MDedge Rheumatology

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

Stanford (Calif.) University’s human performance lab sits next to its physical therapy clinic, so orthopedic surgeons often stop by to request biomechanical analyses for their patients, such as athletes with repeat injuries.

“It would take us days to analyze the data, so we would only do it a handful of times per year,” said Scott Uhlrich, PhD, director of research at the lab.

Now an app can do the job in less than 10 minutes.

The motion-capture app, created by Dr. Uhlrich and fellow bioengineers at Stanford, could help clinicians design better interventions to ward off mobility problems and speed recovery. It could also help researchers fill huge knowledge gaps about human mobility.

Known as OpenCap, the app uses smartphone videos, artificial intelligence, and computational biomechanical modeling to quantify movement. It’s currently available free for research and educational use. Model Health, a startup affiliated with the Stanford researchers, provides licenses for commercial use and clinical practice.

Here’s how it works. Footage of human movement, recorded by two smartphones, gets uploaded to the cloud, where an algorithm identifies a set of points on the body. The app relies on computer vision algorithms, a form of AI that trains computers to “understand” visual data – in this case, a person’s pose.

Next, the app quantifies how the body is moving through three-dimensional space. Musculoskeletal system models reveal insights into that movement, such as the angle of a joint, the stretch in a tendon, or the force being transferred through the joints.

“These are the quantities that relate to injuries and disease,” said Dr. Uhlrich, co-author of a study introducing the app. “We need to get to those quantities to be able to inform medical research and eventually clinical practice.”

The conventional approach to getting this kind of analysis requires special expertise and costs $150,000. By contrast, the app is free and easy to use.

It “democratizes” human movement analysis, said senior study author Scott Delp, PhD, professor of bioengineering and mechanical engineering at Stanford. The researchers hope this will “improve outcomes for patients across the world.” 

‘Endless opportunities’

A lot about human mobility remains mysterious.

In aging adults, researchers can’t say when balance starts to degrade or by how much every year. They’re also still unraveling how sports injuries occur and how degenerative joint diseases like arthritis progress.

“We don’t really understand the onset of a lot of things, because we’ve just never measured it,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

OpenCap could help change that in a big way. Although biomechanics studies tend to be small – just 14 participants, on average – the app could allow for much larger studies, thanks to its lower cost and ease of use. In the study, the app collected movement data on 100 participants in less than 10 hours and computed results in 31 hours – an effort that would otherwise have taken a year.

“Studies of hundreds will be common, and thousands will be feasible, especially if assessments are integrated into clinic visits,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

About 2,600 researchers around the world are already using the app, according to Dr. Uhlrich. Many had never created a dynamic simulation before.

“The opportunities here are endless,” said Eni Halilaj, PhD, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, who was not involved in creating the app. That’s especially true for “highly heterogeneous conditions that we have not been able to fully characterize through traditional studies with limited patients.”

In one case, researcher Reed Gurchiek, a former Stanford postdoc and current professor at Clemson (S.C.) University, used the app to study hamstring strain injuries during sprinting and found that these muscles lengthen faster during acceleration, compared with running at a constant speed.

“This aligns with the higher observed injury rates when athletes are accelerating,” Dr. Uhlrich explained. “Varied-speed sprinting studies are not possible in the lab, so this was really enabled by OpenCap’s portability.”
 

Movement as a biomarker

The researchers are already using the app to build new tools, including metrics to identify risk for anterior cruciate ligament injury in young athletes and to measure balance. 

Someday, the technology could augment annual physicals, establishing movement as a biomarker. By having patients perform a few movements, like walking or standing up, clinicians could assess their disease risk and progression or their risk of falling. 

Excessive loading in the knee joint puts patients at higher risk of developing osteoarthritis, for instance, but clinicians can’t easily access this information. The disease is typically diagnosed after symptoms appear, even though intervention could happen much earlier. 

“Prevention is still not as embraced as it should be,” said Pamela Toto, PhD, professor of occupational therapy at the University of Pittsburgh, who also was not involved in making the app. “If we could tie the technology to intervention down the road, that could be valuable.”

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

Stanford (Calif.) University’s human performance lab sits next to its physical therapy clinic, so orthopedic surgeons often stop by to request biomechanical analyses for their patients, such as athletes with repeat injuries.

“It would take us days to analyze the data, so we would only do it a handful of times per year,” said Scott Uhlrich, PhD, director of research at the lab.

Now an app can do the job in less than 10 minutes.

The motion-capture app, created by Dr. Uhlrich and fellow bioengineers at Stanford, could help clinicians design better interventions to ward off mobility problems and speed recovery. It could also help researchers fill huge knowledge gaps about human mobility.

Known as OpenCap, the app uses smartphone videos, artificial intelligence, and computational biomechanical modeling to quantify movement. It’s currently available free for research and educational use. Model Health, a startup affiliated with the Stanford researchers, provides licenses for commercial use and clinical practice.

Here’s how it works. Footage of human movement, recorded by two smartphones, gets uploaded to the cloud, where an algorithm identifies a set of points on the body. The app relies on computer vision algorithms, a form of AI that trains computers to “understand” visual data – in this case, a person’s pose.

Next, the app quantifies how the body is moving through three-dimensional space. Musculoskeletal system models reveal insights into that movement, such as the angle of a joint, the stretch in a tendon, or the force being transferred through the joints.

