Commentary

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a lifelong disease that affects about a million people in the United States.^1,2 Since 1998 more than 45,000 veterans have been diagnosed with MS and about 20,000 are evaluated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) annually.³

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cornerstone for the assessment of persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).^4-6 MRI assists with disease diagnosis, allowing for timely therapeutic interventions and withthe evaluation of its progression, treatment effect, and safety. ^4,5 MRI-based outcomes also are used as primary endpoints in clinical trials.^4,5

MS has its clinical onset in early adulthood in most individuals and is diagnosed at a mean age of 30 years.⁷ As a result, pwMS may receive care and MRIs in different facilities during their lifetime. Mitigating interscan variabilities that can challenge intra- and interperson comparisons is crucial for accurate care. Radiologists may find it difficult to compare scans acquired in different facilities, as dissimilarities in acquisition protocols may mask or uncover focal disease, creating false negative or false positive findings. Moreover, lack of a standardized method to report MRI changes may compromise neurologists’ ability to correctly interpret scans and disease progression.

Accordingly, in October 2019, an international task force of neurologists, radiologists, MRI technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS, including representatives from the VHA, worked together to update guidelines for imaging the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve in pwMS.^8,9 Recognizing the importance of this effort, the VHA Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence (MSCoE), in collaboration with a team of subject matter expert neuroradiologists promptly committed to this effort, advocating the updated consensus recommendations, and favoring their dissemination within the VHA.¹⁰

As part of this commitment and dissemination effort, in this report we summarize the core points of the newly proposed MRI guidelines and ways to adapt them for use within the VHA. We then discuss key elements for their successful implementation and dissemination, specifically regarding the clinical operations of VHA.

Updated Guidelines

The 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis covered a broad spectrum of recommendations related to MRI indication, acquisition, and interpretation in MS. The recommendations span 3 major areas: (1) indications for an MRI with/without contrast; (2) summary of the MRI protocol for radiologists and technologists; and (3) interpretation of MRI examinations.

MRI Scan at Different Timepoints of MS

There are 3 crucial milestones within a the lifespan of a pwMS that require an MRI to reach appropriate conclusions and avoid clinical errors. These include the initial diagnosis, the follow-up to monitor disease and/or treatment effect, and the assessment of medication safety.

In the interest of efficiency, MRI protocols may vary slightly depending on these clinical indications. The Table lists core sequences of the updated 2021 consensus recommendations at each timepoint along with the proposed alternatives or preferences from the VHA workgroup.

MRI Field, Scan Resolution, and Coverage

Both 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) and 3-T scans are believed to be equally effective in imaging pwMS, providing that the 1.5-T scans are good quality. Although imaging at < 1.5 T is not recommended due to suboptimal disease detection, the use of scanners > 3 T is equally discouraged outside the supervision of trained investigators. Signal-to-noise ratio and resolution are key factors impacting scan quality, and their optimization is prioritized over the number of sequences in the updated 2021 consensus recommendations. For brain imaging, a resolution of 1 mm³ isotropic is preferred for 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and slice thickness ≤ 3 mm without gap (≤ 5 mm with 10-30% gaps for diffusion-weighted imaging only) is recommended for 2D sequences. Images should cover the entire brain and as much of the cervical spine as possible; images should be prescribed axial for 2D or reformatted axial oblique for 3D using the subcallosal plane as reference. For spine imaging, sites should aim at an in-plane resolution of 1 mm²; using sagittal slices ≤ 3 mm thick and axial slices ≤ 5 mm thick, both with no gap. Scans should cover the entire cervical and thoracolumbar region inclusive of the conus. For the optic nerve images, slices should be ≤ 2 or 3 mm thick with an in-plane resolution of 1 mm². Images should be aligned to the orientation of the optic nerve and chiasms, both of which should be entirely covered.

Postgadolinium Images Use

The discovery of the higher sensitivity of post-gadolinium (Gd) T1-weighted (T1-w) MRI relative to high iodine (88.1 g I) computed tomography scans in demonstrating contrast-enhancing MS lesions has revolutionized the way clinicians diagnose and monitor this disease.¹¹ However, in recent years the role of postcontrast MRI has been debated, considering the potential safety concerns secondary to Gd tissue deposition. For this reason, an intentionally more judicious use of postcontrast MRI is proposed by the consensus recommendations. At disease diagnosis, the use of Gd is advisable to (1) show disease dissemination in time; (2) differentiate the diagnosis based on the Gd pattern; (3) predict short-term disease activity; and (4) characterize activity in the setting of progression. When monitoring pwMS, the use of Gd may be useful in the first year of follow-up, particularly if in the setting of low potency medications or for patients for whom the detection of one or more active lesions would lead to a change in disease-modifying agents. Gd also should be used to first, confirm a clinical exacerbation (if needed); second, further characterize a lesion suggestive of progressive multifocal encephalopathy or monitor this disease over time; and third, monitor lesion burden change in patients with large confluent lesions, the count of which otherwise may be difficult.

MRI During Pregnancy and Lactation

The consensus recommendations state that Gd contrast–enhanced MRI is not absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy, although its use should be limited to strictly necessary situations, particularly those involving differential diagnosis, such as cerebral venous thrombosis or monitoring of possibly enlarging lesion burden. The use of Gd is not contraindicated during lactation, as only a small proportion (< 0.4%) passes into the breast milk, leading to an exposure to < 1% of the permitted Gd dose for neonates.^12,13

Harmonizing MRI Reports

The consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-weighted (T2-w) images when lesions are < 20, or specifying if the number of T2 lesions is between 20 and 50, between 50 and 100, or uncountable, eg, confluent large lesions. Similarly, for the spinal cord, the consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-w images when lesions are < 10, or otherwise report that > 10 lesions are seen.

The VHA workgroup proposed reporting a mild, moderate, or severe T2-lesion burden for a T2-lesion count < 20, between 20 and 50, and > 50, respectively. For follow-up MRIs, notation should be made if there is any change in lesion number, indicating the number of new lesions whenever possible. At each timepoint, the presence of active lesions on postcontrast images should be accurately defined.

Dissemination and Implementation

To implement and disseminate these proposed recommendations within the VHA, a workgroup of neurologists and radiologists was formed in late 2020. A review and discussion of the importance of each of the proposed MRI protocols for veterans with MS was held along with possible modifications to balance the intent of meeting standards of care with resources of individual US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and veterans’ needs. The final protocol recommendations were agreed on by group consensus.

In general, this VHA workgroup felt that the current adopted MRI protocols in several VA medical centers (based on previously proposed recommendations) were similar to the ones newly proposed and that implementing changes to meet the 2021 criteria would not be a major challenge.^14,15 Possible regional and nonregional barriers were discussed. The result of these discussions led to a modified version of what could be considered more stringent guidelines to accommodate medical centers that had fewer imaging resources. This modified protocol offers a viable alternative that allows for minimizing heterogeneities while recognizing the capabilities of the available scanner fleet and meeting the needs of specific centers or veterans. Finally, the workgroup recognized a fundamental obstacle toward this harmonization process in the heterogeneity in vendors and scanner field strength, factors that have previously limited implementation.

The guidelines and proposed changes were then presented to the VA National Radiology Program Office, examined, and discussed for consensus. No changes were felt to be needed, and the recommendation to implement these guidelines in MS regional programs, whenever possible, was deemed appropriate.

At this time, a focused communication plan has been implemented to diffuse the use of this protocol at MS regional programs in the MSCoE network. We will work iteratively with individual sites to practically apply the guidelines, learn about challenges, and work through them to optimize local implementation.

Conclusions

Standardized MRI protocols are fundamental for the care of veterans with MS. Mitigating interscan variabilities should be recognized as a priority by scientific and clinical expert committees. Several guidelines have been developed over the years to standardize MRI acquisition protocols and interpretations, while updating the same to the latest discoveries.^4,5,8,14,15 The VHA has been historically committed to these international efforts, with the goal to excel in the care of veterans with MS by providing access to state-of-the-art technologies. To this end, the initial Consortium of MS Centers MRI protocol was implemented in several MSCoE VA Regional Program sites a decade ago.¹⁴ Efforts continue to update protocol recommendations as needed and to promote their dissemination across the VHA enterprise.

This commentary is part of the continuous effort of the MSCoE to align with contemporary guidelines, apply the highest scientific standards, and achieve consistent outcomes for veterans with MS. For more important details of the clinical scenarios when additional/optional sequences or scans can be acquired, we advise the reader to refer to the 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.⁸

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a lifelong disease that affects about a million people in the United States.^1,2 Since 1998 more than 45,000 veterans have been diagnosed with MS and about 20,000 are evaluated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) annually.³

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cornerstone for the assessment of persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).^4-6 MRI assists with disease diagnosis, allowing for timely therapeutic interventions and withthe evaluation of its progression, treatment effect, and safety. ^4,5 MRI-based outcomes also are used as primary endpoints in clinical trials.^4,5

MS has its clinical onset in early adulthood in most individuals and is diagnosed at a mean age of 30 years.⁷ As a result, pwMS may receive care and MRIs in different facilities during their lifetime. Mitigating interscan variabilities that can challenge intra- and interperson comparisons is crucial for accurate care. Radiologists may find it difficult to compare scans acquired in different facilities, as dissimilarities in acquisition protocols may mask or uncover focal disease, creating false negative or false positive findings. Moreover, lack of a standardized method to report MRI changes may compromise neurologists’ ability to correctly interpret scans and disease progression.

Accordingly, in October 2019, an international task force of neurologists, radiologists, MRI technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS, including representatives from the VHA, worked together to update guidelines for imaging the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve in pwMS.^8,9 Recognizing the importance of this effort, the VHA Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence (MSCoE), in collaboration with a team of subject matter expert neuroradiologists promptly committed to this effort, advocating the updated consensus recommendations, and favoring their dissemination within the VHA.¹⁰

As part of this commitment and dissemination effort, in this report we summarize the core points of the newly proposed MRI guidelines and ways to adapt them for use within the VHA. We then discuss key elements for their successful implementation and dissemination, specifically regarding the clinical operations of VHA.

