout?

According to the literature, a range of factors affects burnout in professionals: lack of control, unclear job expectations, dysfunctional workplace dynamics, extremes of activity, lack of social support, work-life imbalance. Contrary to depression, burnout is not caused by neurobiological problems. Patients with burnout don’t have chemical imbalances, hyperactive default mode networks, or overactive amygdalas. Burnout is caused by social factors and affects dedicated, caring, and exceptional individuals who have been pushed outside their window of tolerance.

Literature suggests a variety of remedies to treat burnout: Reevaluate your employment, discuss occupational concerns with your supervisor, discuss with colleagues, receive help from your social support system, and seek human resources services. In addition, experts recommend engaging in relaxing activities, improving your sleep hygiene, exercising regularly, and participating in mindfulness to reduce symptoms. Contrary to depression, burnout does not require individuals to fix their maladaptive thoughts or discover inadequate unconscious beliefs that may be affecting their work. Contrary to depression, burnout does not require the rebalancing of neurochemistry using psychotropic medication.

The concept of burnout engenders concerns. I fear that it divides physicians and patients into two different classes and thus further stigmatizes those with mental illness. It implies that we physicians are somehow immune from mental illness and its consequences. We do not suffer from brain abnormalities, we do not require mind-altering medications, we are not “mentally ill.” Contrarily, at times it might be implied that patients’ jobs are not important enough to cause burnout; if they feel sad, anhedonic, have poor energy and poor sleep, it is because they have mental illness. Their brains are inadequate and flawed. But for physicians, our brains are intact, just pushed beyond human capabilities.

I should point out that I do not think that burnout experts believe or desire to promote such concepts. I am not aware of burnout experts championing physician exceptionalism or promoting the stigmatization of patients. I believe that this problem is an unintended consequence, a side effect, of the idea of burnout itself.

Another concern I have is that the concept of burnout may actually hinder physicians from seeking necessary and appropriate professional services to address symptoms. Interestingly, most lectures I have attended on burnout have not discussed the concerning number of physicians who end their lives by suicide. Burnout can give physicians the impression that their problems are social and occupational, thus not requiring a medical solution or intervention. There was a time when I argued against the removal of the grief exclusion in the DSM; I worried that we were pathologizing natural emotional reactions to trauma. However, I have come to realize that, if someone is debilitated by depression, seeking professional help should not be predicated on the trigger. As such, I would recommend the vast number of physicians who state burnout in surveys to seriously consider the possibility that they may, in fact, be suffering from mental illness. We encourage our patients to seek help and speak out against stigmatization; isn’t it time that we as professionals should not be afraid to do the same?

I have concerns about the concept of burnout, but I certainly do not think that we should get rid of the idea. On the contrary, I applaud this attempt at de-pathologizing, and de-medicalizing human suffering. As many have argued with more or less success and controversy of the years, many emotional problems are not best suited to be treated by psychotropic medication or even psychiatry. I think that psychiatry should embrace paradigms that include social and occupational constructs of emotional pain, not rooted in diseases and/or chemical imbalances. Such paradigms should, furthermore, not be limited to certain professions or life circumstances. We are all affected by human suffering. Access and willingness to appropriate care or support should not be granted only to those with a mental illness diagnosis.

Burnout is a promising idea that challenges our conceptualization of mental disorders. Burnout brings a humanity to emotional pain frequently lost in the medicalized diagnoses of the DSM. Psychiatry should seriously consider opening its door to nonmedicalized understanding of psychological suffering. By opening those doors, we begin to create a less medicalized construct for human suffering. We begin to create one based on shared human experience.
 

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Springer, 2019).

A team of researchers has discovered important commonalities between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV infection that could lead to a potential targets for antiviral intervention.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Markus Hoffmann, of the Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany, and a team of investigators also found that antibody responses raised against SARS-S during infection or vaccination might offer some level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Their findings were published in Cell.

In order for coronaviruses to enter a cell, they must first bind their viral spike (S) proteins to cellular receptors and depend on S protein priming by host cell proteases. The study found that the SARS-CoV-2, causal agent for COVID-19, uses the same SARS-CoV receptor, ACE2, for entry and uses the serine protease TMPRSS2 for S protein priming as the original SARS-CoV-1 (SARS). Importantly, the researchers also found that the cellular serine protease TMPRSS2 primes SARS-CoV-2-S for entry and that a serine protease inhibitor blocks SARS-CoV-2 infection of lung cells, providing opportunities for potential therapeutic intervention.

The researchers performed a sequence analysis that showed SARS-CoV-2 clusters with SARS-CoV–related viruses from bats, of which some – but not all – can use ACE2 for host cell entry. Further analysis of the receptor binding motif known to make contact with ACE2 showed that most amino acid residues essential for ACE2 binding by SARS-S were conserved in SARS-2-S but were absent from S proteins of those SARS-related coronaviruses previously found not to use ACE2.

In addition, the researchers found that SARS-CoV-2–infected BHK-21 cells transfected to express ACE2 with high efficiency, but not the parental BHK-21 cells indicating that SARS-CoV-2-S, like the original SARS virus S protein, uses ACE2 for cellular entry.

Using cultured cells, the researchers found that the protease inhibitor, camostat mesylate, inhibited SARS-S and SARS-2-S entry into primary human lung cells, demonstrating that SARS-CoV-2 can use TMPRSS2 for S protein priming and that camostat mesylate can block SARS-CoV-2 infection of lung cells. Camostat mesylate has been used as a therapy for some forms of cancer and other viral infections.

In addition to their research on the protease inhibitor, the researchers also found that sera from convalescent SARS patients cross-neutralized SARS-2-S–driven entry. They found that four sera obtained from three convalescent SARS patients inhibited SARS-S entry into cell lines in a concentration dependent fashion.

“We demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 uses the SARS55 CoV receptor, ACE2, for entry and the serine protease TMPRSS2 for S protein priming. A TMPRSS2 inhibitor approved for clinical use blocked entry and might constitute a treatment option. Finally, we show that the sera from convalescent SARS patients cross-neutralized SARS-2-S–driven entry,” the authors concluded.

The study was supported by BMBF (RAPID Consortium) and German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hoffmann M et al. Cell 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052.

A team of researchers has discovered important commonalities between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV infection that could lead to a potential targets for antiviral intervention.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Markus Hoffmann, of the Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany, and a team of investigators also found that antibody responses raised against SARS-S during infection or vaccination might offer some level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Their findings were published in Cell.

In order for coronaviruses to enter a cell, they must first bind their viral spike (S) proteins to cellular receptors and depend on S protein priming by host cell proteases. The study found that the SARS-CoV-2, causal agent for COVID-19, uses the same SARS-CoV receptor, ACE2, for entry and uses the serine protease TMPRSS2 for S protein priming as the original SARS-CoV-1 (SARS). Importantly, the researchers also found that the cellular serine protease TMPRSS2 primes SARS-CoV-2-S for entry and that a serine protease inhibitor blocks SARS-CoV-2 infection of lung cells, providing opportunities for potential therapeutic intervention.

The researchers performed a sequence analysis that showed SARS-CoV-2 clusters with SARS-CoV–related viruses from bats, of which some – but not all – can use ACE2 for host cell entry. Further analysis of the receptor binding motif known to make contact with ACE2 showed that most amino acid residues essential for ACE2 binding by SARS-S were conserved in SARS-2-S but were absent from S proteins of those SARS-related coronaviruses previously found not to use ACE2.

In addition, the researchers found that SARS-CoV-2–infected BHK-21 cells transfected to express ACE2 with high efficiency, but not the parental BHK-21 cells indicating that SARS-CoV-2-S, like the original SARS virus S protein, uses ACE2 for cellular entry.

Using cultured cells, the researchers found that the protease inhibitor, camostat mesylate, inhibited SARS-S and SARS-2-S entry into primary human lung cells, demonstrating that SARS-CoV-2 can use TMPRSS2 for S protein priming and that camostat mesylate can block SARS-CoV-2 infection of lung cells. Camostat mesylate has been used as a therapy for some forms of cancer and other viral infections.

In addition to their research on the protease inhibitor, the researchers also found that sera from convalescent SARS patients cross-neutralized SARS-2-S–driven entry. They found that four sera obtained from three convalescent SARS patients inhibited SARS-S entry into cell lines in a concentration dependent fashion.

“We demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 uses the SARS55 CoV receptor, ACE2, for entry and the serine protease TMPRSS2 for S protein priming. A TMPRSS2 inhibitor approved for clinical use blocked entry and might constitute a treatment option. Finally, we show that the sera from convalescent SARS patients cross-neutralized SARS-2-S–driven entry,” the authors concluded.

The study was supported by BMBF (RAPID Consortium) and German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hoffmann M et al. Cell 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052.