“These are the quantities that relate to injuries and disease,” said Dr. Uhlrich, co-author of a study introducing the app. “We need to get to those quantities to be able to inform medical research and eventually clinical practice.”

The conventional approach to getting this kind of analysis requires special expertise and costs $150,000. By contrast, the app is free and easy to use.

It “democratizes” human movement analysis, said senior study author Scott Delp, PhD, professor of bioengineering and mechanical engineering at Stanford. The researchers hope this will “improve outcomes for patients across the world.” 

‘Endless opportunities’

A lot about human mobility remains mysterious.

In aging adults, researchers can’t say when balance starts to degrade or by how much every year. They’re also still unraveling how sports injuries occur and how degenerative joint diseases like arthritis progress.

“We don’t really understand the onset of a lot of things, because we’ve just never measured it,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

OpenCap could help change that in a big way. Although biomechanics studies tend to be small – just 14 participants, on average – the app could allow for much larger studies, thanks to its lower cost and ease of use. In the study, the app collected movement data on 100 participants in less than 10 hours and computed results in 31 hours – an effort that would otherwise have taken a year.

“Studies of hundreds will be common, and thousands will be feasible, especially if assessments are integrated into clinic visits,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

About 2,600 researchers around the world are already using the app, according to Dr. Uhlrich. Many had never created a dynamic simulation before.

“The opportunities here are endless,” said Eni Halilaj, PhD, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, who was not involved in creating the app. That’s especially true for “highly heterogeneous conditions that we have not been able to fully characterize through traditional studies with limited patients.”

In one case, researcher Reed Gurchiek, a former Stanford postdoc and current professor at Clemson (S.C.) University, used the app to study hamstring strain injuries during sprinting and found that these muscles lengthen faster during acceleration, compared with running at a constant speed.

“This aligns with the higher observed injury rates when athletes are accelerating,” Dr. Uhlrich explained. “Varied-speed sprinting studies are not possible in the lab, so this was really enabled by OpenCap’s portability.”
 

Movement as a biomarker

The researchers are already using the app to build new tools, including metrics to identify risk for anterior cruciate ligament injury in young athletes and to measure balance. 

Someday, the technology could augment annual physicals, establishing movement as a biomarker. By having patients perform a few movements, like walking or standing up, clinicians could assess their disease risk and progression or their risk of falling. 

Excessive loading in the knee joint puts patients at higher risk of developing osteoarthritis, for instance, but clinicians can’t easily access this information. The disease is typically diagnosed after symptoms appear, even though intervention could happen much earlier. 

“Prevention is still not as embraced as it should be,” said Pamela Toto, PhD, professor of occupational therapy at the University of Pittsburgh, who also was not involved in making the app. “If we could tie the technology to intervention down the road, that could be valuable.”

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

Stanford (Calif.) University’s human performance lab sits next to its physical therapy clinic, so orthopedic surgeons often stop by to request biomechanical analyses for their patients, such as athletes with repeat injuries.

“It would take us days to analyze the data, so we would only do it a handful of times per year,” said Scott Uhlrich, PhD, director of research at the lab.

Now an app can do the job in less than 10 minutes.

The motion-capture app, created by Dr. Uhlrich and fellow bioengineers at Stanford, could help clinicians design better interventions to ward off mobility problems and speed recovery. It could also help researchers fill huge knowledge gaps about human mobility.

Known as OpenCap, the app uses smartphone videos, artificial intelligence, and computational biomechanical modeling to quantify movement. It’s currently available free for research and educational use. Model Health, a startup affiliated with the Stanford researchers, provides licenses for commercial use and clinical practice.

Here’s how it works. Footage of human movement, recorded by two smartphones, gets uploaded to the cloud, where an algorithm identifies a set of points on the body. The app relies on computer vision algorithms, a form of AI that trains computers to “understand” visual data – in this case, a person’s pose.

Next, the app quantifies how the body is moving through three-dimensional space. Musculoskeletal system models reveal insights into that movement, such as the angle of a joint, the stretch in a tendon, or the force being transferred through the joints.

“These are the quantities that relate to injuries and disease,” said Dr. Uhlrich, co-author of a study introducing the app. “We need to get to those quantities to be able to inform medical research and eventually clinical practice.”

The conventional approach to getting this kind of analysis requires special expertise and costs $150,000. By contrast, the app is free and easy to use.

It “democratizes” human movement analysis, said senior study author Scott Delp, PhD, professor of bioengineering and mechanical engineering at Stanford. The researchers hope this will “improve outcomes for patients across the world.” 

‘Endless opportunities’

A lot about human mobility remains mysterious.

In aging adults, researchers can’t say when balance starts to degrade or by how much every year. They’re also still unraveling how sports injuries occur and how degenerative joint diseases like arthritis progress.

“We don’t really understand the onset of a lot of things, because we’ve just never measured it,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

OpenCap could help change that in a big way. Although biomechanics studies tend to be small – just 14 participants, on average – the app could allow for much larger studies, thanks to its lower cost and ease of use. In the study, the app collected movement data on 100 participants in less than 10 hours and computed results in 31 hours – an effort that would otherwise have taken a year.

“Studies of hundreds will be common, and thousands will be feasible, especially if assessments are integrated into clinic visits,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

About 2,600 researchers around the world are already using the app, according to Dr. Uhlrich. Many had never created a dynamic simulation before.