Updated Guidelines

The 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis covered a broad spectrum of recommendations related to MRI indication, acquisition, and interpretation in MS. The recommendations span 3 major areas: (1) indications for an MRI with/without contrast; (2) summary of the MRI protocol for radiologists and technologists; and (3) interpretation of MRI examinations.

MRI Scan at Different Timepoints of MS

There are 3 crucial milestones within a the lifespan of a pwMS that require an MRI to reach appropriate conclusions and avoid clinical errors. These include the initial diagnosis, the follow-up to monitor disease and/or treatment effect, and the assessment of medication safety.

In the interest of efficiency, MRI protocols may vary slightly depending on these clinical indications. The Table lists core sequences of the updated 2021 consensus recommendations at each timepoint along with the proposed alternatives or preferences from the VHA workgroup.

MRI Field, Scan Resolution, and Coverage

Both 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) and 3-T scans are believed to be equally effective in imaging pwMS, providing that the 1.5-T scans are good quality. Although imaging at < 1.5 T is not recommended due to suboptimal disease detection, the use of scanners > 3 T is equally discouraged outside the supervision of trained investigators. Signal-to-noise ratio and resolution are key factors impacting scan quality, and their optimization is prioritized over the number of sequences in the updated 2021 consensus recommendations. For brain imaging, a resolution of 1 mm³ isotropic is preferred for 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and slice thickness ≤ 3 mm without gap (≤ 5 mm with 10-30% gaps for diffusion-weighted imaging only) is recommended for 2D sequences. Images should cover the entire brain and as much of the cervical spine as possible; images should be prescribed axial for 2D or reformatted axial oblique for 3D using the subcallosal plane as reference. For spine imaging, sites should aim at an in-plane resolution of 1 mm²; using sagittal slices ≤ 3 mm thick and axial slices ≤ 5 mm thick, both with no gap. Scans should cover the entire cervical and thoracolumbar region inclusive of the conus. For the optic nerve images, slices should be ≤ 2 or 3 mm thick with an in-plane resolution of 1 mm². Images should be aligned to the orientation of the optic nerve and chiasms, both of which should be entirely covered.

Postgadolinium Images Use

The discovery of the higher sensitivity of post-gadolinium (Gd) T1-weighted (T1-w) MRI relative to high iodine (88.1 g I) computed tomography scans in demonstrating contrast-enhancing MS lesions has revolutionized the way clinicians diagnose and monitor this disease.¹¹ However, in recent years the role of postcontrast MRI has been debated, considering the potential safety concerns secondary to Gd tissue deposition. For this reason, an intentionally more judicious use of postcontrast MRI is proposed by the consensus recommendations. At disease diagnosis, the use of Gd is advisable to (1) show disease dissemination in time; (2) differentiate the diagnosis based on the Gd pattern; (3) predict short-term disease activity; and (4) characterize activity in the setting of progression. When monitoring pwMS, the use of Gd may be useful in the first year of follow-up, particularly if in the setting of low potency medications or for patients for whom the detection of one or more active lesions would lead to a change in disease-modifying agents. Gd also should be used to first, confirm a clinical exacerbation (if needed); second, further characterize a lesion suggestive of progressive multifocal encephalopathy or monitor this disease over time; and third, monitor lesion burden change in patients with large confluent lesions, the count of which otherwise may be difficult.

MRI During Pregnancy and Lactation

The consensus recommendations state that Gd contrast–enhanced MRI is not absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy, although its use should be limited to strictly necessary situations, particularly those involving differential diagnosis, such as cerebral venous thrombosis or monitoring of possibly enlarging lesion burden. The use of Gd is not contraindicated during lactation, as only a small proportion (< 0.4%) passes into the breast milk, leading to an exposure to < 1% of the permitted Gd dose for neonates.^12,13

Harmonizing MRI Reports

The consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-weighted (T2-w) images when lesions are < 20, or specifying if the number of T2 lesions is between 20 and 50, between 50 and 100, or uncountable, eg, confluent large lesions. Similarly, for the spinal cord, the consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-w images when lesions are < 10, or otherwise report that > 10 lesions are seen.

The VHA workgroup proposed reporting a mild, moderate, or severe T2-lesion burden for a T2-lesion count < 20, between 20 and 50, and > 50, respectively. For follow-up MRIs, notation should be made if there is any change in lesion number, indicating the number of new lesions whenever possible. At each timepoint, the presence of active lesions on postcontrast images should be accurately defined.

Dissemination and Implementation

To implement and disseminate these proposed recommendations within the VHA, a workgroup of neurologists and radiologists was formed in late 2020. A review and discussion of the importance of each of the proposed MRI protocols for veterans with MS was held along with possible modifications to balance the intent of meeting standards of care with resources of individual US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and veterans’ needs. The final protocol recommendations were agreed on by group consensus.

In general, this VHA workgroup felt that the current adopted MRI protocols in several VA medical centers (based on previously proposed recommendations) were similar to the ones newly proposed and that implementing changes to meet the 2021 criteria would not be a major challenge.^14,15 Possible regional and nonregional barriers were discussed. The result of these discussions led to a modified version of what could be considered more stringent guidelines to accommodate medical centers that had fewer imaging resources. This modified protocol offers a viable alternative that allows for minimizing heterogeneities while recognizing the capabilities of the available scanner fleet and meeting the needs of specific centers or veterans. Finally, the workgroup recognized a fundamental obstacle toward this harmonization process in the heterogeneity in vendors and scanner field strength, factors that have previously limited implementation.

The guidelines and proposed changes were then presented to the VA National Radiology Program Office, examined, and discussed for consensus. No changes were felt to be needed, and the recommendation to implement these guidelines in MS regional programs, whenever possible, was deemed appropriate.

At this time, a focused communication plan has been implemented to diffuse the use of this protocol at MS regional programs in the MSCoE network. We will work iteratively with individual sites to practically apply the guidelines, learn about challenges, and work through them to optimize local implementation.

Conclusions

Standardized MRI protocols are fundamental for the care of veterans with MS. Mitigating interscan variabilities should be recognized as a priority by scientific and clinical expert committees. Several guidelines have been developed over the years to standardize MRI acquisition protocols and interpretations, while updating the same to the latest discoveries.^4,5,8,14,15 The VHA has been historically committed to these international efforts, with the goal to excel in the care of veterans with MS by providing access to state-of-the-art technologies. To this end, the initial Consortium of MS Centers MRI protocol was implemented in several MSCoE VA Regional Program sites a decade ago.¹⁴ Efforts continue to update protocol recommendations as needed and to promote their dissemination across the VHA enterprise.

This commentary is part of the continuous effort of the MSCoE to align with contemporary guidelines, apply the highest scientific standards, and achieve consistent outcomes for veterans with MS. For more important details of the clinical scenarios when additional/optional sequences or scans can be acquired, we advise the reader to refer to the 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.⁸

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a lifelong disease that affects about a million people in the United States.^1,2 Since 1998 more than 45,000 veterans have been diagnosed with MS and about 20,000 are evaluated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) annually.³

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cornerstone for the assessment of persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).^4-6 MRI assists with disease diagnosis, allowing for timely therapeutic interventions and withthe evaluation of its progression, treatment effect, and safety. ^4,5 MRI-based outcomes also are used as primary endpoints in clinical trials.^4,5

MS has its clinical onset in early adulthood in most individuals and is diagnosed at a mean age of 30 years.⁷ As a result, pwMS may receive care and MRIs in different facilities during their lifetime. Mitigating interscan variabilities that can challenge intra- and interperson comparisons is crucial for accurate care. Radiologists may find it difficult to compare scans acquired in different facilities, as dissimilarities in acquisition protocols may mask or uncover focal disease, creating false negative or false positive findings. Moreover, lack of a standardized method to report MRI changes may compromise neurologists’ ability to correctly interpret scans and disease progression.

Accordingly, in October 2019, an international task force of neurologists, radiologists, MRI technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS, including representatives from the VHA, worked together to update guidelines for imaging the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve in pwMS.^8,9 Recognizing the importance of this effort, the VHA Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence (MSCoE), in collaboration with a team of subject matter expert neuroradiologists promptly committed to this effort, advocating the updated consensus recommendations, and favoring their dissemination within the VHA.¹⁰

As part of this commitment and dissemination effort, in this report we summarize the core points of the newly proposed MRI guidelines and ways to adapt them for use within the VHA. We then discuss key elements for their successful implementation and dissemination, specifically regarding the clinical operations of VHA.

Updated Guidelines

The 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis covered a broad spectrum of recommendations related to MRI indication, acquisition, and interpretation in MS. The recommendations span 3 major areas: (1) indications for an MRI with/without contrast; (2) summary of the MRI protocol for radiologists and technologists; and (3) interpretation of MRI examinations.

MRI Scan at Different Timepoints of MS

There are 3 crucial milestones within a the lifespan of a pwMS that require an MRI to reach appropriate conclusions and avoid clinical errors. These include the initial diagnosis, the follow-up to monitor disease and/or treatment effect, and the assessment of medication safety.

In the interest of efficiency, MRI protocols may vary slightly depending on these clinical indications. The Table lists core sequences of the updated 2021 consensus recommendations at each timepoint along with the proposed alternatives or preferences from the VHA workgroup.