A team of researchers has discovered important commonalities between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV infection that could lead to a potential targets for antiviral intervention.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Markus Hoffmann, of the Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany, and a team of investigators also found that antibody responses raised against SARS-S during infection or vaccination might offer some level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Their findings were published in Cell.

In order for coronaviruses to enter a cell, they must first bind their viral spike (S) proteins to cellular receptors and depend on S protein priming by host cell proteases. The study found that the SARS-CoV-2, causal agent for COVID-19, uses the same SARS-CoV receptor, ACE2, for entry and uses the serine protease TMPRSS2 for S protein priming as the original SARS-CoV-1 (SARS). Importantly, the researchers also found that the cellular serine protease TMPRSS2 primes SARS-CoV-2-S for entry and that a serine protease inhibitor blocks SARS-CoV-2 infection of lung cells, providing opportunities for potential therapeutic intervention.

The researchers performed a sequence analysis that showed SARS-CoV-2 clusters with SARS-CoV–related viruses from bats, of which some – but not all – can use ACE2 for host cell entry. Further analysis of the receptor binding motif known to make contact with ACE2 showed that most amino acid residues essential for ACE2 binding by SARS-S were conserved in SARS-2-S but were absent from S proteins of those SARS-related coronaviruses previously found not to use ACE2.

In addition, the researchers found that SARS-CoV-2–infected BHK-21 cells transfected to express ACE2 with high efficiency, but not the parental BHK-21 cells indicating that SARS-CoV-2-S, like the original SARS virus S protein, uses ACE2 for cellular entry.

Using cultured cells, the researchers found that the protease inhibitor, camostat mesylate, inhibited SARS-S and SARS-2-S entry into primary human lung cells, demonstrating that SARS-CoV-2 can use TMPRSS2 for S protein priming and that camostat mesylate can block SARS-CoV-2 infection of lung cells. Camostat mesylate has been used as a therapy for some forms of cancer and other viral infections.

In addition to their research on the protease inhibitor, the researchers also found that sera from convalescent SARS patients cross-neutralized SARS-2-S–driven entry. They found that four sera obtained from three convalescent SARS patients inhibited SARS-S entry into cell lines in a concentration dependent fashion.

“We demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 uses the SARS55 CoV receptor, ACE2, for entry and the serine protease TMPRSS2 for S protein priming. A TMPRSS2 inhibitor approved for clinical use blocked entry and might constitute a treatment option. Finally, we show that the sera from convalescent SARS patients cross-neutralized SARS-2-S–driven entry,” the authors concluded.

The study was supported by BMBF (RAPID Consortium) and German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hoffmann M et al. Cell 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052.

LAS VEGAS – More than 10 years ago, Gerard Sanacora, PhD, MD, came across a study in the medical literature that stopped him in his tracks.

For the study, Austrian neurologist Eberhard A. Deisenhammer, MD, and colleagues sought to determine the length of the period between consideration and accomplishment of a suicide attempt (J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70[1]:19-24). To do so, they interviewed 82 patients who were referred to a psychiatric university hospital after a suicide attempt. Nearly half of the patients (48%) reported that the period between the first current thought of suicide and the actual attempt had lasted 10 minutes or less.

“When you’re talking about treating suicide behavior, there are so many components: the impulsivity component, the resilience component – all these things that can’t be measured with a simple outcome measure,” Dr. Sanacora said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s one of the real challenges. It requires us to take a good look at how we’re treating these patients in general.”

It also underscores the need for new treatments that target suicidal ideation and behavior.

“There is increasing evidence that ketamine and esketamine can produce effects that could be used in the treatment of mood disorder patients with suicidal ideation or behavior,” said Dr. Sanacora, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “However, there are many challenges to performing the studies that are required to more definitively demonstrate rapid and sustained improvement in suicide risks.”

The global 12-month prevalence of nonfatal suicide attempts is about 0.3% to 0.4%, and the lifetime prevalence is 3%, “which is pretty shocking,” he said. In the United States, there are more than 30 suicide attempts for each suicide death. At the same time, a World Health Organization community survey conducted in 21 countries found that the 12-month prevalence of suicidal ideation was about 2%, and that the lifetime prevalence was 9%. “These are large numbers that we’re talking about internationally,” said Dr. Sanacora, who also directs the Yale Depression Research Program. In 2013, suicidal ideation constituted nearly 1% of all adult ED visits in the United States, with conservative costs of $2.2 billion. “Every step along the process takes a large toll on the health care system and society, from the top level of completed suicide to suicidal ideation,” he said.

According to 2016 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 10 million people in the United States have seriously considered suicide, about 2.5 million made a plan, about 1 million attempted suicide, and about 40,000 completed suicide. “We have to think about what we’re treating,” Dr. Sanacora said. “Are we treating the suicidal ideation, or are we trying to prevent completed suicides?”

A prior history of attempted suicide is the strongest single predictive factor of a completed suicide. “In fact, the risk of dying by suicide is approximately 100 times than that of the general population within 1 year of an index attempt,” he said. Another major risk factor is having a previous psychiatric hospitalization. In fact, up to 41% of those who completed suicide had been psychiatric inpatients within the previous year, and as many as 9% of suicides occurred within 1 day of discharge from psychiatric inpatient care. Other identified risk factors include marital status, belonging to a sexual minority, occupation, military service, general medical comorbidities, diagnosis of personality disorder, chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, childhood abuse, location of residence, access to firearms, and family history of suicide. Protective factors include having a strong social support network, being a parent, and religiosity. “These are things that typically aren’t part of a treatment, but they can be woven into a treatment plan in some way,” he said.

Other identified risk symptoms include feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness, the combination of depression and anxiety, and psychosis, regardless of the specific diagnosis.

Medical stabilization constitutes the first step in the standard treatment approach to suicidal ideation and behavior. “You want to make sure the person is hospitalized and take care of any injuries that may have been sustained in the suicide attempt,” Dr. Sanacora said. The next step is reducing the immediate risks. “For the most part, that’s making sure the individual is in a safe setting commensurate with the level of risk,” he said. “You want to remove any other risks that could be around them. Then, you want to assure that an appropriate level of follow-up is provided on stepdown to lower levels of care. That year after hospitalization puts you at incredible risk, so we want to make sure we’re not just treating something in the acute phase and then not having longer-term follow-up for it.”

Existing treatments that have some evidence to help with the treatment of suicidal ideation and behavior include the use of antidepressants, lithium, and clozapine, but these agents are far from fast-acting for a patient in crisis. “In addition, a lot of docs are hesitant to give lithium because it has the potential of overdose itself,” Dr. Sanacora said. With clozapine, he continued, “there is some level of confounding by indication because, when you’re giving clozapine, it’s usually a more reliable patient, one who is not at risk of self-harm.”

The STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) trial demonstrated that, for the patients who do not respond to the first two levels of treatment with citalopram, their chances of having a remission by getting a third or fourth level of treatment is reduced to below 15% (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[1]:28-40).

“This suggests that, with our current armamentarium, we are limited,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also codirector of the Yale New Haven Hospital Interventional Psychiatry Service. In the STAR*D trial, the time to response to citalopram was 6 weeks in 50% of patients. “So, when somebody is going through a crisis and is at imminent risk for suicide, and you tell them, ‘You’ll be 50% better in 6 weeks,’ that’s hard to swallow,” he said.

Recent studies of ketamine and esketamine have demonstrated a rapid onset of effect in patients with major depressive disorder, but whether they alter suicidal ideation and behavior remains unclear. “If you are wanting to improve suicidal ideation and behavior, what outcome measure are you using to do this?” Dr. Sanacora asked. “It may seem simple, but it’s not. To do a clinical trial, you would need large sample sizes to look at behavior as an outcome. In fact, even retrospective studies on this topic don’t have enough events to give you statistical meaning.” This leaves clinicians to consider scales that have been used for examining suicidal ideation and behavior over the years, including the MINI suicidality module, the SAD PERSONS scale, and the Suicide Intent Scale. “However, while they could have some value to be used clinically, these scales really don’t have great value as outcome measures,” Dr. Sanacora said.

There also have been attempts to develop scales that capture changes in suicidal ideation and behavior over time, including the C-SSRS (Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale) and the Sheehan Suicidality Tracking Scale. “The sad thing is, none of these measures have been proven to be very useful clinically,” he said. “They may have some level of sensitivity and specificity, but their actual predictive value is not great. So using these clinically is somewhat difficult.”

In 2018, Dr. Sanacora and his colleagues published results from a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis examining the effects of a single dose of ketamine on suicidal ideation (Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175[2]:150-8). The analysis included 167 participants with suicidal ideation at baseline. “Within 24 hours there was a very clear decrease in suicidal ideation in terms of clinician-reported scale,” he said. “Over 50% of patients reported having minimal or no ideation after treatment. That was maintained for 7 days.” Effect sizes were moderate to large at all time points post dose.