“The opportunities here are endless,” said Eni Halilaj, PhD, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, who was not involved in creating the app. That’s especially true for “highly heterogeneous conditions that we have not been able to fully characterize through traditional studies with limited patients.”

In one case, researcher Reed Gurchiek, a former Stanford postdoc and current professor at Clemson (S.C.) University, used the app to study hamstring strain injuries during sprinting and found that these muscles lengthen faster during acceleration, compared with running at a constant speed.

“This aligns with the higher observed injury rates when athletes are accelerating,” Dr. Uhlrich explained. “Varied-speed sprinting studies are not possible in the lab, so this was really enabled by OpenCap’s portability.”
 

Movement as a biomarker

The researchers are already using the app to build new tools, including metrics to identify risk for anterior cruciate ligament injury in young athletes and to measure balance. 

Someday, the technology could augment annual physicals, establishing movement as a biomarker. By having patients perform a few movements, like walking or standing up, clinicians could assess their disease risk and progression or their risk of falling. 

Excessive loading in the knee joint puts patients at higher risk of developing osteoarthritis, for instance, but clinicians can’t easily access this information. The disease is typically diagnosed after symptoms appear, even though intervention could happen much earlier. 

“Prevention is still not as embraced as it should be,” said Pamela Toto, PhD, professor of occupational therapy at the University of Pittsburgh, who also was not involved in making the app. “If we could tie the technology to intervention down the road, that could be valuable.”

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

TOPLINE:

Strength training at any point in life is associated with a lower risk of knee pain and osteoarthritis, contrary to persistent assumptions of adverse effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on strength training and knee pain from 2,607 adults. They used the Historical Physical Activity Survey Instrument to assess the impact of strength training during four periods (ages 12-18 years, 19-34 years, 35-49 years, and 50 years and older).
• The participants were enrolled in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study; 44% were male, the average age was 64.3 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².
• Strength training was defined as those exposed and not exposed, as well as divided into low, medium, and high tertiles for those exposed. A total of 818 individuals were exposed to strength training, and 1,789 were not exposed to strength training.
• The primary outcomes were frequent knee pain, radiographic OA (ROA), and symptomatic radiographic OA (SOA).

TAKEAWAY:

• The study is the first to examine the effect of strength training on knee health in a community population sample not selected for a history of elite weight lifting.
• Overall, strength training at any point in life was associated with lower incidence of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, compared with no strength training (odds ratios, 0.82, 0.83, and 0.77, respectively).
• When separated by tertiles, only the high-exposure group had significantly reduced odds of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, with odds ratios of 0.74, 0.70, and 0.69, respectively. A dose-response relationship appeared for all three conditions, with the lowest odds ratios in the highest strength training exposure groups.
• Findings were similar for different age ranges, but the association between strength training and less frequent knee pain, less ROA, and less SOA was strongest in the older age groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings support the idea that the medical community should proactively encourage more people to participate in strength training to help reduce their risk of osteoarthritis and other chronic conditions,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Grace H. Lo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design and self-selected study population of strength training participants might bias the results, including participants’ recall of their activity level levels and changes in exercise trends over time. More research is needed to explore associations between strength training and knee OA among those who started strength training at a younger age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and by donations to the Tupper Research Fund at Tufts Medical Center. The Osteoarthritis Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health; private funding partners include Merck Research Laboratories, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. Three authors report having financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Strength training at any point in life is associated with a lower risk of knee pain and osteoarthritis, contrary to persistent assumptions of adverse effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on strength training and knee pain from 2,607 adults. They used the Historical Physical Activity Survey Instrument to assess the impact of strength training during four periods (ages 12-18 years, 19-34 years, 35-49 years, and 50 years and older).
• The participants were enrolled in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study; 44% were male, the average age was 64.3 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².
• Strength training was defined as those exposed and not exposed, as well as divided into low, medium, and high tertiles for those exposed. A total of 818 individuals were exposed to strength training, and 1,789 were not exposed to strength training.
• The primary outcomes were frequent knee pain, radiographic OA (ROA), and symptomatic radiographic OA (SOA).

TAKEAWAY:

• The study is the first to examine the effect of strength training on knee health in a community population sample not selected for a history of elite weight lifting.
• Overall, strength training at any point in life was associated with lower incidence of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, compared with no strength training (odds ratios, 0.82, 0.83, and 0.77, respectively).
• When separated by tertiles, only the high-exposure group had significantly reduced odds of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, with odds ratios of 0.74, 0.70, and 0.69, respectively. A dose-response relationship appeared for all three conditions, with the lowest odds ratios in the highest strength training exposure groups.
• Findings were similar for different age ranges, but the association between strength training and less frequent knee pain, less ROA, and less SOA was strongest in the older age groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings support the idea that the medical community should proactively encourage more people to participate in strength training to help reduce their risk of osteoarthritis and other chronic conditions,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Grace H. Lo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design and self-selected study population of strength training participants might bias the results, including participants’ recall of their activity level levels and changes in exercise trends over time. More research is needed to explore associations between strength training and knee OA among those who started strength training at a younger age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and by donations to the Tupper Research Fund at Tufts Medical Center. The Osteoarthritis Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health; private funding partners include Merck Research Laboratories, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. Three authors report having financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Strength training at any point in life is associated with a lower risk of knee pain and osteoarthritis, contrary to persistent assumptions of adverse effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on strength training and knee pain from 2,607 adults. They used the Historical Physical Activity Survey Instrument to assess the impact of strength training during four periods (ages 12-18 years, 19-34 years, 35-49 years, and 50 years and older).
• The participants were enrolled in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study; 44% were male, the average age was 64.3 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².
• Strength training was defined as those exposed and not exposed, as well as divided into low, medium, and high tertiles for those exposed. A total of 818 individuals were exposed to strength training, and 1,789 were not exposed to strength training.
• The primary outcomes were frequent knee pain, radiographic OA (ROA), and symptomatic radiographic OA (SOA).