MRI Field, Scan Resolution, and Coverage

Both 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) and 3-T scans are believed to be equally effective in imaging pwMS, providing that the 1.5-T scans are good quality. Although imaging at < 1.5 T is not recommended due to suboptimal disease detection, the use of scanners > 3 T is equally discouraged outside the supervision of trained investigators. Signal-to-noise ratio and resolution are key factors impacting scan quality, and their optimization is prioritized over the number of sequences in the updated 2021 consensus recommendations. For brain imaging, a resolution of 1 mm³ isotropic is preferred for 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and slice thickness ≤ 3 mm without gap (≤ 5 mm with 10-30% gaps for diffusion-weighted imaging only) is recommended for 2D sequences. Images should cover the entire brain and as much of the cervical spine as possible; images should be prescribed axial for 2D or reformatted axial oblique for 3D using the subcallosal plane as reference. For spine imaging, sites should aim at an in-plane resolution of 1 mm²; using sagittal slices ≤ 3 mm thick and axial slices ≤ 5 mm thick, both with no gap. Scans should cover the entire cervical and thoracolumbar region inclusive of the conus. For the optic nerve images, slices should be ≤ 2 or 3 mm thick with an in-plane resolution of 1 mm². Images should be aligned to the orientation of the optic nerve and chiasms, both of which should be entirely covered.

Postgadolinium Images Use

The discovery of the higher sensitivity of post-gadolinium (Gd) T1-weighted (T1-w) MRI relative to high iodine (88.1 g I) computed tomography scans in demonstrating contrast-enhancing MS lesions has revolutionized the way clinicians diagnose and monitor this disease.¹¹ However, in recent years the role of postcontrast MRI has been debated, considering the potential safety concerns secondary to Gd tissue deposition. For this reason, an intentionally more judicious use of postcontrast MRI is proposed by the consensus recommendations. At disease diagnosis, the use of Gd is advisable to (1) show disease dissemination in time; (2) differentiate the diagnosis based on the Gd pattern; (3) predict short-term disease activity; and (4) characterize activity in the setting of progression. When monitoring pwMS, the use of Gd may be useful in the first year of follow-up, particularly if in the setting of low potency medications or for patients for whom the detection of one or more active lesions would lead to a change in disease-modifying agents. Gd also should be used to first, confirm a clinical exacerbation (if needed); second, further characterize a lesion suggestive of progressive multifocal encephalopathy or monitor this disease over time; and third, monitor lesion burden change in patients with large confluent lesions, the count of which otherwise may be difficult.

MRI During Pregnancy and Lactation

The consensus recommendations state that Gd contrast–enhanced MRI is not absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy, although its use should be limited to strictly necessary situations, particularly those involving differential diagnosis, such as cerebral venous thrombosis or monitoring of possibly enlarging lesion burden. The use of Gd is not contraindicated during lactation, as only a small proportion (< 0.4%) passes into the breast milk, leading to an exposure to < 1% of the permitted Gd dose for neonates.^12,13

Harmonizing MRI Reports

The consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-weighted (T2-w) images when lesions are < 20, or specifying if the number of T2 lesions is between 20 and 50, between 50 and 100, or uncountable, eg, confluent large lesions. Similarly, for the spinal cord, the consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-w images when lesions are < 10, or otherwise report that > 10 lesions are seen.

The VHA workgroup proposed reporting a mild, moderate, or severe T2-lesion burden for a T2-lesion count < 20, between 20 and 50, and > 50, respectively. For follow-up MRIs, notation should be made if there is any change in lesion number, indicating the number of new lesions whenever possible. At each timepoint, the presence of active lesions on postcontrast images should be accurately defined.

Dissemination and Implementation

To implement and disseminate these proposed recommendations within the VHA, a workgroup of neurologists and radiologists was formed in late 2020. A review and discussion of the importance of each of the proposed MRI protocols for veterans with MS was held along with possible modifications to balance the intent of meeting standards of care with resources of individual US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and veterans’ needs. The final protocol recommendations were agreed on by group consensus.

In general, this VHA workgroup felt that the current adopted MRI protocols in several VA medical centers (based on previously proposed recommendations) were similar to the ones newly proposed and that implementing changes to meet the 2021 criteria would not be a major challenge.^14,15 Possible regional and nonregional barriers were discussed. The result of these discussions led to a modified version of what could be considered more stringent guidelines to accommodate medical centers that had fewer imaging resources. This modified protocol offers a viable alternative that allows for minimizing heterogeneities while recognizing the capabilities of the available scanner fleet and meeting the needs of specific centers or veterans. Finally, the workgroup recognized a fundamental obstacle toward this harmonization process in the heterogeneity in vendors and scanner field strength, factors that have previously limited implementation.

The guidelines and proposed changes were then presented to the VA National Radiology Program Office, examined, and discussed for consensus. No changes were felt to be needed, and the recommendation to implement these guidelines in MS regional programs, whenever possible, was deemed appropriate.

At this time, a focused communication plan has been implemented to diffuse the use of this protocol at MS regional programs in the MSCoE network. We will work iteratively with individual sites to practically apply the guidelines, learn about challenges, and work through them to optimize local implementation.

Conclusions

Standardized MRI protocols are fundamental for the care of veterans with MS. Mitigating interscan variabilities should be recognized as a priority by scientific and clinical expert committees. Several guidelines have been developed over the years to standardize MRI acquisition protocols and interpretations, while updating the same to the latest discoveries.^4,5,8,14,15 The VHA has been historically committed to these international efforts, with the goal to excel in the care of veterans with MS by providing access to state-of-the-art technologies. To this end, the initial Consortium of MS Centers MRI protocol was implemented in several MSCoE VA Regional Program sites a decade ago.¹⁴ Efforts continue to update protocol recommendations as needed and to promote their dissemination across the VHA enterprise.

This commentary is part of the continuous effort of the MSCoE to align with contemporary guidelines, apply the highest scientific standards, and achieve consistent outcomes for veterans with MS. For more important details of the clinical scenarios when additional/optional sequences or scans can be acquired, we advise the reader to refer to the 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.⁸

It is a great honor and privilege to care for the men and women who have bravely served our country, and to give a hero’s Final Salute in recognition of the veteran’s service and sacrifices. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other non-VA health care facilities caring for veterans find meaning and take pride in providing a Final Salute to veterans who spend their last days of life at their facilities. The Final Salute aligns with the mission of the VA: To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan” by serving and honoring the people who are America’s veterans.¹ As health care professionals, we feel and grieve the loss when a veteran dies within our facilities. While some VA and community health care facilities honor veterans at the time of death, others have yet to implement a Final Salute program.² How can we ensure that veterans at the time of death receive a hero’s Final Salute?

There are 26 million veterans alive today, representing about 8% of the total US adult population.³ Yet more than 1800 veterans die every day, representing about a quarter of all US deaths.^4,5 Most veterans die in the community; only 4% of veteran deaths occur in VA facilities.^5,6 This article highlights the unique tradition that a few VA and community health care facilities have launched to honor veterans whose journeys end under their care. This article also is a call to action to raise awareness of the importance of instituting the Final Salute program that is part of the end-of-life protocol for veterans.

A Final Salute ceremony (also called Honors Escort or Honor Walk) takes place when a veteran who dies in the hospital or nursing home is transported on the gurney from the location of their passing to the funeral home vehicle or the morgue. Staff, family members, visitors, and other veterans silently line the hallways from the veteran’s room to the health care facility exit and pay their respects to the deceased veteran. A Final Salute is a quiet, yet profound and powerful way for care teams to ensure that the deceased veteran does not leave alone.

VA-Based Ceremonies

There are many acts of remembrance at the bedside from the time of death to the time when the veteran’s body approaches the funeral home vehicle or the doors of the morgue. Tonya Ross, social worker and Honors Escort program manager at the Robert J. Dole VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Wichita, Kansas, reported that following the death of a veteran, there is a bedside remembrance that begins with a flag ceremony. Afterward, the veteran’s gurney is draped with the American flag, and as the procession moves through the medical center, the veterans salute, and all others place their hands over their hearts

Chaplain Michael Halyard at the Ozarks VAMC in Fayetteville, Arkansas, reported that following the death of a veteran, the chaplain greets family members with condolences and allows them to grieve and reflect on their life with the deceased veteran. On arrival of the funeral home team, an announcement for an Honor Walk is made. Staff, visitors, and family are lined up on the first floor of the hospital waiting to pay their final respects to the veteran. A slow processional of the veteran covered by a handmade quilt is escorted by a VA police officer and the chaplain. The processional stops in the middle and the chaplain announces, “Let us pause for a moment of silence as we honor one of our own US Army veterans who has completed the journey of life.”

The Final Salute at the VA Wilkes-Barre Community Living Center (CLC) in Pennsylvania begins with a bedside flag ceremony. Afterward, the veteran’s gurney is draped with the flag, and as the procession moves through the CLC, all who are standing along the route offer their respects. Throughout the ceremony, a team member remains with the family of the deceased, providing comfort and support. Once the ceremony is completed, the team member remains with the family to ensure all issues are addressed and all questions or concerns are answered.

Residents of the Philadelphia VAMC CLC in Pennsylvania have found a way to say a last goodbye to fellow veterans in a unique and dignified manner. Bettyanne Corkery, nurse manager for the Heroes’ Crossing hospice and palliative care unit explains, “Our Honor Guard evolved from our residents’ requests. We used to drape a flag over the body of veterans leaving us for the last time, but our residents came to us and said they wanted to do more.” CLC residents wanted to form an Honor Guard and say goodbye with dignity and grace. Gerry Donlon, a US Army Vietnam veteran and president of the residents council and chief program coordinator, explained that Honor Guard members are called to the deceased’s room and stand guard until the hearse comes. Donlon adds, “We proceed forward, along with the family, and the speaker system for the hospital plays patriotic songs, including Taps. When we get to the lobby, we stop, and I say a prayer. We fold the flag military style and hand it over to the family members, we render a Final Salute, and then the veteran is taken to the hearse.”⁷

Community Cermeonies

Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital (THAM) has honored 531 veterans with Final Salutes since 2015. Before the official procession begins, designated employees drape the patient’s body with the flag. Physicians, nurses, and volunteers escort the body in a silent procession along with the family. On leaving, the veteran’s family receives the flag in honor of their loved one. A specially designed medallion has been placed in the lobby floor at the location where the Final Salute is rendered. Christi Evans, RN, BSN, ACM, manager for care
coordination at AnMed Health, Anderson, South Carolina, witnessed a Final Salute at THAM for a relative and took the idea to Mike Johnston, Director of Spiritual Care to establish the program at AnMed Health, which has provided 118 Final Salutes since 2018.