In the largest meta-analysis of its kind to date, researchers reviewed 15 independent trials of ketamine for suicide ideation in 572 adults with psychiatric disorders, all with a single dose of drug with varying routes and dosages (Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2020;54[1]:29-45). The researchers in that study concluded that ketamine “may have a role in acute treatment for suicidality. However, there is clearly a need for clinical measures to ensure persistence of any benefits.”

Esketamine, which was approved in March 2019 for major depressive disorder, also shows promise in patients with suicidal ideation and behavior. In a double-blind, multicenter, proof-of-concept study, researchers randomized 68 participants to receive esketamine (84 mg) or placebo twice weekly for 4 weeks, in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment (Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175[7]:620-30). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in score from baseline to 4 hours after initial dose on the MADRS (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale). “There was a nice effect in the antidepressant response, compared with placebo. It hit the primary endpoint at 4 hours. The patients got treated twice a week for 4 weeks. People got better quickly and stayed well moving on.” The researchers also found that the rate of remission at day 25 was 60% in the esketamine group, compared with 42% in the placebo group. “The take-home message is that, even without the esketamine, the remission rate was 42% at day 25. That means if you’re giving people really good care, meaning that you’re seeing them twice a week and they’re inpatient until they’re able to go outpatient, people can do pretty well with that level of care.”

Meanwhile, additional evidence supporting the use of ketamine in acute care settings is starting to emerge. In a proof-of-concept trial, 18 depressed subjects with acute suicidal ideation who presented to the emergency department and required hospitalization were randomized to either IV ketamine 0.2 mg/kg or to saline placebo (Depress Anxiety. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1002/da.22975). Ninety minutes after infusion, 88% of patients in the ketamine group had achieved remission of suicidal ideation, compared with 33% in the placebo group (P less than .05). No serious adverse events were noted.

“There is a clear need for new treatments targeting suicidal ideation and behavior,” Dr. Sanacora concluded. “Any plan to institute a rapid-acting treatment for individuals with imminent risk of suicidal behavior must be placed in the context of a larger comprehensive treatment plan. Getting somebody to feel better in the short run is great, but you really have to think about the whole treatment plan.”

Dr. Sanacora reported having received grants and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. He also holds an ownership interest in Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – More than 10 years ago, Gerard Sanacora, PhD, MD, came across a study in the medical literature that stopped him in his tracks.

For the study, Austrian neurologist Eberhard A. Deisenhammer, MD, and colleagues sought to determine the length of the period between consideration and accomplishment of a suicide attempt (J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70[1]:19-24). To do so, they interviewed 82 patients who were referred to a psychiatric university hospital after a suicide attempt. Nearly half of the patients (48%) reported that the period between the first current thought of suicide and the actual attempt had lasted 10 minutes or less.

“When you’re talking about treating suicide behavior, there are so many components: the impulsivity component, the resilience component – all these things that can’t be measured with a simple outcome measure,” Dr. Sanacora said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s one of the real challenges. It requires us to take a good look at how we’re treating these patients in general.”

It also underscores the need for new treatments that target suicidal ideation and behavior.

“There is increasing evidence that ketamine and esketamine can produce effects that could be used in the treatment of mood disorder patients with suicidal ideation or behavior,” said Dr. Sanacora, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “However, there are many challenges to performing the studies that are required to more definitively demonstrate rapid and sustained improvement in suicide risks.”

The global 12-month prevalence of nonfatal suicide attempts is about 0.3% to 0.4%, and the lifetime prevalence is 3%, “which is pretty shocking,” he said. In the United States, there are more than 30 suicide attempts for each suicide death. At the same time, a World Health Organization community survey conducted in 21 countries found that the 12-month prevalence of suicidal ideation was about 2%, and that the lifetime prevalence was 9%. “These are large numbers that we’re talking about internationally,” said Dr. Sanacora, who also directs the Yale Depression Research Program. In 2013, suicidal ideation constituted nearly 1% of all adult ED visits in the United States, with conservative costs of $2.2 billion. “Every step along the process takes a large toll on the health care system and society, from the top level of completed suicide to suicidal ideation,” he said.

According to 2016 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 10 million people in the United States have seriously considered suicide, about 2.5 million made a plan, about 1 million attempted suicide, and about 40,000 completed suicide. “We have to think about what we’re treating,” Dr. Sanacora said. “Are we treating the suicidal ideation, or are we trying to prevent completed suicides?”

A prior history of attempted suicide is the strongest single predictive factor of a completed suicide. “In fact, the risk of dying by suicide is approximately 100 times than that of the general population within 1 year of an index attempt,” he said. Another major risk factor is having a previous psychiatric hospitalization. In fact, up to 41% of those who completed suicide had been psychiatric inpatients within the previous year, and as many as 9% of suicides occurred within 1 day of discharge from psychiatric inpatient care. Other identified risk factors include marital status, belonging to a sexual minority, occupation, military service, general medical comorbidities, diagnosis of personality disorder, chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, childhood abuse, location of residence, access to firearms, and family history of suicide. Protective factors include having a strong social support network, being a parent, and religiosity. “These are things that typically aren’t part of a treatment, but they can be woven into a treatment plan in some way,” he said.

Other identified risk symptoms include feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness, the combination of depression and anxiety, and psychosis, regardless of the specific diagnosis.

Medical stabilization constitutes the first step in the standard treatment approach to suicidal ideation and behavior. “You want to make sure the person is hospitalized and take care of any injuries that may have been sustained in the suicide attempt,” Dr. Sanacora said. The next step is reducing the immediate risks. “For the most part, that’s making sure the individual is in a safe setting commensurate with the level of risk,” he said. “You want to remove any other risks that could be around them. Then, you want to assure that an appropriate level of follow-up is provided on stepdown to lower levels of care. That year after hospitalization puts you at incredible risk, so we want to make sure we’re not just treating something in the acute phase and then not having longer-term follow-up for it.”

Existing treatments that have some evidence to help with the treatment of suicidal ideation and behavior include the use of antidepressants, lithium, and clozapine, but these agents are far from fast-acting for a patient in crisis. “In addition, a lot of docs are hesitant to give lithium because it has the potential of overdose itself,” Dr. Sanacora said. With clozapine, he continued, “there is some level of confounding by indication because, when you’re giving clozapine, it’s usually a more reliable patient, one who is not at risk of self-harm.”

The STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) trial demonstrated that, for the patients who do not respond to the first two levels of treatment with citalopram, their chances of having a remission by getting a third or fourth level of treatment is reduced to below 15% (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[1]:28-40).

“This suggests that, with our current armamentarium, we are limited,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also codirector of the Yale New Haven Hospital Interventional Psychiatry Service. In the STAR*D trial, the time to response to citalopram was 6 weeks in 50% of patients. “So, when somebody is going through a crisis and is at imminent risk for suicide, and you tell them, ‘You’ll be 50% better in 6 weeks,’ that’s hard to swallow,” he said.

Recent studies of ketamine and esketamine have demonstrated a rapid onset of effect in patients with major depressive disorder, but whether they alter suicidal ideation and behavior remains unclear. “If you are wanting to improve suicidal ideation and behavior, what outcome measure are you using to do this?” Dr. Sanacora asked. “It may seem simple, but it’s not. To do a clinical trial, you would need large sample sizes to look at behavior as an outcome. In fact, even retrospective studies on this topic don’t have enough events to give you statistical meaning.” This leaves clinicians to consider scales that have been used for examining suicidal ideation and behavior over the years, including the MINI suicidality module, the SAD PERSONS scale, and the Suicide Intent Scale. “However, while they could have some value to be used clinically, these scales really don’t have great value as outcome measures,” Dr. Sanacora said.

There also have been attempts to develop scales that capture changes in suicidal ideation and behavior over time, including the C-SSRS (Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale) and the Sheehan Suicidality Tracking Scale. “The sad thing is, none of these measures have been proven to be very useful clinically,” he said. “They may have some level of sensitivity and specificity, but their actual predictive value is not great. So using these clinically is somewhat difficult.”

In 2018, Dr. Sanacora and his colleagues published results from a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis examining the effects of a single dose of ketamine on suicidal ideation (Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175[2]:150-8). The analysis included 167 participants with suicidal ideation at baseline. “Within 24 hours there was a very clear decrease in suicidal ideation in terms of clinician-reported scale,” he said. “Over 50% of patients reported having minimal or no ideation after treatment. That was maintained for 7 days.” Effect sizes were moderate to large at all time points post dose.

In the largest meta-analysis of its kind to date, researchers reviewed 15 independent trials of ketamine for suicide ideation in 572 adults with psychiatric disorders, all with a single dose of drug with varying routes and dosages (Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2020;54[1]:29-45). The researchers in that study concluded that ketamine “may have a role in acute treatment for suicidality. However, there is clearly a need for clinical measures to ensure persistence of any benefits.”