TAKEAWAY:

• The study is the first to examine the effect of strength training on knee health in a community population sample not selected for a history of elite weight lifting.
• Overall, strength training at any point in life was associated with lower incidence of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, compared with no strength training (odds ratios, 0.82, 0.83, and 0.77, respectively).
• When separated by tertiles, only the high-exposure group had significantly reduced odds of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, with odds ratios of 0.74, 0.70, and 0.69, respectively. A dose-response relationship appeared for all three conditions, with the lowest odds ratios in the highest strength training exposure groups.
• Findings were similar for different age ranges, but the association between strength training and less frequent knee pain, less ROA, and less SOA was strongest in the older age groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings support the idea that the medical community should proactively encourage more people to participate in strength training to help reduce their risk of osteoarthritis and other chronic conditions,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Grace H. Lo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design and self-selected study population of strength training participants might bias the results, including participants’ recall of their activity level levels and changes in exercise trends over time. More research is needed to explore associations between strength training and knee OA among those who started strength training at a younger age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and by donations to the Tupper Research Fund at Tufts Medical Center. The Osteoarthritis Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health; private funding partners include Merck Research Laboratories, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. Three authors report having financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Roughly 2% of prescriptions to older patients appear to be inappropriate – but the figure does not appear to differ between physicians and nurse practitioners, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Older adults are “especially vulnerable to adverse drug events from inappropriate prescribing due to comorbidities and aging-related physiological changes,” said Johnny Huynh, MA, doctoral candidate in economics at UCLA and lead author of the study. “Considering the volume of prescriptions for older adults, even a small percentage can translate to a big impact on adverse drug events and spending.”

In recent years, more states have granted prescriptive authority to NPs, while professional medical organizations have opposed the reforms and made claims about differences in quality of care.

The medical community must focus on the prescribing performance of individual clinicians rather than whether an NP has prescriptive authority, said David Studdert, LLB, ScD, MPH, professor of health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University and a co-author of the study.

“Don’t fixate on whether nurse practitioners have prescriptive authority or don’t,” said Mr. Studdert. “Just try to identify those practitioners who need to boost their performance.”

The investigators found that rates of potentially inappropriate prescribing were “virtually identical.” Adjusted rates were 1.66 per 100 prescriptions for NPs versus 1.68 per 100 prescriptions for physicians (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.01).

“Older adults often have more than one chronic condition and are prescribed multiple medications to manage these conditions, putting them at risk for adverse events,” said Paula Rochon, MD, MPH, founding director of the Women’s Age Lab and professor in the Division of Geriatric Medicine at Dalla Lana School of Public Health in Toronto. “Furthermore, older women are more likely than men to have multiple medical problems and experience adverse drug events.”

Dr. Rochon led a 2021 research review on polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing among older adults in both the United States and abroad. She and her team noted that while women are physiologically more susceptible to drug-related harm, rates of inappropriate prescribing also tend to be higher for women, such as in the case of senior U.S. veterans and older adults in Canada. 

The researchers analyzed data over a 7-year period starting in 2013 from 23,669 primary care NPs and 50,060 physicians who wrote prescriptions for at least 100 patients with Medicare Part D coverage. Data from 29 states, which had all expanded prescriptive authority to NPs, was included. 

Prescriptive quality was defined by the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria, a list of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) for adults ages 65 and over. Mr. Studdert said it’s important to note the nuance in the Beers Criteria.

“It’s not to say that there may not be certain clinical circumstances where it’s appropriate to” prescribe these drugs, Mr. Studdert said,  “But generally, it’s not appropriate.”

Ten medications accounted for 99.5% of the PIMs prescribed, including drugs that were antidepressants, muscle relaxants, hypnotics, antihistamines (generation 1), antispasmodics, sulfonylureas, barbiturates, antineoplastics, thyroid medications, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

The top three most frequently potentially inappropriately prescribed were antidepressants (0.393 NPs vs. 0.481 PCPs per 100 prescriptions), muscle relaxants (0.372 NPs vs. 0.305 PCPs per 100), and hypnotics (0.364 NPs vs. 0.440 PCPs per 100). Both antidepressants and hypnotics are associated with an increased risk for falls and fractures among older adults, while muscle relaxants have been shown to increase the risk for hospitalization in this population. 

Despite the overall similar PIM rates, NPs were more present in the “tails,” or highest and lowest end of the quality bell curve. The higher variation among NPs means these patients are at a higher risk of receiving a prescription for an inappropriate medication, said David Chan, MD, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Stanford (Calif.) School of Medicine, and a co-author of the study.

Other studies have shown “high-intensity prescribers” were more likely to dispense drugs like benzodiazepines and opioids, which can be harmful to older patients.

According to Dr. Rochon, clinicians should use the Beers Criteria and STOPP/START Criteria to guide decision-making, along with the DRUGS framework, which follows a geriatric medicine approach that advises clinicians to discuss goals of care with their patients and conduct routine reviews of medications. 