Central Maine Healthcare (CMH), which operates 3 hospitals, provides 2 ceremonies. The Final Salute occurs prior to the veteran’s passing and the Honor Walk gathers hospital personnel outside the patient’s room as they are moved. During the Final Salute, with the approval of a veteran’s family, a veteran employed by CMF presents the veteran with a folded flag and certificate and thanks them for their service and hospital employee salute. After the veteran dies, staff members gather in the hallway for the Honor Walk. Ascension Sacred Heart (ASH), Florida, where on average 260 veterans look for treatment every month, has taken the Final Salute to all 4 of their hospitals. Sabrina Granese, BSN, RN, Military Service Line Director at ASH explains, “Patients that are active duty or veterans are identified at the time of admission. When a veteran passes away, with the approval of a veteran’s family, ‘Code veteran’ will be heard over the hospital intercom. Staff members will have 5 minutes to make their way to the main hospital entrance for the Honor Walk.” Similarly, the skilled nursing facilities operated by Bethesda Health Group, St. Louis, Missouri, have implemented the Veteran Escort Ceremony. Employees, volunteers, family members, and residents line the hallways during the procession to salute and honor the passing of the veteran’s body.

Closure For Families

Simple yet magnificent, a Final Salute shows that a veteran is “gone but not forgotten” and also shows families they are not alone as they too made sacrifices to allow their loved ones to serve in the Armed Forces; it signals the hope of healing and closure.⁸ “The staff came to pay their respects,” recalled Cindy Roberts, a social worker at the VA Bay Pines, when her relative died at the Ozarks VAMC. She explained, I wasn’t expecting as much because it was 2 AM. I have never in my life had an experience like that. I wish there were words to describe it; I wish every VAMC in the country did that.”

Hope Danishanko, social worker at the VA Wilkes-Barre CLC, said veterans are appreciative of the program. “I have had many CLC residents tell me that the Honors Escort allows them to have closure. They also feel it provides respect to the veteran who has passed.”

Bettyanne Corkery noted that the Philadelphia CLC Honor Guard program is unique because it is veteran driven. “They have sessions in which they talk about what works and what doesn’t, and they recruit new volunteers themselves,” she said. “It has evolved into the most beautiful ceremony, and they are constantly tweaking it.” According to Gerry Donlon, “When you see all 8 members of the Honor Guard get a call at 2 AM, and everyone shows up, you know there’s personal satisfaction. I’d like to see every CLC [throughout VA] do this. I really would.”⁷

“Family members tell us they feel blessed and honored to be a part of the program. They are so grateful for the way we pay tribute to their veteran loved one,” says Leslie Schaeffer, support services manager and bereavement coordinator and coordinator of the Veteran Escort Ceremony at Bethesda Health Group communities.

Privileged and humbled—that is how staff and family members describe feeling after participating in a Final Salute. Its impact on the families has been amazing. Between the tears, there are thanks for the recognition of the sacrifices their loved ones made. When one family was informed of the ceremony by Reverend Tricia Lytle, Manager of Spiritual Care at AnMed Health, the “whole family responded by explaining how much that meant at such a difficult time. They began sharing stories about his service and how proud he was to be a veteran,” she reported. “As I [Rev. Lytle] leaned over to present the flag at the bedside, the wife reached up and took hold as she tearfully accepted it and embraced it close to her heart. The staff in the hallway looked on respectfully also in tears.”

Conclusions

The Final Salute is a brief ceremonial procession demonstrating that the mission to care for America’s veterans does not end at the bedside. It ensures that no veteran’s body is alone when led out of the health facility room to the exit. With these Final Salute practices, I hope that the rest of VA and community health facilities caring for veterans will implement a Final Salute program to better honor veterans who depart in their care.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to express gratitude to everyone who so openly shared their stories—your insight, advice, and encouragement are inspiring and invaluable. Thank you to all the facilities that consented to be featured in this article.

It is a great honor and privilege to care for the men and women who have bravely served our country, and to give a hero’s Final Salute in recognition of the veteran’s service and sacrifices. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other non-VA health care facilities caring for veterans find meaning and take pride in providing a Final Salute to veterans who spend their last days of life at their facilities. The Final Salute aligns with the mission of the VA: To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan” by serving and honoring the people who are America’s veterans.¹ As health care professionals, we feel and grieve the loss when a veteran dies within our facilities. While some VA and community health care facilities honor veterans at the time of death, others have yet to implement a Final Salute program.² How can we ensure that veterans at the time of death receive a hero’s Final Salute?

There are 26 million veterans alive today, representing about 8% of the total US adult population.³ Yet more than 1800 veterans die every day, representing about a quarter of all US deaths.^4,5 Most veterans die in the community; only 4% of veteran deaths occur in VA facilities.^5,6 This article highlights the unique tradition that a few VA and community health care facilities have launched to honor veterans whose journeys end under their care. This article also is a call to action to raise awareness of the importance of instituting the Final Salute program that is part of the end-of-life protocol for veterans.

A Final Salute ceremony (also called Honors Escort or Honor Walk) takes place when a veteran who dies in the hospital or nursing home is transported on the gurney from the location of their passing to the funeral home vehicle or the morgue. Staff, family members, visitors, and other veterans silently line the hallways from the veteran’s room to the health care facility exit and pay their respects to the deceased veteran. A Final Salute is a quiet, yet profound and powerful way for care teams to ensure that the deceased veteran does not leave alone.

VA-Based Ceremonies

There are many acts of remembrance at the bedside from the time of death to the time when the veteran’s body approaches the funeral home vehicle or the doors of the morgue. Tonya Ross, social worker and Honors Escort program manager at the Robert J. Dole VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Wichita, Kansas, reported that following the death of a veteran, there is a bedside remembrance that begins with a flag ceremony. Afterward, the veteran’s gurney is draped with the American flag, and as the procession moves through the medical center, the veterans salute, and all others place their hands over their hearts

Chaplain Michael Halyard at the Ozarks VAMC in Fayetteville, Arkansas, reported that following the death of a veteran, the chaplain greets family members with condolences and allows them to grieve and reflect on their life with the deceased veteran. On arrival of the funeral home team, an announcement for an Honor Walk is made. Staff, visitors, and family are lined up on the first floor of the hospital waiting to pay their final respects to the veteran. A slow processional of the veteran covered by a handmade quilt is escorted by a VA police officer and the chaplain. The processional stops in the middle and the chaplain announces, “Let us pause for a moment of silence as we honor one of our own US Army veterans who has completed the journey of life.”

The Final Salute at the VA Wilkes-Barre Community Living Center (CLC) in Pennsylvania begins with a bedside flag ceremony. Afterward, the veteran’s gurney is draped with the flag, and as the procession moves through the CLC, all who are standing along the route offer their respects. Throughout the ceremony, a team member remains with the family of the deceased, providing comfort and support. Once the ceremony is completed, the team member remains with the family to ensure all issues are addressed and all questions or concerns are answered.

Residents of the Philadelphia VAMC CLC in Pennsylvania have found a way to say a last goodbye to fellow veterans in a unique and dignified manner. Bettyanne Corkery, nurse manager for the Heroes’ Crossing hospice and palliative care unit explains, “Our Honor Guard evolved from our residents’ requests. We used to drape a flag over the body of veterans leaving us for the last time, but our residents came to us and said they wanted to do more.” CLC residents wanted to form an Honor Guard and say goodbye with dignity and grace. Gerry Donlon, a US Army Vietnam veteran and president of the residents council and chief program coordinator, explained that Honor Guard members are called to the deceased’s room and stand guard until the hearse comes. Donlon adds, “We proceed forward, along with the family, and the speaker system for the hospital plays patriotic songs, including Taps. When we get to the lobby, we stop, and I say a prayer. We fold the flag military style and hand it over to the family members, we render a Final Salute, and then the veteran is taken to the hearse.”⁷

Community Cermeonies

Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital (THAM) has honored 531 veterans with Final Salutes since 2015. Before the official procession begins, designated employees drape the patient’s body with the flag. Physicians, nurses, and volunteers escort the body in a silent procession along with the family. On leaving, the veteran’s family receives the flag in honor of their loved one. A specially designed medallion has been placed in the lobby floor at the location where the Final Salute is rendered. Christi Evans, RN, BSN, ACM, manager for care
coordination at AnMed Health, Anderson, South Carolina, witnessed a Final Salute at THAM for a relative and took the idea to Mike Johnston, Director of Spiritual Care to establish the program at AnMed Health, which has provided 118 Final Salutes since 2018.

Central Maine Healthcare (CMH), which operates 3 hospitals, provides 2 ceremonies. The Final Salute occurs prior to the veteran’s passing and the Honor Walk gathers hospital personnel outside the patient’s room as they are moved. During the Final Salute, with the approval of a veteran’s family, a veteran employed by CMF presents the veteran with a folded flag and certificate and thanks them for their service and hospital employee salute. After the veteran dies, staff members gather in the hallway for the Honor Walk. Ascension Sacred Heart (ASH), Florida, where on average 260 veterans look for treatment every month, has taken the Final Salute to all 4 of their hospitals. Sabrina Granese, BSN, RN, Military Service Line Director at ASH explains, “Patients that are active duty or veterans are identified at the time of admission. When a veteran passes away, with the approval of a veteran’s family, ‘Code veteran’ will be heard over the hospital intercom. Staff members will have 5 minutes to make their way to the main hospital entrance for the Honor Walk.” Similarly, the skilled nursing facilities operated by Bethesda Health Group, St. Louis, Missouri, have implemented the Veteran Escort Ceremony. Employees, volunteers, family members, and residents line the hallways during the procession to salute and honor the passing of the veteran’s body.