Esketamine, which was approved in March 2019 for major depressive disorder, also shows promise in patients with suicidal ideation and behavior. In a double-blind, multicenter, proof-of-concept study, researchers randomized 68 participants to receive esketamine (84 mg) or placebo twice weekly for 4 weeks, in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment (Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175[7]:620-30). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in score from baseline to 4 hours after initial dose on the MADRS (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale). “There was a nice effect in the antidepressant response, compared with placebo. It hit the primary endpoint at 4 hours. The patients got treated twice a week for 4 weeks. People got better quickly and stayed well moving on.” The researchers also found that the rate of remission at day 25 was 60% in the esketamine group, compared with 42% in the placebo group. “The take-home message is that, even without the esketamine, the remission rate was 42% at day 25. That means if you’re giving people really good care, meaning that you’re seeing them twice a week and they’re inpatient until they’re able to go outpatient, people can do pretty well with that level of care.”

Meanwhile, additional evidence supporting the use of ketamine in acute care settings is starting to emerge. In a proof-of-concept trial, 18 depressed subjects with acute suicidal ideation who presented to the emergency department and required hospitalization were randomized to either IV ketamine 0.2 mg/kg or to saline placebo (Depress Anxiety. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1002/da.22975). Ninety minutes after infusion, 88% of patients in the ketamine group had achieved remission of suicidal ideation, compared with 33% in the placebo group (P less than .05). No serious adverse events were noted.

“There is a clear need for new treatments targeting suicidal ideation and behavior,” Dr. Sanacora concluded. “Any plan to institute a rapid-acting treatment for individuals with imminent risk of suicidal behavior must be placed in the context of a larger comprehensive treatment plan. Getting somebody to feel better in the short run is great, but you really have to think about the whole treatment plan.”

Dr. Sanacora reported having received grants and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. He also holds an ownership interest in Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – More than 10 years ago, Gerard Sanacora, PhD, MD, came across a study in the medical literature that stopped him in his tracks.

For the study, Austrian neurologist Eberhard A. Deisenhammer, MD, and colleagues sought to determine the length of the period between consideration and accomplishment of a suicide attempt (J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70[1]:19-24). To do so, they interviewed 82 patients who were referred to a psychiatric university hospital after a suicide attempt. Nearly half of the patients (48%) reported that the period between the first current thought of suicide and the actual attempt had lasted 10 minutes or less.

“When you’re talking about treating suicide behavior, there are so many components: the impulsivity component, the resilience component – all these things that can’t be measured with a simple outcome measure,” Dr. Sanacora said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s one of the real challenges. It requires us to take a good look at how we’re treating these patients in general.”

It also underscores the need for new treatments that target suicidal ideation and behavior.

“There is increasing evidence that ketamine and esketamine can produce effects that could be used in the treatment of mood disorder patients with suicidal ideation or behavior,” said Dr. Sanacora, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “However, there are many challenges to performing the studies that are required to more definitively demonstrate rapid and sustained improvement in suicide risks.”

The global 12-month prevalence of nonfatal suicide attempts is about 0.3% to 0.4%, and the lifetime prevalence is 3%, “which is pretty shocking,” he said. In the United States, there are more than 30 suicide attempts for each suicide death. At the same time, a World Health Organization community survey conducted in 21 countries found that the 12-month prevalence of suicidal ideation was about 2%, and that the lifetime prevalence was 9%. “These are large numbers that we’re talking about internationally,” said Dr. Sanacora, who also directs the Yale Depression Research Program. In 2013, suicidal ideation constituted nearly 1% of all adult ED visits in the United States, with conservative costs of $2.2 billion. “Every step along the process takes a large toll on the health care system and society, from the top level of completed suicide to suicidal ideation,” he said.

According to 2016 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 10 million people in the United States have seriously considered suicide, about 2.5 million made a plan, about 1 million attempted suicide, and about 40,000 completed suicide. “We have to think about what we’re treating,” Dr. Sanacora said. “Are we treating the suicidal ideation, or are we trying to prevent completed suicides?”

A prior history of attempted suicide is the strongest single predictive factor of a completed suicide. “In fact, the risk of dying by suicide is approximately 100 times than that of the general population within 1 year of an index attempt,” he said. Another major risk factor is having a previous psychiatric hospitalization. In fact, up to 41% of those who completed suicide had been psychiatric inpatients within the previous year, and as many as 9% of suicides occurred within 1 day of discharge from psychiatric inpatient care. Other identified risk factors include marital status, belonging to a sexual minority, occupation, military service, general medical comorbidities, diagnosis of personality disorder, chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, childhood abuse, location of residence, access to firearms, and family history of suicide. Protective factors include having a strong social support network, being a parent, and religiosity. “These are things that typically aren’t part of a treatment, but they can be woven into a treatment plan in some way,” he said.

Other identified risk symptoms include feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness, the combination of depression and anxiety, and psychosis, regardless of the specific diagnosis.

Medical stabilization constitutes the first step in the standard treatment approach to suicidal ideation and behavior. “You want to make sure the person is hospitalized and take care of any injuries that may have been sustained in the suicide attempt,” Dr. Sanacora said. The next step is reducing the immediate risks. “For the most part, that’s making sure the individual is in a safe setting commensurate with the level of risk,” he said. “You want to remove any other risks that could be around them. Then, you want to assure that an appropriate level of follow-up is provided on stepdown to lower levels of care. That year after hospitalization puts you at incredible risk, so we want to make sure we’re not just treating something in the acute phase and then not having longer-term follow-up for it.”

Existing treatments that have some evidence to help with the treatment of suicidal ideation and behavior include the use of antidepressants, lithium, and clozapine, but these agents are far from fast-acting for a patient in crisis. “In addition, a lot of docs are hesitant to give lithium because it has the potential of overdose itself,” Dr. Sanacora said. With clozapine, he continued, “there is some level of confounding by indication because, when you’re giving clozapine, it’s usually a more reliable patient, one who is not at risk of self-harm.”

The STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) trial demonstrated that, for the patients who do not respond to the first two levels of treatment with citalopram, their chances of having a remission by getting a third or fourth level of treatment is reduced to below 15% (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[1]:28-40).

“This suggests that, with our current armamentarium, we are limited,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also codirector of the Yale New Haven Hospital Interventional Psychiatry Service. In the STAR*D trial, the time to response to citalopram was 6 weeks in 50% of patients. “So, when somebody is going through a crisis and is at imminent risk for suicide, and you tell them, ‘You’ll be 50% better in 6 weeks,’ that’s hard to swallow,” he said.

Recent studies of ketamine and esketamine have demonstrated a rapid onset of effect in patients with major depressive disorder, but whether they alter suicidal ideation and behavior remains unclear. “If you are wanting to improve suicidal ideation and behavior, what outcome measure are you using to do this?” Dr. Sanacora asked. “It may seem simple, but it’s not. To do a clinical trial, you would need large sample sizes to look at behavior as an outcome. In fact, even retrospective studies on this topic don’t have enough events to give you statistical meaning.” This leaves clinicians to consider scales that have been used for examining suicidal ideation and behavior over the years, including the MINI suicidality module, the SAD PERSONS scale, and the Suicide Intent Scale. “However, while they could have some value to be used clinically, these scales really don’t have great value as outcome measures,” Dr. Sanacora said.

There also have been attempts to develop scales that capture changes in suicidal ideation and behavior over time, including the C-SSRS (Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale) and the Sheehan Suicidality Tracking Scale. “The sad thing is, none of these measures have been proven to be very useful clinically,” he said. “They may have some level of sensitivity and specificity, but their actual predictive value is not great. So using these clinically is somewhat difficult.”

In 2018, Dr. Sanacora and his colleagues published results from a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis examining the effects of a single dose of ketamine on suicidal ideation (Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175[2]:150-8). The analysis included 167 participants with suicidal ideation at baseline. “Within 24 hours there was a very clear decrease in suicidal ideation in terms of clinician-reported scale,” he said. “Over 50% of patients reported having minimal or no ideation after treatment. That was maintained for 7 days.” Effect sizes were moderate to large at all time points post dose.

In the largest meta-analysis of its kind to date, researchers reviewed 15 independent trials of ketamine for suicide ideation in 572 adults with psychiatric disorders, all with a single dose of drug with varying routes and dosages (Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2020;54[1]:29-45). The researchers in that study concluded that ketamine “may have a role in acute treatment for suicidality. However, there is clearly a need for clinical measures to ensure persistence of any benefits.”