Prescribers should also avoid prescribing cascades, which “occur when a drug is prescribed, an adverse event occurs that is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, and a further drug is prescribed to treat that medical condition,” Dr. Rochon said. 

To reduce cascades, “it’s important to document when a medication was started, why it was started, and who started it so that this information is available when evaluating if a medication continues to be needed,” she said. 

The study was funded by grants from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and National Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Roughly 2% of prescriptions to older patients appear to be inappropriate – but the figure does not appear to differ between physicians and nurse practitioners, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Older adults are “especially vulnerable to adverse drug events from inappropriate prescribing due to comorbidities and aging-related physiological changes,” said Johnny Huynh, MA, doctoral candidate in economics at UCLA and lead author of the study. “Considering the volume of prescriptions for older adults, even a small percentage can translate to a big impact on adverse drug events and spending.”

In recent years, more states have granted prescriptive authority to NPs, while professional medical organizations have opposed the reforms and made claims about differences in quality of care.

The medical community must focus on the prescribing performance of individual clinicians rather than whether an NP has prescriptive authority, said David Studdert, LLB, ScD, MPH, professor of health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University and a co-author of the study.

“Don’t fixate on whether nurse practitioners have prescriptive authority or don’t,” said Mr. Studdert. “Just try to identify those practitioners who need to boost their performance.”

The investigators found that rates of potentially inappropriate prescribing were “virtually identical.” Adjusted rates were 1.66 per 100 prescriptions for NPs versus 1.68 per 100 prescriptions for physicians (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.01).

“Older adults often have more than one chronic condition and are prescribed multiple medications to manage these conditions, putting them at risk for adverse events,” said Paula Rochon, MD, MPH, founding director of the Women’s Age Lab and professor in the Division of Geriatric Medicine at Dalla Lana School of Public Health in Toronto. “Furthermore, older women are more likely than men to have multiple medical problems and experience adverse drug events.”

Dr. Rochon led a 2021 research review on polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing among older adults in both the United States and abroad. She and her team noted that while women are physiologically more susceptible to drug-related harm, rates of inappropriate prescribing also tend to be higher for women, such as in the case of senior U.S. veterans and older adults in Canada. 

The researchers analyzed data over a 7-year period starting in 2013 from 23,669 primary care NPs and 50,060 physicians who wrote prescriptions for at least 100 patients with Medicare Part D coverage. Data from 29 states, which had all expanded prescriptive authority to NPs, was included. 

Prescriptive quality was defined by the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria, a list of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) for adults ages 65 and over. Mr. Studdert said it’s important to note the nuance in the Beers Criteria.

“It’s not to say that there may not be certain clinical circumstances where it’s appropriate to” prescribe these drugs, Mr. Studdert said,  “But generally, it’s not appropriate.”

Ten medications accounted for 99.5% of the PIMs prescribed, including drugs that were antidepressants, muscle relaxants, hypnotics, antihistamines (generation 1), antispasmodics, sulfonylureas, barbiturates, antineoplastics, thyroid medications, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

The top three most frequently potentially inappropriately prescribed were antidepressants (0.393 NPs vs. 0.481 PCPs per 100 prescriptions), muscle relaxants (0.372 NPs vs. 0.305 PCPs per 100), and hypnotics (0.364 NPs vs. 0.440 PCPs per 100). Both antidepressants and hypnotics are associated with an increased risk for falls and fractures among older adults, while muscle relaxants have been shown to increase the risk for hospitalization in this population. 

Despite the overall similar PIM rates, NPs were more present in the “tails,” or highest and lowest end of the quality bell curve. The higher variation among NPs means these patients are at a higher risk of receiving a prescription for an inappropriate medication, said David Chan, MD, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Stanford (Calif.) School of Medicine, and a co-author of the study.

Other studies have shown “high-intensity prescribers” were more likely to dispense drugs like benzodiazepines and opioids, which can be harmful to older patients.

According to Dr. Rochon, clinicians should use the Beers Criteria and STOPP/START Criteria to guide decision-making, along with the DRUGS framework, which follows a geriatric medicine approach that advises clinicians to discuss goals of care with their patients and conduct routine reviews of medications. 

Prescribers should also avoid prescribing cascades, which “occur when a drug is prescribed, an adverse event occurs that is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, and a further drug is prescribed to treat that medical condition,” Dr. Rochon said. 

To reduce cascades, “it’s important to document when a medication was started, why it was started, and who started it so that this information is available when evaluating if a medication continues to be needed,” she said. 

The study was funded by grants from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and National Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Roughly 2% of prescriptions to older patients appear to be inappropriate – but the figure does not appear to differ between physicians and nurse practitioners, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Older adults are “especially vulnerable to adverse drug events from inappropriate prescribing due to comorbidities and aging-related physiological changes,” said Johnny Huynh, MA, doctoral candidate in economics at UCLA and lead author of the study. “Considering the volume of prescriptions for older adults, even a small percentage can translate to a big impact on adverse drug events and spending.”

In recent years, more states have granted prescriptive authority to NPs, while professional medical organizations have opposed the reforms and made claims about differences in quality of care.

The medical community must focus on the prescribing performance of individual clinicians rather than whether an NP has prescriptive authority, said David Studdert, LLB, ScD, MPH, professor of health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University and a co-author of the study.