Closure For Families

Simple yet magnificent, a Final Salute shows that a veteran is “gone but not forgotten” and also shows families they are not alone as they too made sacrifices to allow their loved ones to serve in the Armed Forces; it signals the hope of healing and closure.⁸ “The staff came to pay their respects,” recalled Cindy Roberts, a social worker at the VA Bay Pines, when her relative died at the Ozarks VAMC. She explained, I wasn’t expecting as much because it was 2 AM. I have never in my life had an experience like that. I wish there were words to describe it; I wish every VAMC in the country did that.”

Hope Danishanko, social worker at the VA Wilkes-Barre CLC, said veterans are appreciative of the program. “I have had many CLC residents tell me that the Honors Escort allows them to have closure. They also feel it provides respect to the veteran who has passed.”

Bettyanne Corkery noted that the Philadelphia CLC Honor Guard program is unique because it is veteran driven. “They have sessions in which they talk about what works and what doesn’t, and they recruit new volunteers themselves,” she said. “It has evolved into the most beautiful ceremony, and they are constantly tweaking it.” According to Gerry Donlon, “When you see all 8 members of the Honor Guard get a call at 2 AM, and everyone shows up, you know there’s personal satisfaction. I’d like to see every CLC [throughout VA] do this. I really would.”⁷

“Family members tell us they feel blessed and honored to be a part of the program. They are so grateful for the way we pay tribute to their veteran loved one,” says Leslie Schaeffer, support services manager and bereavement coordinator and coordinator of the Veteran Escort Ceremony at Bethesda Health Group communities.

Privileged and humbled—that is how staff and family members describe feeling after participating in a Final Salute. Its impact on the families has been amazing. Between the tears, there are thanks for the recognition of the sacrifices their loved ones made. When one family was informed of the ceremony by Reverend Tricia Lytle, Manager of Spiritual Care at AnMed Health, the “whole family responded by explaining how much that meant at such a difficult time. They began sharing stories about his service and how proud he was to be a veteran,” she reported. “As I [Rev. Lytle] leaned over to present the flag at the bedside, the wife reached up and took hold as she tearfully accepted it and embraced it close to her heart. The staff in the hallway looked on respectfully also in tears.”

Conclusions

The Final Salute is a brief ceremonial procession demonstrating that the mission to care for America’s veterans does not end at the bedside. It ensures that no veteran’s body is alone when led out of the health facility room to the exit. With these Final Salute practices, I hope that the rest of VA and community health facilities caring for veterans will implement a Final Salute program to better honor veterans who depart in their care.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to express gratitude to everyone who so openly shared their stories—your insight, advice, and encouragement are inspiring and invaluable. Thank you to all the facilities that consented to be featured in this article.

It is a great honor and privilege to care for the men and women who have bravely served our country, and to give a hero’s Final Salute in recognition of the veteran’s service and sacrifices. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other non-VA health care facilities caring for veterans find meaning and take pride in providing a Final Salute to veterans who spend their last days of life at their facilities. The Final Salute aligns with the mission of the VA: To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan” by serving and honoring the people who are America’s veterans.¹ As health care professionals, we feel and grieve the loss when a veteran dies within our facilities. While some VA and community health care facilities honor veterans at the time of death, others have yet to implement a Final Salute program.² How can we ensure that veterans at the time of death receive a hero’s Final Salute?

There are 26 million veterans alive today, representing about 8% of the total US adult population.³ Yet more than 1800 veterans die every day, representing about a quarter of all US deaths.^4,5 Most veterans die in the community; only 4% of veteran deaths occur in VA facilities.^5,6 This article highlights the unique tradition that a few VA and community health care facilities have launched to honor veterans whose journeys end under their care. This article also is a call to action to raise awareness of the importance of instituting the Final Salute program that is part of the end-of-life protocol for veterans.

A Final Salute ceremony (also called Honors Escort or Honor Walk) takes place when a veteran who dies in the hospital or nursing home is transported on the gurney from the location of their passing to the funeral home vehicle or the morgue. Staff, family members, visitors, and other veterans silently line the hallways from the veteran’s room to the health care facility exit and pay their respects to the deceased veteran. A Final Salute is a quiet, yet profound and powerful way for care teams to ensure that the deceased veteran does not leave alone.

VA-Based Ceremonies

There are many acts of remembrance at the bedside from the time of death to the time when the veteran’s body approaches the funeral home vehicle or the doors of the morgue. Tonya Ross, social worker and Honors Escort program manager at the Robert J. Dole VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Wichita, Kansas, reported that following the death of a veteran, there is a bedside remembrance that begins with a flag ceremony. Afterward, the veteran’s gurney is draped with the American flag, and as the procession moves through the medical center, the veterans salute, and all others place their hands over their hearts

Chaplain Michael Halyard at the Ozarks VAMC in Fayetteville, Arkansas, reported that following the death of a veteran, the chaplain greets family members with condolences and allows them to grieve and reflect on their life with the deceased veteran. On arrival of the funeral home team, an announcement for an Honor Walk is made. Staff, visitors, and family are lined up on the first floor of the hospital waiting to pay their final respects to the veteran. A slow processional of the veteran covered by a handmade quilt is escorted by a VA police officer and the chaplain. The processional stops in the middle and the chaplain announces, “Let us pause for a moment of silence as we honor one of our own US Army veterans who has completed the journey of life.”

The Final Salute at the VA Wilkes-Barre Community Living Center (CLC) in Pennsylvania begins with a bedside flag ceremony. Afterward, the veteran’s gurney is draped with the flag, and as the procession moves through the CLC, all who are standing along the route offer their respects. Throughout the ceremony, a team member remains with the family of the deceased, providing comfort and support. Once the ceremony is completed, the team member remains with the family to ensure all issues are addressed and all questions or concerns are answered.

Residents of the Philadelphia VAMC CLC in Pennsylvania have found a way to say a last goodbye to fellow veterans in a unique and dignified manner. Bettyanne Corkery, nurse manager for the Heroes’ Crossing hospice and palliative care unit explains, “Our Honor Guard evolved from our residents’ requests. We used to drape a flag over the body of veterans leaving us for the last time, but our residents came to us and said they wanted to do more.” CLC residents wanted to form an Honor Guard and say goodbye with dignity and grace. Gerry Donlon, a US Army Vietnam veteran and president of the residents council and chief program coordinator, explained that Honor Guard members are called to the deceased’s room and stand guard until the hearse comes. Donlon adds, “We proceed forward, along with the family, and the speaker system for the hospital plays patriotic songs, including Taps. When we get to the lobby, we stop, and I say a prayer. We fold the flag military style and hand it over to the family members, we render a Final Salute, and then the veteran is taken to the hearse.”⁷

Community Cermeonies

Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital (THAM) has honored 531 veterans with Final Salutes since 2015. Before the official procession begins, designated employees drape the patient’s body with the flag. Physicians, nurses, and volunteers escort the body in a silent procession along with the family. On leaving, the veteran’s family receives the flag in honor of their loved one. A specially designed medallion has been placed in the lobby floor at the location where the Final Salute is rendered. Christi Evans, RN, BSN, ACM, manager for care
coordination at AnMed Health, Anderson, South Carolina, witnessed a Final Salute at THAM for a relative and took the idea to Mike Johnston, Director of Spiritual Care to establish the program at AnMed Health, which has provided 118 Final Salutes since 2018.

Central Maine Healthcare (CMH), which operates 3 hospitals, provides 2 ceremonies. The Final Salute occurs prior to the veteran’s passing and the Honor Walk gathers hospital personnel outside the patient’s room as they are moved. During the Final Salute, with the approval of a veteran’s family, a veteran employed by CMF presents the veteran with a folded flag and certificate and thanks them for their service and hospital employee salute. After the veteran dies, staff members gather in the hallway for the Honor Walk. Ascension Sacred Heart (ASH), Florida, where on average 260 veterans look for treatment every month, has taken the Final Salute to all 4 of their hospitals. Sabrina Granese, BSN, RN, Military Service Line Director at ASH explains, “Patients that are active duty or veterans are identified at the time of admission. When a veteran passes away, with the approval of a veteran’s family, ‘Code veteran’ will be heard over the hospital intercom. Staff members will have 5 minutes to make their way to the main hospital entrance for the Honor Walk.” Similarly, the skilled nursing facilities operated by Bethesda Health Group, St. Louis, Missouri, have implemented the Veteran Escort Ceremony. Employees, volunteers, family members, and residents line the hallways during the procession to salute and honor the passing of the veteran’s body.

Closure For Families

Simple yet magnificent, a Final Salute shows that a veteran is “gone but not forgotten” and also shows families they are not alone as they too made sacrifices to allow their loved ones to serve in the Armed Forces; it signals the hope of healing and closure.⁸ “The staff came to pay their respects,” recalled Cindy Roberts, a social worker at the VA Bay Pines, when her relative died at the Ozarks VAMC. She explained, I wasn’t expecting as much because it was 2 AM. I have never in my life had an experience like that. I wish there were words to describe it; I wish every VAMC in the country did that.”

Hope Danishanko, social worker at the VA Wilkes-Barre CLC, said veterans are appreciative of the program. “I have had many CLC residents tell me that the Honors Escort allows them to have closure. They also feel it provides respect to the veteran who has passed.”