Esketamine, which was approved in March 2019 for major depressive disorder, also shows promise in patients with suicidal ideation and behavior. In a double-blind, multicenter, proof-of-concept study, researchers randomized 68 participants to receive esketamine (84 mg) or placebo twice weekly for 4 weeks, in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment (Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175[7]:620-30). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in score from baseline to 4 hours after initial dose on the MADRS (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale). “There was a nice effect in the antidepressant response, compared with placebo. It hit the primary endpoint at 4 hours. The patients got treated twice a week for 4 weeks. People got better quickly and stayed well moving on.” The researchers also found that the rate of remission at day 25 was 60% in the esketamine group, compared with 42% in the placebo group. “The take-home message is that, even without the esketamine, the remission rate was 42% at day 25. That means if you’re giving people really good care, meaning that you’re seeing them twice a week and they’re inpatient until they’re able to go outpatient, people can do pretty well with that level of care.”

Meanwhile, additional evidence supporting the use of ketamine in acute care settings is starting to emerge. In a proof-of-concept trial, 18 depressed subjects with acute suicidal ideation who presented to the emergency department and required hospitalization were randomized to either IV ketamine 0.2 mg/kg or to saline placebo (Depress Anxiety. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1002/da.22975). Ninety minutes after infusion, 88% of patients in the ketamine group had achieved remission of suicidal ideation, compared with 33% in the placebo group (P less than .05). No serious adverse events were noted.

“There is a clear need for new treatments targeting suicidal ideation and behavior,” Dr. Sanacora concluded. “Any plan to institute a rapid-acting treatment for individuals with imminent risk of suicidal behavior must be placed in the context of a larger comprehensive treatment plan. Getting somebody to feel better in the short run is great, but you really have to think about the whole treatment plan.”

Dr. Sanacora reported having received grants and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. He also holds an ownership interest in Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

Hospital-related infections have been widely reported during the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, with healthcare professionals bearing a disproportionate risk. However, a proactive response in Hong Kong’s public hospital system appears to have bucked this trend and successfully protected both patients and staff from SARS-CoV-2, according to a study published online today in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

During the first 42 days of the outbreak, the 43 hospitals in the network tested 1275 suspected cases and treated 42 patients with confirmed COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet, there were no nosocomial infections or infections among healthcare personnel, report Vincent C.C. Cheng, MD, FRCPath, the hospital’s infection control officer, and colleagues.

Cheng and colleagues note that 11 out of 413 healthcare workers who treat patients with confirmed infections had unprotected exposure and were in quarantine for 14 days, but none became ill.

In comparison, they note, the 2003 SARS outbreak saw almost 60% of nosocomial cases occurring in healthcare workers.

Proactive bundle

The Hong Kong success story may be due to a stepped-up proactive bundle of measures that included enhanced laboratory surveillance, early airborne infection isolation, and rapid-turnaround molecular diagnostics. Other strategies included staff forums and one-on-one discussions about infection control, employee training in protective equipment use, hand-hygiene compliance enforcement, and contact tracing for workers with unprotected exposure.

In addition, surgical masks were provided for all healthcare workers, patients, and visitors to clinical areas, a practice previously associated with reduced in-hospital transmission during influenza outbreaks, the authors note.

Hospitals also mandated use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as endotracheal intubation, open suctioning, and high-flow oxygen use, as AGPs had been linked to nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers during the 2003 SARS outbreak.

The infection control measures, which were part of a preparedness plan developed after the SARS outbreak, were initiated on December 31, when the first reports of a cluster of infections came from Wuhan, China.

As the outbreak evolved, the Hong Kong hospitals quickly widened the epidemiologic criteria for screening, from initially including only those who had been to a wet market in Wuhan within 14 days of symptom onset, to eventually including anyone who had been to Hubei province, been in a medical facility in mainland China, or in contact with a known case.  

All suspected cases were sent to an airborne-infection isolation room (AIIR) or a ward with at least a meter of space between patients.

“Appropriate hospital infection control measures could prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” the authors write. “Vigilance in hand hygiene practice, wearing of surgical mask in the hospital, and appropriate use of PPE in patient care, especially [when] performing AGPs, are the key infection control measures to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 even before the availability of effective antiviral agents and vaccine.”

Asked for his perspective on the report, Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the department of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, said that apart from the widespread issuing of surgical masks to workers, patients, and visitors, the measures taken in Hong Kong are not different from standard infection-control practices in American hospitals. Glatt, who is also a hospital epidemiologist, said it was unclear how much impact the masks would have.

“Although the infection control was impressive, I don’t see any evidence of a difference in care,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Could zero infection transmission be achieved in the more far-flung and variable settings of hospitals across the United States? “The ability to get zero transmission is only possible if people adhere to the strictest infection-control guidelines,” Glatt said. “That is clearly the goal, and it will take time to see if our existing strict guidelines are sufficient to maintain zero or close to zero contamination and transmission rates in our hospitals.”

Rather than looking to change US practices, he stressed adherence to widely established tenets of care. “It’s critically important to keep paying close attention to the basics, to the simple blocking and tackling, and to identify which patients are at risk, and therefore, when workers need protective equipment,” he said.

“Follow the recommended standards,” continued Glatt, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and did not participate in this study.

In a finding from an ancillary pilot experiment, the Hong Kong researchers found exhaled air from a patient with a moderate coronavirus load showed no evidence of the virus, whether the patient was breathing normally or heavily, speaking, or coughing. And spot tests around the room detected the virus in just one location.

“We may not be able to make a definite conclusion based on the analysis of a single patient,” the authors write. “However, it may help to reassure our staff that the exhaled air may be rapidly diluted inside the AIIR with 12 air changes per hour, or probably the SARS-CoV-2 may not be predominantly transmitted by [the] airborne route.”

However, a recent Singapore study showed widespread environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, underlining the need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene. Post-cleaning samples tested negative, suggesting that standard decontamination practices are effective. 

This work was partly supported by the Consultancy Service for Enhancing Laboratory Surveillance of Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Education of China. The authors and Glatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-related infections have been widely reported during the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, with healthcare professionals bearing a disproportionate risk. However, a proactive response in Hong Kong’s public hospital system appears to have bucked this trend and successfully protected both patients and staff from SARS-CoV-2, according to a study published online today in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

During the first 42 days of the outbreak, the 43 hospitals in the network tested 1275 suspected cases and treated 42 patients with confirmed COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet, there were no nosocomial infections or infections among healthcare personnel, report Vincent C.C. Cheng, MD, FRCPath, the hospital’s infection control officer, and colleagues.

Cheng and colleagues note that 11 out of 413 healthcare workers who treat patients with confirmed infections had unprotected exposure and were in quarantine for 14 days, but none became ill.

In comparison, they note, the 2003 SARS outbreak saw almost 60% of nosocomial cases occurring in healthcare workers.

Proactive bundle

The Hong Kong success story may be due to a stepped-up proactive bundle of measures that included enhanced laboratory surveillance, early airborne infection isolation, and rapid-turnaround molecular diagnostics. Other strategies included staff forums and one-on-one discussions about infection control, employee training in protective equipment use, hand-hygiene compliance enforcement, and contact tracing for workers with unprotected exposure.

In addition, surgical masks were provided for all healthcare workers, patients, and visitors to clinical areas, a practice previously associated with reduced in-hospital transmission during influenza outbreaks, the authors note.

Hospitals also mandated use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as endotracheal intubation, open suctioning, and high-flow oxygen use, as AGPs had been linked to nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers during the 2003 SARS outbreak.

The infection control measures, which were part of a preparedness plan developed after the SARS outbreak, were initiated on December 31, when the first reports of a cluster of infections came from Wuhan, China.

As the outbreak evolved, the Hong Kong hospitals quickly widened the epidemiologic criteria for screening, from initially including only those who had been to a wet market in Wuhan within 14 days of symptom onset, to eventually including anyone who had been to Hubei province, been in a medical facility in mainland China, or in contact with a known case.  

All suspected cases were sent to an airborne-infection isolation room (AIIR) or a ward with at least a meter of space between patients.

“Appropriate hospital infection control measures could prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” the authors write. “Vigilance in hand hygiene practice, wearing of surgical mask in the hospital, and appropriate use of PPE in patient care, especially [when] performing AGPs, are the key infection control measures to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 even before the availability of effective antiviral agents and vaccine.”

Asked for his perspective on the report, Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the department of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, said that apart from the widespread issuing of surgical masks to workers, patients, and visitors, the measures taken in Hong Kong are not different from standard infection-control practices in American hospitals. Glatt, who is also a hospital epidemiologist, said it was unclear how much impact the masks would have.

“Although the infection control was impressive, I don’t see any evidence of a difference in care,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Could zero infection transmission be achieved in the more far-flung and variable settings of hospitals across the United States? “The ability to get zero transmission is only possible if people adhere to the strictest infection-control guidelines,” Glatt said. “That is clearly the goal, and it will take time to see if our existing strict guidelines are sufficient to maintain zero or close to zero contamination and transmission rates in our hospitals.”