“Don’t fixate on whether nurse practitioners have prescriptive authority or don’t,” said Mr. Studdert. “Just try to identify those practitioners who need to boost their performance.”

The investigators found that rates of potentially inappropriate prescribing were “virtually identical.” Adjusted rates were 1.66 per 100 prescriptions for NPs versus 1.68 per 100 prescriptions for physicians (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.01).

“Older adults often have more than one chronic condition and are prescribed multiple medications to manage these conditions, putting them at risk for adverse events,” said Paula Rochon, MD, MPH, founding director of the Women’s Age Lab and professor in the Division of Geriatric Medicine at Dalla Lana School of Public Health in Toronto. “Furthermore, older women are more likely than men to have multiple medical problems and experience adverse drug events.”

Dr. Rochon led a 2021 research review on polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing among older adults in both the United States and abroad. She and her team noted that while women are physiologically more susceptible to drug-related harm, rates of inappropriate prescribing also tend to be higher for women, such as in the case of senior U.S. veterans and older adults in Canada. 

The researchers analyzed data over a 7-year period starting in 2013 from 23,669 primary care NPs and 50,060 physicians who wrote prescriptions for at least 100 patients with Medicare Part D coverage. Data from 29 states, which had all expanded prescriptive authority to NPs, was included. 

Prescriptive quality was defined by the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria, a list of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) for adults ages 65 and over. Mr. Studdert said it’s important to note the nuance in the Beers Criteria.

“It’s not to say that there may not be certain clinical circumstances where it’s appropriate to” prescribe these drugs, Mr. Studdert said,  “But generally, it’s not appropriate.”

Ten medications accounted for 99.5% of the PIMs prescribed, including drugs that were antidepressants, muscle relaxants, hypnotics, antihistamines (generation 1), antispasmodics, sulfonylureas, barbiturates, antineoplastics, thyroid medications, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

The top three most frequently potentially inappropriately prescribed were antidepressants (0.393 NPs vs. 0.481 PCPs per 100 prescriptions), muscle relaxants (0.372 NPs vs. 0.305 PCPs per 100), and hypnotics (0.364 NPs vs. 0.440 PCPs per 100). Both antidepressants and hypnotics are associated with an increased risk for falls and fractures among older adults, while muscle relaxants have been shown to increase the risk for hospitalization in this population. 

Despite the overall similar PIM rates, NPs were more present in the “tails,” or highest and lowest end of the quality bell curve. The higher variation among NPs means these patients are at a higher risk of receiving a prescription for an inappropriate medication, said David Chan, MD, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Stanford (Calif.) School of Medicine, and a co-author of the study.

Other studies have shown “high-intensity prescribers” were more likely to dispense drugs like benzodiazepines and opioids, which can be harmful to older patients.

According to Dr. Rochon, clinicians should use the Beers Criteria and STOPP/START Criteria to guide decision-making, along with the DRUGS framework, which follows a geriatric medicine approach that advises clinicians to discuss goals of care with their patients and conduct routine reviews of medications. 

Prescribers should also avoid prescribing cascades, which “occur when a drug is prescribed, an adverse event occurs that is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, and a further drug is prescribed to treat that medical condition,” Dr. Rochon said. 

To reduce cascades, “it’s important to document when a medication was started, why it was started, and who started it so that this information is available when evaluating if a medication continues to be needed,” she said. 

The study was funded by grants from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and National Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

A novel handheld tool may hold promise for reducing anxiety and pain and improving sleep quality, according to research presented at Lifestyle Medicine 2023, the annual meeting of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Franklin Somchith Ly, a PhD candidate in mechanical engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara, developed , a product that assesses blood flow to the hand with an infrared temperature sensor and changes color as blood vessels expand during relaxation.
• Exercises such as intentional breathwork, visualization, and muscle relaxation change the color displayed by the device.
• Mr. Ly examined how measures of anxiety, sleep quality, and chronic pain changed after participants used the instrument. Ten participants completed a study assessing anxiety. Eight participants were enrolled in a sleep study where they completed biofeedback sessions before bed for 2 weeks, and 15 participants performed biofeedback twice daily and reported their levels of anxiety and pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• Anxiety scores decreased by about 22% on average (P < .001).
• Seven of the eight participants in the sleep study had improved scores on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, with an average improvement of nearly 30% (P < .05). Daytime dysfunction improved by 58% (P < .01).
• In the chronic pain study, about 60% of the 350 biofeedback sessions led to reduced pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“These portable devices may aid lifestyle management by alleviating anxiety, chronic pain, and enhancing daytime energy,” Mr. Ly said. “The results support their integration into lifestyle medicine and integrative medicine.”

SOURCE:

Mr. Ly presented the findings as a poster at Lifestyle Medicine 2023, which took place Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 in Denver and online.

LIMITATIONS:

The studies were open label and did not include control groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Mr. Ly is the founder of CalmStone, which markets a thermal biofeedback device. The research was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the U.S. Army Research Office and Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies.