Bettyanne Corkery noted that the Philadelphia CLC Honor Guard program is unique because it is veteran driven. “They have sessions in which they talk about what works and what doesn’t, and they recruit new volunteers themselves,” she said. “It has evolved into the most beautiful ceremony, and they are constantly tweaking it.” According to Gerry Donlon, “When you see all 8 members of the Honor Guard get a call at 2 AM, and everyone shows up, you know there’s personal satisfaction. I’d like to see every CLC [throughout VA] do this. I really would.”⁷

“Family members tell us they feel blessed and honored to be a part of the program. They are so grateful for the way we pay tribute to their veteran loved one,” says Leslie Schaeffer, support services manager and bereavement coordinator and coordinator of the Veteran Escort Ceremony at Bethesda Health Group communities.

Privileged and humbled—that is how staff and family members describe feeling after participating in a Final Salute. Its impact on the families has been amazing. Between the tears, there are thanks for the recognition of the sacrifices their loved ones made. When one family was informed of the ceremony by Reverend Tricia Lytle, Manager of Spiritual Care at AnMed Health, the “whole family responded by explaining how much that meant at such a difficult time. They began sharing stories about his service and how proud he was to be a veteran,” she reported. “As I [Rev. Lytle] leaned over to present the flag at the bedside, the wife reached up and took hold as she tearfully accepted it and embraced it close to her heart. The staff in the hallway looked on respectfully also in tears.”

Conclusions

The Final Salute is a brief ceremonial procession demonstrating that the mission to care for America’s veterans does not end at the bedside. It ensures that no veteran’s body is alone when led out of the health facility room to the exit. With these Final Salute practices, I hope that the rest of VA and community health facilities caring for veterans will implement a Final Salute program to better honor veterans who depart in their care.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to express gratitude to everyone who so openly shared their stories—your insight, advice, and encouragement are inspiring and invaluable. Thank you to all the facilities that consented to be featured in this article.

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify and correct my recent commentary.¹ I wrote that the word provider was first used to refer to health care professionals during the 1930s in Nazi Germany, when Jewish physicians were termed Behandler. The cited manuscript stated that Behandler was “freely translated” as “provider.”² However, after reading social media comments that claimed this was a mistranslation, I sought to verify the translation.

Online German-English dictionaries yielded perplexing results. The dictionary Reverso translates Behandler as “dentist,” “practitioner,” or “therapist.”³ The Past Tenses Dictionary translates Behandler as “handlers.”⁴ Although a distasteful way to refer to a clinician-patient relationship, it still doesn’t translate as “provider.” The Collins and Cambridge dictionaries do not include Behandler, and the Langenscheidt dictionary does not provide a translation, instead noting that the translation “is missing” and that they are “verifying the word in question.”^5-7 Conversely, Anbieter appears to be the commonly provided German translation for provider.

The author of the original manuscript acknowledged that although Behandler is not listed as a translation for provider, it “comes close.”² He added that Behandler is not used anymore in German medicine because of the Nazi past (Saenger P, personal communication, February 9, 2022). A native German and Professor of German Studies at the University of Kentucky shared that “My best guess is that the term Behandler was used as a short form of Krankenbehandler, the designation for Jewish doctors in Nazi Germany who were still allowed to treat Jewish patients after withdrawal of their medical license. The best translations would be (health) practitioner or health care provider.” (Hobusch H, personal communication, 2022). However, Krankenbehandler has also been translated as “practitioner of the sick.”⁸

Given this ambiguity, it is ultimately unclear whether or to what extent Behandler can be translated as provider. Despite this uncertainty, my original argument remains unchanged. It is best to refer to all health care professionals (eg, psychotherapists, physicians, nurses, phlebotomists, pharmacists, physician assistants, social workers, physical therapists, dentists, optometrists) by their credentials. Overarching terms such as clinicians, practitioners, or health care professionals also are reasonable. This ensures accurate terminology, respects individuals’ unique training and degrees, and avoids confusion within multidisciplinary health care settings.

I thank Paul Saenger, MD, and Harald Höbusch, PhD, for their helpful insights, and those individuals who raised this concern on social media.

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify and correct my recent commentary.¹ I wrote that the word provider was first used to refer to health care professionals during the 1930s in Nazi Germany, when Jewish physicians were termed Behandler. The cited manuscript stated that Behandler was “freely translated” as “provider.”² However, after reading social media comments that claimed this was a mistranslation, I sought to verify the translation.

Online German-English dictionaries yielded perplexing results. The dictionary Reverso translates Behandler as “dentist,” “practitioner,” or “therapist.”³ The Past Tenses Dictionary translates Behandler as “handlers.”⁴ Although a distasteful way to refer to a clinician-patient relationship, it still doesn’t translate as “provider.” The Collins and Cambridge dictionaries do not include Behandler, and the Langenscheidt dictionary does not provide a translation, instead noting that the translation “is missing” and that they are “verifying the word in question.”^5-7 Conversely, Anbieter appears to be the commonly provided German translation for provider.

The author of the original manuscript acknowledged that although Behandler is not listed as a translation for provider, it “comes close.”² He added that Behandler is not used anymore in German medicine because of the Nazi past (Saenger P, personal communication, February 9, 2022). A native German and Professor of German Studies at the University of Kentucky shared that “My best guess is that the term Behandler was used as a short form of Krankenbehandler, the designation for Jewish doctors in Nazi Germany who were still allowed to treat Jewish patients after withdrawal of their medical license. The best translations would be (health) practitioner or health care provider.” (Hobusch H, personal communication, 2022). However, Krankenbehandler has also been translated as “practitioner of the sick.”⁸

Given this ambiguity, it is ultimately unclear whether or to what extent Behandler can be translated as provider. Despite this uncertainty, my original argument remains unchanged. It is best to refer to all health care professionals (eg, psychotherapists, physicians, nurses, phlebotomists, pharmacists, physician assistants, social workers, physical therapists, dentists, optometrists) by their credentials. Overarching terms such as clinicians, practitioners, or health care professionals also are reasonable. This ensures accurate terminology, respects individuals’ unique training and degrees, and avoids confusion within multidisciplinary health care settings.

I thank Paul Saenger, MD, and Harald Höbusch, PhD, for their helpful insights, and those individuals who raised this concern on social media.

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify and correct my recent commentary.¹ I wrote that the word provider was first used to refer to health care professionals during the 1930s in Nazi Germany, when Jewish physicians were termed Behandler. The cited manuscript stated that Behandler was “freely translated” as “provider.”² However, after reading social media comments that claimed this was a mistranslation, I sought to verify the translation.

Online German-English dictionaries yielded perplexing results. The dictionary Reverso translates Behandler as “dentist,” “practitioner,” or “therapist.”³ The Past Tenses Dictionary translates Behandler as “handlers.”⁴ Although a distasteful way to refer to a clinician-patient relationship, it still doesn’t translate as “provider.” The Collins and Cambridge dictionaries do not include Behandler, and the Langenscheidt dictionary does not provide a translation, instead noting that the translation “is missing” and that they are “verifying the word in question.”^5-7 Conversely, Anbieter appears to be the commonly provided German translation for provider.

The author of the original manuscript acknowledged that although Behandler is not listed as a translation for provider, it “comes close.”² He added that Behandler is not used anymore in German medicine because of the Nazi past (Saenger P, personal communication, February 9, 2022). A native German and Professor of German Studies at the University of Kentucky shared that “My best guess is that the term Behandler was used as a short form of Krankenbehandler, the designation for Jewish doctors in Nazi Germany who were still allowed to treat Jewish patients after withdrawal of their medical license. The best translations would be (health) practitioner or health care provider.” (Hobusch H, personal communication, 2022). However, Krankenbehandler has also been translated as “practitioner of the sick.”⁸

Given this ambiguity, it is ultimately unclear whether or to what extent Behandler can be translated as provider. Despite this uncertainty, my original argument remains unchanged. It is best to refer to all health care professionals (eg, psychotherapists, physicians, nurses, phlebotomists, pharmacists, physician assistants, social workers, physical therapists, dentists, optometrists) by their credentials. Overarching terms such as clinicians, practitioners, or health care professionals also are reasonable. This ensures accurate terminology, respects individuals’ unique training and degrees, and avoids confusion within multidisciplinary health care settings.

I thank Paul Saenger, MD, and Harald Höbusch, PhD, for their helpful insights, and those individuals who raised this concern on social media.

This video transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome! I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today we have a distinguished panel joining us to discuss an important legal decision resulting in a criminal conviction, involving a medical error due to administration of the wrong medication by a critical care nurse that led to a patient’s death.

Joining us to discuss this case is Dr. Megan Ranney, professor of emergency medicine and the academic dean at Brown University School of Public Health. Also joining us is Dr. Jane Barnsteiner, emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing and an expert on patient safety, quality improvement, and system modeling. Welcome to both of you.

Jane Barnsteiner, PhD, RN: Thank you.

Megan L. Ranney, MD, MPH: Thank you. It’s a joy to be with you.

Dr. Glatter: Let’s discuss this very tragic case involving RaDonda Vaught, who was an ICU nurse who was recently convicted in Tennessee of criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult. She accidentally administered a paralytic medication, vecuronium, instead of a sedative, Versed, which was ordered to sedate a 75-year-old patient who had a brain bleed and TBI. She was scheduled to have a PET scan. After receiving the wrong medication and not really being monitored in any true way, just being in the care of an MRI tech, she suffered cardiac arrest and subsequently died.

Dr. Ranney, I want to begin with you. I saw on Twitter that you had written something that really stuck with me. I’ll quote you. “A culture of safety is one in which the system that allowed the mistake to happen is changed, not one in which the individual is scapegoated. And a culture of safety correlates with better patient outcomes that we know. This verdict is the opposite.”

I’ll let you explain from here. The system issue is the medication dispensing cabinet, in my mind, and there was a medication override. The question is, how was this override allowed to occur in the first place?

Dr. Ranney: My goodness, overrides happen every single day across this country, dozens of times a day in any particular shift. I would think of the system as being much bigger than just the Pyxis or that kind of automated dispensing cabinet, but around the larger system of the verbal orders, the time pressures that the nurse is under, the fact that the nurses are with a trainee, the fact that they’re being asked to operate outside of their normal environment by going down to MRI. There’s a series of issues.