Rather than looking to change US practices, he stressed adherence to widely established tenets of care. “It’s critically important to keep paying close attention to the basics, to the simple blocking and tackling, and to identify which patients are at risk, and therefore, when workers need protective equipment,” he said.

“Follow the recommended standards,” continued Glatt, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and did not participate in this study.

In a finding from an ancillary pilot experiment, the Hong Kong researchers found exhaled air from a patient with a moderate coronavirus load showed no evidence of the virus, whether the patient was breathing normally or heavily, speaking, or coughing. And spot tests around the room detected the virus in just one location.

“We may not be able to make a definite conclusion based on the analysis of a single patient,” the authors write. “However, it may help to reassure our staff that the exhaled air may be rapidly diluted inside the AIIR with 12 air changes per hour, or probably the SARS-CoV-2 may not be predominantly transmitted by [the] airborne route.”

However, a recent Singapore study showed widespread environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, underlining the need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene. Post-cleaning samples tested negative, suggesting that standard decontamination practices are effective. 

This work was partly supported by the Consultancy Service for Enhancing Laboratory Surveillance of Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Education of China. The authors and Glatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-related infections have been widely reported during the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, with healthcare professionals bearing a disproportionate risk. However, a proactive response in Hong Kong’s public hospital system appears to have bucked this trend and successfully protected both patients and staff from SARS-CoV-2, according to a study published online today in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

During the first 42 days of the outbreak, the 43 hospitals in the network tested 1275 suspected cases and treated 42 patients with confirmed COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet, there were no nosocomial infections or infections among healthcare personnel, report Vincent C.C. Cheng, MD, FRCPath, the hospital’s infection control officer, and colleagues.

Cheng and colleagues note that 11 out of 413 healthcare workers who treat patients with confirmed infections had unprotected exposure and were in quarantine for 14 days, but none became ill.

In comparison, they note, the 2003 SARS outbreak saw almost 60% of nosocomial cases occurring in healthcare workers.

Proactive bundle

The Hong Kong success story may be due to a stepped-up proactive bundle of measures that included enhanced laboratory surveillance, early airborne infection isolation, and rapid-turnaround molecular diagnostics. Other strategies included staff forums and one-on-one discussions about infection control, employee training in protective equipment use, hand-hygiene compliance enforcement, and contact tracing for workers with unprotected exposure.

In addition, surgical masks were provided for all healthcare workers, patients, and visitors to clinical areas, a practice previously associated with reduced in-hospital transmission during influenza outbreaks, the authors note.

Hospitals also mandated use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as endotracheal intubation, open suctioning, and high-flow oxygen use, as AGPs had been linked to nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers during the 2003 SARS outbreak.

The infection control measures, which were part of a preparedness plan developed after the SARS outbreak, were initiated on December 31, when the first reports of a cluster of infections came from Wuhan, China.

As the outbreak evolved, the Hong Kong hospitals quickly widened the epidemiologic criteria for screening, from initially including only those who had been to a wet market in Wuhan within 14 days of symptom onset, to eventually including anyone who had been to Hubei province, been in a medical facility in mainland China, or in contact with a known case.  

All suspected cases were sent to an airborne-infection isolation room (AIIR) or a ward with at least a meter of space between patients.

“Appropriate hospital infection control measures could prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” the authors write. “Vigilance in hand hygiene practice, wearing of surgical mask in the hospital, and appropriate use of PPE in patient care, especially [when] performing AGPs, are the key infection control measures to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 even before the availability of effective antiviral agents and vaccine.”

Asked for his perspective on the report, Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the department of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, said that apart from the widespread issuing of surgical masks to workers, patients, and visitors, the measures taken in Hong Kong are not different from standard infection-control practices in American hospitals. Glatt, who is also a hospital epidemiologist, said it was unclear how much impact the masks would have.

“Although the infection control was impressive, I don’t see any evidence of a difference in care,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Could zero infection transmission be achieved in the more far-flung and variable settings of hospitals across the United States? “The ability to get zero transmission is only possible if people adhere to the strictest infection-control guidelines,” Glatt said. “That is clearly the goal, and it will take time to see if our existing strict guidelines are sufficient to maintain zero or close to zero contamination and transmission rates in our hospitals.”

Rather than looking to change US practices, he stressed adherence to widely established tenets of care. “It’s critically important to keep paying close attention to the basics, to the simple blocking and tackling, and to identify which patients are at risk, and therefore, when workers need protective equipment,” he said.

“Follow the recommended standards,” continued Glatt, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and did not participate in this study.

In a finding from an ancillary pilot experiment, the Hong Kong researchers found exhaled air from a patient with a moderate coronavirus load showed no evidence of the virus, whether the patient was breathing normally or heavily, speaking, or coughing. And spot tests around the room detected the virus in just one location.

“We may not be able to make a definite conclusion based on the analysis of a single patient,” the authors write. “However, it may help to reassure our staff that the exhaled air may be rapidly diluted inside the AIIR with 12 air changes per hour, or probably the SARS-CoV-2 may not be predominantly transmitted by [the] airborne route.”

However, a recent Singapore study showed widespread environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, underlining the need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene. Post-cleaning samples tested negative, suggesting that standard decontamination practices are effective. 

This work was partly supported by the Consultancy Service for Enhancing Laboratory Surveillance of Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Education of China. The authors and Glatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued two guidance documents related to helping contain the spread of the coronavirus, primarily aimed at ensuring that health care providers are implementing proper infection control procedures.

The first guidance document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention Concerning Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): FAQs and Considerations for Patient Triage, Placement and Hospital Discharge,” issued March 4, provides some basic guidance, including identifying which patients are at risk, how facilities should screen for COVID-19, how facilities should monitor or restrict health care facility staff, and other recommendations for infection prevention and control.

“Hospitals should identify visitors and patients at risk for having COVID-19 infection before or immediately upon arrival to the healthcare facility,” the guidance document notes. “For patients, implement respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette (i.e., placing a face mask over the patient’s nose and mouth if that has not already been done) and isolate the patient in an examination room with the door closed. If the patient cannot be immediately moved to an examination room, ensure they are not allowed to wait among other patients seeking care.”

The document offers further information regarding the care of patients and provides numerous links to existing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The second document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes,” issued the same day, provides information on how to limit and monitor visitors as well as monitor and restrict health staff. It details when to transfer residents with suspected or confirmed coronavirus infection, and when a nursing home should accept a resident diagnosed with COVID-19.

Facilities “should contact their local health department if they have questions or suspect a resident of a nursing home has COVID-19,” the document states. “Per CDC, prompt detection, triage and isolation of potentially infectious patients are essential to prevent unnecessary exposure among patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors at the facility.”

The CMS also announced that it is suspending all nonemergency survey activity.

“CMS is suspending nonemergency inspections across the country, allowing inspectors to turn their focus on the most serious health and safety threats like infectious diseases and abuse,” the agency stated in a March 4 memo. “This shift in approach will also allow inspectors to focus on addressing the spread of ... COVID-19. CMS is issuing this memorandum to State Survey Agencies to provide important guidelines for the inspection process in situations in which a COVID-19 is suspected.”

In a statement, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said these actions “represent a call to action across the health care system. All health care providers must immediately review their procedures to ensure compliance with CMS’ infection control requirements, as well as the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

[email protected]

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued two guidance documents related to helping contain the spread of the coronavirus, primarily aimed at ensuring that health care providers are implementing proper infection control procedures.

The first guidance document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention Concerning Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): FAQs and Considerations for Patient Triage, Placement and Hospital Discharge,” issued March 4, provides some basic guidance, including identifying which patients are at risk, how facilities should screen for COVID-19, how facilities should monitor or restrict health care facility staff, and other recommendations for infection prevention and control.

“Hospitals should identify visitors and patients at risk for having COVID-19 infection before or immediately upon arrival to the healthcare facility,” the guidance document notes. “For patients, implement respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette (i.e., placing a face mask over the patient’s nose and mouth if that has not already been done) and isolate the patient in an examination room with the door closed. If the patient cannot be immediately moved to an examination room, ensure they are not allowed to wait among other patients seeking care.”

The document offers further information regarding the care of patients and provides numerous links to existing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The second document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes,” issued the same day, provides information on how to limit and monitor visitors as well as monitor and restrict health staff. It details when to transfer residents with suspected or confirmed coronavirus infection, and when a nursing home should accept a resident diagnosed with COVID-19.

Facilities “should contact their local health department if they have questions or suspect a resident of a nursing home has COVID-19,” the document states. “Per CDC, prompt detection, triage and isolation of potentially infectious patients are essential to prevent unnecessary exposure among patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors at the facility.”

The CMS also announced that it is suspending all nonemergency survey activity.