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

TOPLINE:

A novel handheld tool may hold promise for reducing anxiety and pain and improving sleep quality, according to research presented at Lifestyle Medicine 2023, the annual meeting of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Franklin Somchith Ly, a PhD candidate in mechanical engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara, developed , a product that assesses blood flow to the hand with an infrared temperature sensor and changes color as blood vessels expand during relaxation.
• Exercises such as intentional breathwork, visualization, and muscle relaxation change the color displayed by the device.
• Mr. Ly examined how measures of anxiety, sleep quality, and chronic pain changed after participants used the instrument. Ten participants completed a study assessing anxiety. Eight participants were enrolled in a sleep study where they completed biofeedback sessions before bed for 2 weeks, and 15 participants performed biofeedback twice daily and reported their levels of anxiety and pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• Anxiety scores decreased by about 22% on average (P < .001).
• Seven of the eight participants in the sleep study had improved scores on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, with an average improvement of nearly 30% (P < .05). Daytime dysfunction improved by 58% (P < .01).
• In the chronic pain study, about 60% of the 350 biofeedback sessions led to reduced pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“These portable devices may aid lifestyle management by alleviating anxiety, chronic pain, and enhancing daytime energy,” Mr. Ly said. “The results support their integration into lifestyle medicine and integrative medicine.”

SOURCE:

Mr. Ly presented the findings as a poster at Lifestyle Medicine 2023, which took place Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 in Denver and online.

LIMITATIONS:

The studies were open label and did not include control groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Mr. Ly is the founder of CalmStone, which markets a thermal biofeedback device. The research was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the U.S. Army Research Office and Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies.

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

TOPLINE:

A novel handheld tool may hold promise for reducing anxiety and pain and improving sleep quality, according to research presented at Lifestyle Medicine 2023, the annual meeting of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Franklin Somchith Ly, a PhD candidate in mechanical engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara, developed , a product that assesses blood flow to the hand with an infrared temperature sensor and changes color as blood vessels expand during relaxation.
• Exercises such as intentional breathwork, visualization, and muscle relaxation change the color displayed by the device.
• Mr. Ly examined how measures of anxiety, sleep quality, and chronic pain changed after participants used the instrument. Ten participants completed a study assessing anxiety. Eight participants were enrolled in a sleep study where they completed biofeedback sessions before bed for 2 weeks, and 15 participants performed biofeedback twice daily and reported their levels of anxiety and pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• Anxiety scores decreased by about 22% on average (P < .001).
• Seven of the eight participants in the sleep study had improved scores on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, with an average improvement of nearly 30% (P < .05). Daytime dysfunction improved by 58% (P < .01).
• In the chronic pain study, about 60% of the 350 biofeedback sessions led to reduced pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“These portable devices may aid lifestyle management by alleviating anxiety, chronic pain, and enhancing daytime energy,” Mr. Ly said. “The results support their integration into lifestyle medicine and integrative medicine.”

SOURCE:

Mr. Ly presented the findings as a poster at Lifestyle Medicine 2023, which took place Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 in Denver and online.

LIMITATIONS:

The studies were open label and did not include control groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Mr. Ly is the founder of CalmStone, which markets a thermal biofeedback device. The research was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the U.S. Army Research Office and Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies.

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

Given the frequency of autoimmune conditions in women, the possible effects of estrogen and hormonal therapy exposure over the lifespan on the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has long been of interest. Prior studies have identified a potential increase in RA risk in older women taking estrogen replacement. Hadizadeh and colleagues used the UK Biobank to identify cases of RA among over 236,000 women taking oral contraceptives and over 102,000 women taking hormone replacement therapy. Oral contraceptive use was associated with lower risk for RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89), whereas hormone replacement therapy was associated with higher risk for RA (HR 1.16) compared with women who had never used these therapies. Exogenous estrogen exposure may affect the development of RA, but the potential mechanisms (including the effect on systemic inflammation) remain unclear.

Among the multitude of studies on a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in RA, a recent cluster randomized trial by Bessette and colleagues compared use of abatacept in 284 patients treated by 44 physicians. Patients assigned to both T2T and routine care had significant improvement in RA disease activity (as measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index) with abatacept, with close to 40% in low disease activity at 12 months. Those treated with routine care experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with slightly higher odds of low disease activity and a shorter time to Simplified Disease Activity Index remission (14 vs 19 months). With T2T being largely accepted as a standard of care on the basis of prior studies, this study raises the question of why little difference was seen between the two groups — perhaps it was related to the use of abatacept. It is unlikely to further change the standard of care to reduce use of disease activity measures.

To better understand refractory or difficult-to-treat (D2T) RA, Jung and colleagues used the KOBIO (KOrean College of Rheumatology BIOlogics) registry to compare characteristics of patients with D2T RA vs those who respond more readily to therapy. Of the 2321 patients included in the study, about 12% (271) had D2T RA. Patients with D2T RA tended to be younger and have longer disease duration, as well as a negative rheumatoid factor (RF); less use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD); and, as expected, higher disease activity measures. Given that about 80% of patients were seropositive for RF and the fact that patients with D2T RA tended to have higher inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), it is not likely that patients were misclassified with RA. The reason why patients with D2T RA had less csDMARD use is not clear, but prior studies have supported early and aggressive use of csDMARD for best outcomes. The study did suggest that patients with D2T RA stayed on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapy the longest, and perhaps similar studies in future will help outline the best treatment strategy for patients with D2T RA and persistently high disease activity.

Finally, in a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Start trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib vs methotrexate, Ciurea and colleagues looked at paired joint pathology scores (PJPS) — swollen and tender joint counts with left and right pooled — over the course of the 12-month study. Patients receiving tofacitinib had overall improved PJPS, though patients receiving methotrexate had more improvement in the foot. These findings, generally supporting those of the initial study, are unlikely to further change therapy.