Just as we thought about the Swiss cheese model for COVID-19, that model originated when we talked about patient safety and medical errors. It is a Swiss cheese of circumstances that allows this type of tragic error to occur.

Many of us have worked for years on trying to change the system from one of punishing people, changing it from that punitive system, to rather a system where we can do root-cause analysis, allow people to disclose errors, and allow us to inquire as to what are those series of Swiss cheese holes that allowed this mistake or any other to happen.

When you punish people, you lead them to hide their mistakes instead of allowing them to disclose them and allowing that important inquiry to happen. That’s why this is just so harmful to that culture of safety that so many of us are trying to create.

Dr. Glatter: It’s a chilling verdict in so many ways. I’m right on the same page with you, having worked for so long in the emergency department and seeing nurses that are overtaxed, overburdened, but also on patient floors. This goes to an ICU-type environment where this woman was having a nonemergent head scan and required some sedation.

The question I want to get to is how the system allowed the nurse to dispense this medication —though she was distracted, she’ll admit that. Jane, I want to get to you on this. How can we avoid this? What are the system checks that can be done in some fashion to make this safer and to avoid this tragic error?

Dr. Barnsteiner: First of all, I would say that you do not put in a major change, as they were doing with their EPIC system, as a big bank where you do the change through the entire organization. You do it in one area where you get the whole system smoothed out and all the errors taken care of so that you’re not having a problem like they had through their entire organization, which required overrides multiple times a day.

One of the things that’s been recommended is that these systems, like the Pyxis system, require the first five letters of a medication to be entered into the system so that when you have multiple medications where the first two letters are the same, the chances of pulling out the wrong medication are much smaller.

There’s a question of whether this medication, vecuronium, should have even been in this machine. You can have high-alert medications like this in baggies that have written on the front of the bag, “This is a high-alert medication. It requires two independent double checks.” These are all the things that will help alert the fatigued or distracted nurse or physician and will make things safer. There are many things that can be put into place.

Dr. Glatter: It’s almost like a hard stop. This is a different class of medication. Even if the nurse had a lapse and didn’t realize that, there should have been a hard stop asking whether you want this class. A sedative and a paralytic are two very different medications.

I’m not trying to assign any blame here. I’m just trying to look at mechanics of what happened and how we can put in place methods to avoid these types of errors where a system clearly is overtaxed and overburdened. Is it an artificial intelligence alert? Is it a pharmacy alert that goes out? Is it a Vocera message that gets triggered? It’s something to stop the nurse from doing something where they know better.

She’s used Versed before, apparently, and knows it’s a liquid and doesn’t have to be reconstituted. In my mind, as a practicing doctor for a long time, I see this and I see how it can happen. There are ways I think we can address it. Megan, I want to bring you into this and get your viewpoint.

Dr. Ranney: We’re working in an environment right now — and obviously, this happened pre-COVID — where medicines are constantly in short supply and we’re constantly dealing with substitutions of one for another. This has worsened during COVID, but it existed in the pre-COVID era as well. We’d have time periods where, like today, we’re out of D50 and we have to use D10, or we have a different formulation of a common antibiotic.

I could totally imagine that this nurse had been exposed to multiple medication substitution and so they were rushing; they thought, well, they just put one thing in instead of another and didn’t make that kind of cognitive connection.

What we know so well from our studies of human factors, engineering, and the way that systems work is that when someone is cognitively overloaded and constantly having to think outside the box and make decisions, particularly when they’re exposed to a new system for ordering medicine, there’s only so much that the brain can do at a time. This person was set up for this type of error.

Again, not to say that they didn’t do something wrong. That’s why we have a civil system. That’s why we have licensing. That’s why we have malpractice. To call this a criminal error when they were working within a system that had all these other problems where they were constantly having to make do for system failures, it’s almost inevitable that at some point something really horrible happened.

I’m sorry that it was this nurse, and how horrible for the patient and the family. I’m not excusing that. You can totally imagine, as a practicing physician, nurse, or anyone else in the healthcare system, how this happened.

Dr. Barnsteiner: The other part of it was that they did not have in place, at this time, the barcoding system in this particular patient area. What nurses are used to doing is when they have to pull a medication, they’re using the barcoding system to coordinate with what’s in the electronic health record, with the medication, and with the person’s ID band.

Those are all well-known safety checks that obviously were used to being used by this nurse in the critical care unit but that weren’t available in this MRI area. That is something that absolutely is a system failure. Those kinds of safety systems have to be available at any place in a health system where medications are being delivered.

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s an important point. Here, we have a technology that can supersede the ability of a human to make a mistake, and to have that in place is very critical. I want to go back to the idea of medical malpractice vs homicide charges.

Megan, you made a point of this. This nurse is now an example of someone who went to trial and was convicted, and it could have a chilling effect on healthcare providers. Pre-COVID, post-COVID, it is just chilling. It makes people want to leave the field. It causes PTSD. The psychiatric downstream effects of such an error are just immense.

I don’t know how the district attorney went for criminal charges here. I’m not an attorney and we don’t have a legal expert with us. For this to have happened is just setting precedent that it’s okay to have the effect of making so many people leave the field.

Dr. Ranney: I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve certainly been on the front lines, not only for the past 2 years during COVID but for almost 20 years prior to that. I will say that these types of errors are never-events that sit with our colleagues and friends for their entire career. No one goes into medicine intending to hurt someone. The system fails us and fails the patient.

There are certainly examples of intentional harm, and those people deserve to be prosecuted. This type of thing where a system let them down, again, should require an inquiry of the system. Don’t punish the individuals to the point of putting them in jail.

I think about my last few months working in the emergency department and what my nurses, in particular, have said to me. They worry that they’re going to lose their license and their ability to practice because of the horrific circumstances that we’ve been working in — the understaffing, the lack of access to standard medications, the long wait times, and on and on. They’re not able to take care of patients the way that they’ve been taught to do.

They’re worried already about the downstream effects on their sense of self, as well as on their ability to maintain their livelihood. When you put something like this on top of it, where again, an unintentional error that was potentiated by a somewhat broken system or by a series of Swiss cheese holes that just happened to line up, what message does that send to my nursing colleagues who have stayed on the front lines and who know that they have not been able to provide the standard of care that they’re used to?

Dr. Barnsteiner: On Friday, I did a program on fair and just culture with three health systems and a university school of nursing. Already, some of the faculty reported that students are talking about transferring to another major outside of the School of Nursing because of their worry about this particular guilty verdict.

The other thing is that we already have a tremendous shortage of nurses. We’ve seen many people leave the profession or retire in the past couple of years, and this is only going to compound it further. It is a sobering message that the public can’t afford to have, actually, because this will impact the quality of care and the safety of care that can be delivered to people and families as a result of not having sufficient numbers of professionals to deliver care.

Dr. Glatter: That’s such an important point. In any high-reliability organization, a culture of safety is key. There are tenets we try to adhere to. When we have people leaving the field after seeing a case like this, it’s chilling. We have to re-educate the public and we need to have a realignment of how errors are handled.

This is just the beginning. Her sentencing is going to be in about a month, and we’ll see what happens on reckless homicide charges and neglect. I think there’s going to be a follow-up to this and we’re going to need to discuss this more.

I just wanted to get a couple of takeaways for our audience to just really sear in the brain what we can learn from such an event.

Dr. Ranney: The big takeaway, to me, is the importance of us both continuing to use our voices and working across professional boundaries to help to create this culture of safety, one in which we all feel safe and supported in advocating for systems that work for us. We cannot ask nurses, respiratory technicians, radiology technicians, physicians, or anyone else within the healthcare system to work unsupported, and we have to recognize the degree to which we are all interdependent. My biggest takeaway is for us to use our voices together.

Dr. Barnsteiner: The takeaway that I would have from this, and what I’m working with a number of health systems on, is to have the chair of the board, the CEO of the hospital, the chief medical officer, and the chief nursing officer together promulgate a statement that is sent out to all employees to discuss this verdict and to say what they’re doing to promote a high-reliability organization and a fair and just culture. They should also ask for open conversation and for employees to let the top leadership know any concerns that they have about vulnerabilities in the system. It’s extremely important right now with this verdict that the leaders in healthcare settings, as well as in education settings, let people know what they’ll be doing to protect their employees.

Dr. Glatter: Jane and Megan, I want to thank you so much for such an important discussion that was very informative. I think there’s going to be a follow-up to this that’ll be very, very important. Thanks again.


Robert D. Glatter, MD, is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial advisor and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Glatter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Megan Ranney, MD, MPH, is professor of emergency medicine and the academic dean at Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, Rhode Island. She is the director and founder of the Brown Emergency Digital Health Innovation (eDHI) program. She is also chief research officer for the American Foundation for Firearm Injury Reduction in Medicine, the country’s only nonprofit committed to reducing firearm injury through the public health approach, and a founding partner of GetUsPPE.org, dedicated to matching donors to health systems in need of protective equipment. Dr. Ranney has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Medscape; Merck.

Jane Barnsteiner, PhD, RN, is an emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing and an expert on patient safety, quality improvement, and system modeling. In addition to her teaching responsibilities, she was director of translational research at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Jane was one of the developers of the Quality and Safety in Education for Nurses (QSEN) initiative and is co-editor of Quality and Safety in Nursing: A Competency Based Approach to Improving Outcomes, published by Wiley. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome! I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today we have a distinguished panel joining us to discuss an important legal decision resulting in a criminal conviction, involving a medical error due to administration of the wrong medication by a critical care nurse that led to a patient’s death.

Joining us to discuss this case is Dr. Megan Ranney, professor of emergency medicine and the academic dean at Brown University School of Public Health. Also joining us is Dr. Jane Barnsteiner, emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing and an expert on patient safety, quality improvement, and system modeling. Welcome to both of you.