“CMS is suspending nonemergency inspections across the country, allowing inspectors to turn their focus on the most serious health and safety threats like infectious diseases and abuse,” the agency stated in a March 4 memo. “This shift in approach will also allow inspectors to focus on addressing the spread of ... COVID-19. CMS is issuing this memorandum to State Survey Agencies to provide important guidelines for the inspection process in situations in which a COVID-19 is suspected.”

In a statement, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said these actions “represent a call to action across the health care system. All health care providers must immediately review their procedures to ensure compliance with CMS’ infection control requirements, as well as the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

[email protected]

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued two guidance documents related to helping contain the spread of the coronavirus, primarily aimed at ensuring that health care providers are implementing proper infection control procedures.

The first guidance document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention Concerning Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): FAQs and Considerations for Patient Triage, Placement and Hospital Discharge,” issued March 4, provides some basic guidance, including identifying which patients are at risk, how facilities should screen for COVID-19, how facilities should monitor or restrict health care facility staff, and other recommendations for infection prevention and control.

“Hospitals should identify visitors and patients at risk for having COVID-19 infection before or immediately upon arrival to the healthcare facility,” the guidance document notes. “For patients, implement respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette (i.e., placing a face mask over the patient’s nose and mouth if that has not already been done) and isolate the patient in an examination room with the door closed. If the patient cannot be immediately moved to an examination room, ensure they are not allowed to wait among other patients seeking care.”

The document offers further information regarding the care of patients and provides numerous links to existing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The second document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes,” issued the same day, provides information on how to limit and monitor visitors as well as monitor and restrict health staff. It details when to transfer residents with suspected or confirmed coronavirus infection, and when a nursing home should accept a resident diagnosed with COVID-19.

Facilities “should contact their local health department if they have questions or suspect a resident of a nursing home has COVID-19,” the document states. “Per CDC, prompt detection, triage and isolation of potentially infectious patients are essential to prevent unnecessary exposure among patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors at the facility.”

The CMS also announced that it is suspending all nonemergency survey activity.

“CMS is suspending nonemergency inspections across the country, allowing inspectors to turn their focus on the most serious health and safety threats like infectious diseases and abuse,” the agency stated in a March 4 memo. “This shift in approach will also allow inspectors to focus on addressing the spread of ... COVID-19. CMS is issuing this memorandum to State Survey Agencies to provide important guidelines for the inspection process in situations in which a COVID-19 is suspected.”

In a statement, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said these actions “represent a call to action across the health care system. All health care providers must immediately review their procedures to ensure compliance with CMS’ infection control requirements, as well as the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Drug Safety Communication that strengthens existing warnings about serious mood- and behavior-related changes associated with montelukast (Singulair), a prescription drug for asthma and allergy.

The new boxed warning advises health care providers to avoid prescribing montelukast for patients with mild symptoms, particularly those with allergic rhinitis, the FDA said in a press release. The drug was first approved in 1998, and the product labeling was updated in 2008 to include information about neuropsychiatric adverse events reported with usage of montelukast.

While the Sentinel study, along with other observational studies, did not find an increased risk of mental health side effects with montelukast treatment, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, those studies had limitations that may have affected results, the FDA said in the Drug Safety Communication. However, the FDA has continued to receive reports of neuropsychiatric events – including agitation, depression, sleeping problems, and suicidal thoughts and actions – in patients receiving the medication.

“The incidence of neuropsychiatric events associated with montelukast is unknown, but some reports are serious, and many patients and health care professionals are not fully aware of these risks,” Sally Seymour, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, allergy and rheumatology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “There are many other safe and effective medications to treat allergies with extensive history of use and safety, such that many products are available over the counter without a prescription.”

In addition to the boxed warning, the FDA now requires a new medication guide to be given to patients with each montelukast prescription, the FDA said.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Drug Safety Communication that strengthens existing warnings about serious mood- and behavior-related changes associated with montelukast (Singulair), a prescription drug for asthma and allergy.

The new boxed warning advises health care providers to avoid prescribing montelukast for patients with mild symptoms, particularly those with allergic rhinitis, the FDA said in a press release. The drug was first approved in 1998, and the product labeling was updated in 2008 to include information about neuropsychiatric adverse events reported with usage of montelukast.

While the Sentinel study, along with other observational studies, did not find an increased risk of mental health side effects with montelukast treatment, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, those studies had limitations that may have affected results, the FDA said in the Drug Safety Communication. However, the FDA has continued to receive reports of neuropsychiatric events – including agitation, depression, sleeping problems, and suicidal thoughts and actions – in patients receiving the medication.

“The incidence of neuropsychiatric events associated with montelukast is unknown, but some reports are serious, and many patients and health care professionals are not fully aware of these risks,” Sally Seymour, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, allergy and rheumatology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “There are many other safe and effective medications to treat allergies with extensive history of use and safety, such that many products are available over the counter without a prescription.”

In addition to the boxed warning, the FDA now requires a new medication guide to be given to patients with each montelukast prescription, the FDA said.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Drug Safety Communication that strengthens existing warnings about serious mood- and behavior-related changes associated with montelukast (Singulair), a prescription drug for asthma and allergy.

The new boxed warning advises health care providers to avoid prescribing montelukast for patients with mild symptoms, particularly those with allergic rhinitis, the FDA said in a press release. The drug was first approved in 1998, and the product labeling was updated in 2008 to include information about neuropsychiatric adverse events reported with usage of montelukast.

While the Sentinel study, along with other observational studies, did not find an increased risk of mental health side effects with montelukast treatment, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, those studies had limitations that may have affected results, the FDA said in the Drug Safety Communication. However, the FDA has continued to receive reports of neuropsychiatric events – including agitation, depression, sleeping problems, and suicidal thoughts and actions – in patients receiving the medication.

“The incidence of neuropsychiatric events associated with montelukast is unknown, but some reports are serious, and many patients and health care professionals are not fully aware of these risks,” Sally Seymour, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, allergy and rheumatology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “There are many other safe and effective medications to treat allergies with extensive history of use and safety, such that many products are available over the counter without a prescription.”

In addition to the boxed warning, the FDA now requires a new medication guide to be given to patients with each montelukast prescription, the FDA said.

[email protected]

We are in the healing profession. We practice a trade. We are doctors, therapists, counselors. We work with children, adults, and couples. We document the physical form of our patient after examination, setting the stage for interventions that heal and alleviate suffering. With those who we do not touch physically, we hold out our psychological arms to embrace them in a therapeutic relationship.

We are privileged to appreciate their deeper selves through voice, unsaid words, and body language. A trust evolves (or might not); deeper exploration where our intuition and technical skill discover what troubles the soul. Healing begins as a delicate dance: As trust is earned, our patients risk vulnerability by revealing their weakest selves.

As healers, we often find ourselves adrift with our own insecurities, our own histories that make us human; our styles may differ but training and the tenets and guidelines set by our professional societies keep us in safe waters. These guidelines are informed by the science of health care research and vetted through centuries of observation and experience of process. “Do no harm” is perhaps one of the major rules of engaging with patients. The scaffolding that our code of ethics provides healing professions trumps external pressures to deviate. If you violate these codes, the consequences are borne by the patient and the potential loss of your license.

Some of you may have read about Kevin Euceda, an adolescent who reportedly was waiting for his immigration interview and ordered to undergo mandatory therapy as part of the immigration protocol. Kevin revealed to his therapist the history of violence he experienced as a child growing up in Honduras. His subsequent initiation into a gang was the only option he had to escape a violent death. Those of us who work with youth from gang cultures know fully that allegiance to a gang is a means to find an identity and brotherhood with the payment by a lifestyle of violence. A therapist faced with this information does not judge but helps the person deal with PTSD, nightmares, and guilt that become part of an identity just as the memories of mines blowing up in the face of combat affect veterans.

But the therapist, who reportedly holds a master’s in rehabilitation counseling and was “a year away from passing her licensing exam,” according to an article published in the Washington Post, followed policy of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The therapist betrayed Kevin by reporting the information he shared with her confidentially to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reason the therapist gave for the breach was that she was compelled do so because Kevin reported participating in gang activity in Honduras. Subsequently, Kevin was sent to a high-security detention center – and is now facing deportation.
 

Betraying a patient, profession

Therapy begins as a contract between patient and therapist. The contract stipulates that all that transpires in the process of therapy (usually a 50-minute block of time, usually weekly) is information held by the therapist and patient – and is not to be shared with anyone, including parents, guardians, legal entities, and health care agencies. This allows the gradual sharing of events, emotions, behaviors, and reactions akin to peeling an onion. Memories, reactions, and feelings assist the therapist as they start their quest of discovery of the conflict and how to resolve it. Trust is the central tenet of this journey. The patient thinks: “You will hear me; you will see me you will understand me and help me understand myself.” The doctor responds: “Even I don’t yet know fully what ails you; we will discover that together. … I will not fail your trust.”