Given the frequency of autoimmune conditions in women, the possible effects of estrogen and hormonal therapy exposure over the lifespan on the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has long been of interest. Prior studies have identified a potential increase in RA risk in older women taking estrogen replacement. Hadizadeh and colleagues used the UK Biobank to identify cases of RA among over 236,000 women taking oral contraceptives and over 102,000 women taking hormone replacement therapy. Oral contraceptive use was associated with lower risk for RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89), whereas hormone replacement therapy was associated with higher risk for RA (HR 1.16) compared with women who had never used these therapies. Exogenous estrogen exposure may affect the development of RA, but the potential mechanisms (including the effect on systemic inflammation) remain unclear.

Among the multitude of studies on a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in RA, a recent cluster randomized trial by Bessette and colleagues compared use of abatacept in 284 patients treated by 44 physicians. Patients assigned to both T2T and routine care had significant improvement in RA disease activity (as measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index) with abatacept, with close to 40% in low disease activity at 12 months. Those treated with routine care experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with slightly higher odds of low disease activity and a shorter time to Simplified Disease Activity Index remission (14 vs 19 months). With T2T being largely accepted as a standard of care on the basis of prior studies, this study raises the question of why little difference was seen between the two groups — perhaps it was related to the use of abatacept. It is unlikely to further change the standard of care to reduce use of disease activity measures.

To better understand refractory or difficult-to-treat (D2T) RA, Jung and colleagues used the KOBIO (KOrean College of Rheumatology BIOlogics) registry to compare characteristics of patients with D2T RA vs those who respond more readily to therapy. Of the 2321 patients included in the study, about 12% (271) had D2T RA. Patients with D2T RA tended to be younger and have longer disease duration, as well as a negative rheumatoid factor (RF); less use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD); and, as expected, higher disease activity measures. Given that about 80% of patients were seropositive for RF and the fact that patients with D2T RA tended to have higher inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), it is not likely that patients were misclassified with RA. The reason why patients with D2T RA had less csDMARD use is not clear, but prior studies have supported early and aggressive use of csDMARD for best outcomes. The study did suggest that patients with D2T RA stayed on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapy the longest, and perhaps similar studies in future will help outline the best treatment strategy for patients with D2T RA and persistently high disease activity.

Finally, in a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Start trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib vs methotrexate, Ciurea and colleagues looked at paired joint pathology scores (PJPS) — swollen and tender joint counts with left and right pooled — over the course of the 12-month study. Patients receiving tofacitinib had overall improved PJPS, though patients receiving methotrexate had more improvement in the foot. These findings, generally supporting those of the initial study, are unlikely to further change therapy.

Given the frequency of autoimmune conditions in women, the possible effects of estrogen and hormonal therapy exposure over the lifespan on the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has long been of interest. Prior studies have identified a potential increase in RA risk in older women taking estrogen replacement. Hadizadeh and colleagues used the UK Biobank to identify cases of RA among over 236,000 women taking oral contraceptives and over 102,000 women taking hormone replacement therapy. Oral contraceptive use was associated with lower risk for RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89), whereas hormone replacement therapy was associated with higher risk for RA (HR 1.16) compared with women who had never used these therapies. Exogenous estrogen exposure may affect the development of RA, but the potential mechanisms (including the effect on systemic inflammation) remain unclear.

Among the multitude of studies on a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in RA, a recent cluster randomized trial by Bessette and colleagues compared use of abatacept in 284 patients treated by 44 physicians. Patients assigned to both T2T and routine care had significant improvement in RA disease activity (as measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index) with abatacept, with close to 40% in low disease activity at 12 months. Those treated with routine care experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with slightly higher odds of low disease activity and a shorter time to Simplified Disease Activity Index remission (14 vs 19 months). With T2T being largely accepted as a standard of care on the basis of prior studies, this study raises the question of why little difference was seen between the two groups — perhaps it was related to the use of abatacept. It is unlikely to further change the standard of care to reduce use of disease activity measures.

To better understand refractory or difficult-to-treat (D2T) RA, Jung and colleagues used the KOBIO (KOrean College of Rheumatology BIOlogics) registry to compare characteristics of patients with D2T RA vs those who respond more readily to therapy. Of the 2321 patients included in the study, about 12% (271) had D2T RA. Patients with D2T RA tended to be younger and have longer disease duration, as well as a negative rheumatoid factor (RF); less use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD); and, as expected, higher disease activity measures. Given that about 80% of patients were seropositive for RF and the fact that patients with D2T RA tended to have higher inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), it is not likely that patients were misclassified with RA. The reason why patients with D2T RA had less csDMARD use is not clear, but prior studies have supported early and aggressive use of csDMARD for best outcomes. The study did suggest that patients with D2T RA stayed on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapy the longest, and perhaps similar studies in future will help outline the best treatment strategy for patients with D2T RA and persistently high disease activity.

Finally, in a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Start trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib vs methotrexate, Ciurea and colleagues looked at paired joint pathology scores (PJPS) — swollen and tender joint counts with left and right pooled — over the course of the 12-month study. Patients receiving tofacitinib had overall improved PJPS, though patients receiving methotrexate had more improvement in the foot. These findings, generally supporting those of the initial study, are unlikely to further change therapy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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