So how does this interface with external pressures? The constitution of a free country provides some inviolable protections that prevent derailment of the codes of ethics based on science. The fine line between what are considered sacrosanct ethics of a field – be it health care, climatology, or architecture – and what could be sacrificed in the name of prevailing forces (political or otherwise) has to be under constant scrutiny by the members of the guild. In health care, when patients cannot trust the science, its implementation, or is let down by the clinician, they are unlikely to benefit from treatment. A foundation of distrust paves the way for future therapeutic relationships that are stained with distrust and noncompliance.

The ethics guidelines of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law specify that psychiatrists in forensic roles “should be clear about limitations on confidentiality in the treatment relationship and ensure that these limitations are communicated to the patient.” Again, the therapist in this case is not a psychiatrist, but I would argue that the same rules would apply.

It is reassuring to know that several key groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association, have all condemned the therapist’s actions. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must do no harm. We must not stand idly by and allow the kind of professional breach that happened to Kevin continue. Patients who confide in mental health professionals with the promise of confidentiality must be able to do so without fear. Only with confidentiality can the therapeutic relationship thrive.

Dr. Sood is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, and senior professor of child mental health policy, at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

We are in the healing profession. We practice a trade. We are doctors, therapists, counselors. We work with children, adults, and couples. We document the physical form of our patient after examination, setting the stage for interventions that heal and alleviate suffering. With those who we do not touch physically, we hold out our psychological arms to embrace them in a therapeutic relationship.

We are privileged to appreciate their deeper selves through voice, unsaid words, and body language. A trust evolves (or might not); deeper exploration where our intuition and technical skill discover what troubles the soul. Healing begins as a delicate dance: As trust is earned, our patients risk vulnerability by revealing their weakest selves.

As healers, we often find ourselves adrift with our own insecurities, our own histories that make us human; our styles may differ but training and the tenets and guidelines set by our professional societies keep us in safe waters. These guidelines are informed by the science of health care research and vetted through centuries of observation and experience of process. “Do no harm” is perhaps one of the major rules of engaging with patients. The scaffolding that our code of ethics provides healing professions trumps external pressures to deviate. If you violate these codes, the consequences are borne by the patient and the potential loss of your license.

Some of you may have read about Kevin Euceda, an adolescent who reportedly was waiting for his immigration interview and ordered to undergo mandatory therapy as part of the immigration protocol. Kevin revealed to his therapist the history of violence he experienced as a child growing up in Honduras. His subsequent initiation into a gang was the only option he had to escape a violent death. Those of us who work with youth from gang cultures know fully that allegiance to a gang is a means to find an identity and brotherhood with the payment by a lifestyle of violence. A therapist faced with this information does not judge but helps the person deal with PTSD, nightmares, and guilt that become part of an identity just as the memories of mines blowing up in the face of combat affect veterans.

But the therapist, who reportedly holds a master’s in rehabilitation counseling and was “a year away from passing her licensing exam,” according to an article published in the Washington Post, followed policy of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The therapist betrayed Kevin by reporting the information he shared with her confidentially to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reason the therapist gave for the breach was that she was compelled do so because Kevin reported participating in gang activity in Honduras. Subsequently, Kevin was sent to a high-security detention center – and is now facing deportation.
 

Betraying a patient, profession

Therapy begins as a contract between patient and therapist. The contract stipulates that all that transpires in the process of therapy (usually a 50-minute block of time, usually weekly) is information held by the therapist and patient – and is not to be shared with anyone, including parents, guardians, legal entities, and health care agencies. This allows the gradual sharing of events, emotions, behaviors, and reactions akin to peeling an onion. Memories, reactions, and feelings assist the therapist as they start their quest of discovery of the conflict and how to resolve it. Trust is the central tenet of this journey. The patient thinks: “You will hear me; you will see me you will understand me and help me understand myself.” The doctor responds: “Even I don’t yet know fully what ails you; we will discover that together. … I will not fail your trust.”

So how does this interface with external pressures? The constitution of a free country provides some inviolable protections that prevent derailment of the codes of ethics based on science. The fine line between what are considered sacrosanct ethics of a field – be it health care, climatology, or architecture – and what could be sacrificed in the name of prevailing forces (political or otherwise) has to be under constant scrutiny by the members of the guild. In health care, when patients cannot trust the science, its implementation, or is let down by the clinician, they are unlikely to benefit from treatment. A foundation of distrust paves the way for future therapeutic relationships that are stained with distrust and noncompliance.

The ethics guidelines of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law specify that psychiatrists in forensic roles “should be clear about limitations on confidentiality in the treatment relationship and ensure that these limitations are communicated to the patient.” Again, the therapist in this case is not a psychiatrist, but I would argue that the same rules would apply.

It is reassuring to know that several key groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association, have all condemned the therapist’s actions. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must do no harm. We must not stand idly by and allow the kind of professional breach that happened to Kevin continue. Patients who confide in mental health professionals with the promise of confidentiality must be able to do so without fear. Only with confidentiality can the therapeutic relationship thrive.

Dr. Sood is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, and senior professor of child mental health policy, at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

We are in the healing profession. We practice a trade. We are doctors, therapists, counselors. We work with children, adults, and couples. We document the physical form of our patient after examination, setting the stage for interventions that heal and alleviate suffering. With those who we do not touch physically, we hold out our psychological arms to embrace them in a therapeutic relationship.

We are privileged to appreciate their deeper selves through voice, unsaid words, and body language. A trust evolves (or might not); deeper exploration where our intuition and technical skill discover what troubles the soul. Healing begins as a delicate dance: As trust is earned, our patients risk vulnerability by revealing their weakest selves.

As healers, we often find ourselves adrift with our own insecurities, our own histories that make us human; our styles may differ but training and the tenets and guidelines set by our professional societies keep us in safe waters. These guidelines are informed by the science of health care research and vetted through centuries of observation and experience of process. “Do no harm” is perhaps one of the major rules of engaging with patients. The scaffolding that our code of ethics provides healing professions trumps external pressures to deviate. If you violate these codes, the consequences are borne by the patient and the potential loss of your license.

Some of you may have read about Kevin Euceda, an adolescent who reportedly was waiting for his immigration interview and ordered to undergo mandatory therapy as part of the immigration protocol. Kevin revealed to his therapist the history of violence he experienced as a child growing up in Honduras. His subsequent initiation into a gang was the only option he had to escape a violent death. Those of us who work with youth from gang cultures know fully that allegiance to a gang is a means to find an identity and brotherhood with the payment by a lifestyle of violence. A therapist faced with this information does not judge but helps the person deal with PTSD, nightmares, and guilt that become part of an identity just as the memories of mines blowing up in the face of combat affect veterans.

But the therapist, who reportedly holds a master’s in rehabilitation counseling and was “a year away from passing her licensing exam,” according to an article published in the Washington Post, followed policy of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The therapist betrayed Kevin by reporting the information he shared with her confidentially to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reason the therapist gave for the breach was that she was compelled do so because Kevin reported participating in gang activity in Honduras. Subsequently, Kevin was sent to a high-security detention center – and is now facing deportation.
 

Betraying a patient, profession

Therapy begins as a contract between patient and therapist. The contract stipulates that all that transpires in the process of therapy (usually a 50-minute block of time, usually weekly) is information held by the therapist and patient – and is not to be shared with anyone, including parents, guardians, legal entities, and health care agencies. This allows the gradual sharing of events, emotions, behaviors, and reactions akin to peeling an onion. Memories, reactions, and feelings assist the therapist as they start their quest of discovery of the conflict and how to resolve it. Trust is the central tenet of this journey. The patient thinks: “You will hear me; you will see me you will understand me and help me understand myself.” The doctor responds: “Even I don’t yet know fully what ails you; we will discover that together. … I will not fail your trust.”

So how does this interface with external pressures? The constitution of a free country provides some inviolable protections that prevent derailment of the codes of ethics based on science. The fine line between what are considered sacrosanct ethics of a field – be it health care, climatology, or architecture – and what could be sacrificed in the name of prevailing forces (political or otherwise) has to be under constant scrutiny by the members of the guild. In health care, when patients cannot trust the science, its implementation, or is let down by the clinician, they are unlikely to benefit from treatment. A foundation of distrust paves the way for future therapeutic relationships that are stained with distrust and noncompliance.

The ethics guidelines of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law specify that psychiatrists in forensic roles “should be clear about limitations on confidentiality in the treatment relationship and ensure that these limitations are communicated to the patient.” Again, the therapist in this case is not a psychiatrist, but I would argue that the same rules would apply.

It is reassuring to know that several key groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association, have all condemned the therapist’s actions. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must do no harm. We must not stand idly by and allow the kind of professional breach that happened to Kevin continue. Patients who confide in mental health professionals with the promise of confidentiality must be able to do so without fear. Only with confidentiality can the therapeutic relationship thrive.

Dr. Sood is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, and senior professor of child mental health policy, at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.