Jane Barnsteiner, PhD, RN: Thank you.

Megan L. Ranney, MD, MPH: Thank you. It’s a joy to be with you.

Dr. Glatter: Let’s discuss this very tragic case involving RaDonda Vaught, who was an ICU nurse who was recently convicted in Tennessee of criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult. She accidentally administered a paralytic medication, vecuronium, instead of a sedative, Versed, which was ordered to sedate a 75-year-old patient who had a brain bleed and TBI. She was scheduled to have a PET scan. After receiving the wrong medication and not really being monitored in any true way, just being in the care of an MRI tech, she suffered cardiac arrest and subsequently died.

Dr. Ranney, I want to begin with you. I saw on Twitter that you had written something that really stuck with me. I’ll quote you. “A culture of safety is one in which the system that allowed the mistake to happen is changed, not one in which the individual is scapegoated. And a culture of safety correlates with better patient outcomes that we know. This verdict is the opposite.”

I’ll let you explain from here. The system issue is the medication dispensing cabinet, in my mind, and there was a medication override. The question is, how was this override allowed to occur in the first place?

Dr. Ranney: My goodness, overrides happen every single day across this country, dozens of times a day in any particular shift. I would think of the system as being much bigger than just the Pyxis or that kind of automated dispensing cabinet, but around the larger system of the verbal orders, the time pressures that the nurse is under, the fact that the nurses are with a trainee, the fact that they’re being asked to operate outside of their normal environment by going down to MRI. There’s a series of issues.

Just as we thought about the Swiss cheese model for COVID-19, that model originated when we talked about patient safety and medical errors. It is a Swiss cheese of circumstances that allows this type of tragic error to occur.

Many of us have worked for years on trying to change the system from one of punishing people, changing it from that punitive system, to rather a system where we can do root-cause analysis, allow people to disclose errors, and allow us to inquire as to what are those series of Swiss cheese holes that allowed this mistake or any other to happen.

When you punish people, you lead them to hide their mistakes instead of allowing them to disclose them and allowing that important inquiry to happen. That’s why this is just so harmful to that culture of safety that so many of us are trying to create.

Dr. Glatter: It’s a chilling verdict in so many ways. I’m right on the same page with you, having worked for so long in the emergency department and seeing nurses that are overtaxed, overburdened, but also on patient floors. This goes to an ICU-type environment where this woman was having a nonemergent head scan and required some sedation.

The question I want to get to is how the system allowed the nurse to dispense this medication —though she was distracted, she’ll admit that. Jane, I want to get to you on this. How can we avoid this? What are the system checks that can be done in some fashion to make this safer and to avoid this tragic error?

Dr. Barnsteiner: First of all, I would say that you do not put in a major change, as they were doing with their EPIC system, as a big bank where you do the change through the entire organization. You do it in one area where you get the whole system smoothed out and all the errors taken care of so that you’re not having a problem like they had through their entire organization, which required overrides multiple times a day.

One of the things that’s been recommended is that these systems, like the Pyxis system, require the first five letters of a medication to be entered into the system so that when you have multiple medications where the first two letters are the same, the chances of pulling out the wrong medication are much smaller.

There’s a question of whether this medication, vecuronium, should have even been in this machine. You can have high-alert medications like this in baggies that have written on the front of the bag, “This is a high-alert medication. It requires two independent double checks.” These are all the things that will help alert the fatigued or distracted nurse or physician and will make things safer. There are many things that can be put into place.

Dr. Glatter: It’s almost like a hard stop. This is a different class of medication. Even if the nurse had a lapse and didn’t realize that, there should have been a hard stop asking whether you want this class. A sedative and a paralytic are two very different medications.

I’m not trying to assign any blame here. I’m just trying to look at mechanics of what happened and how we can put in place methods to avoid these types of errors where a system clearly is overtaxed and overburdened. Is it an artificial intelligence alert? Is it a pharmacy alert that goes out? Is it a Vocera message that gets triggered? It’s something to stop the nurse from doing something where they know better.

She’s used Versed before, apparently, and knows it’s a liquid and doesn’t have to be reconstituted. In my mind, as a practicing doctor for a long time, I see this and I see how it can happen. There are ways I think we can address it. Megan, I want to bring you into this and get your viewpoint.

Dr. Ranney: We’re working in an environment right now — and obviously, this happened pre-COVID — where medicines are constantly in short supply and we’re constantly dealing with substitutions of one for another. This has worsened during COVID, but it existed in the pre-COVID era as well. We’d have time periods where, like today, we’re out of D50 and we have to use D10, or we have a different formulation of a common antibiotic.

I could totally imagine that this nurse had been exposed to multiple medication substitution and so they were rushing; they thought, well, they just put one thing in instead of another and didn’t make that kind of cognitive connection.

What we know so well from our studies of human factors, engineering, and the way that systems work is that when someone is cognitively overloaded and constantly having to think outside the box and make decisions, particularly when they’re exposed to a new system for ordering medicine, there’s only so much that the brain can do at a time. This person was set up for this type of error.

Again, not to say that they didn’t do something wrong. That’s why we have a civil system. That’s why we have licensing. That’s why we have malpractice. To call this a criminal error when they were working within a system that had all these other problems where they were constantly having to make do for system failures, it’s almost inevitable that at some point something really horrible happened.

I’m sorry that it was this nurse, and how horrible for the patient and the family. I’m not excusing that. You can totally imagine, as a practicing physician, nurse, or anyone else in the healthcare system, how this happened.

Dr. Barnsteiner: The other part of it was that they did not have in place, at this time, the barcoding system in this particular patient area. What nurses are used to doing is when they have to pull a medication, they’re using the barcoding system to coordinate with what’s in the electronic health record, with the medication, and with the person’s ID band.

Those are all well-known safety checks that obviously were used to being used by this nurse in the critical care unit but that weren’t available in this MRI area. That is something that absolutely is a system failure. Those kinds of safety systems have to be available at any place in a health system where medications are being delivered.

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s an important point. Here, we have a technology that can supersede the ability of a human to make a mistake, and to have that in place is very critical. I want to go back to the idea of medical malpractice vs homicide charges.

Megan, you made a point of this. This nurse is now an example of someone who went to trial and was convicted, and it could have a chilling effect on healthcare providers. Pre-COVID, post-COVID, it is just chilling. It makes people want to leave the field. It causes PTSD. The psychiatric downstream effects of such an error are just immense.

I don’t know how the district attorney went for criminal charges here. I’m not an attorney and we don’t have a legal expert with us. For this to have happened is just setting precedent that it’s okay to have the effect of making so many people leave the field.

Dr. Ranney: I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve certainly been on the front lines, not only for the past 2 years during COVID but for almost 20 years prior to that. I will say that these types of errors are never-events that sit with our colleagues and friends for their entire career. No one goes into medicine intending to hurt someone. The system fails us and fails the patient.

There are certainly examples of intentional harm, and those people deserve to be prosecuted. This type of thing where a system let them down, again, should require an inquiry of the system. Don’t punish the individuals to the point of putting them in jail.

I think about my last few months working in the emergency department and what my nurses, in particular, have said to me. They worry that they’re going to lose their license and their ability to practice because of the horrific circumstances that we’ve been working in — the understaffing, the lack of access to standard medications, the long wait times, and on and on. They’re not able to take care of patients the way that they’ve been taught to do.

They’re worried already about the downstream effects on their sense of self, as well as on their ability to maintain their livelihood. When you put something like this on top of it, where again, an unintentional error that was potentiated by a somewhat broken system or by a series of Swiss cheese holes that just happened to line up, what message does that send to my nursing colleagues who have stayed on the front lines and who know that they have not been able to provide the standard of care that they’re used to?

Dr. Barnsteiner: On Friday, I did a program on fair and just culture with three health systems and a university school of nursing. Already, some of the faculty reported that students are talking about transferring to another major outside of the School of Nursing because of their worry about this particular guilty verdict.

The other thing is that we already have a tremendous shortage of nurses. We’ve seen many people leave the profession or retire in the past couple of years, and this is only going to compound it further. It is a sobering message that the public can’t afford to have, actually, because this will impact the quality of care and the safety of care that can be delivered to people and families as a result of not having sufficient numbers of professionals to deliver care.

Dr. Glatter: That’s such an important point. In any high-reliability organization, a culture of safety is key. There are tenets we try to adhere to. When we have people leaving the field after seeing a case like this, it’s chilling. We have to re-educate the public and we need to have a realignment of how errors are handled.

This is just the beginning. Her sentencing is going to be in about a month, and we’ll see what happens on reckless homicide charges and neglect. I think there’s going to be a follow-up to this and we’re going to need to discuss this more.

I just wanted to get a couple of takeaways for our audience to just really sear in the brain what we can learn from such an event.

Dr. Ranney: The big takeaway, to me, is the importance of us both continuing to use our voices and working across professional boundaries to help to create this culture of safety, one in which we all feel safe and supported in advocating for systems that work for us. We cannot ask nurses, respiratory technicians, radiology technicians, physicians, or anyone else within the healthcare system to work unsupported, and we have to recognize the degree to which we are all interdependent. My biggest takeaway is for us to use our voices together.

Dr. Barnsteiner: The takeaway that I would have from this, and what I’m working with a number of health systems on, is to have the chair of the board, the CEO of the hospital, the chief medical officer, and the chief nursing officer together promulgate a statement that is sent out to all employees to discuss this verdict and to say what they’re doing to promote a high-reliability organization and a fair and just culture. They should also ask for open conversation and for employees to let the top leadership know any concerns that they have about vulnerabilities in the system. It’s extremely important right now with this verdict that the leaders in healthcare settings, as well as in education settings, let people know what they’ll be doing to protect their employees.

Dr. Glatter: Jane and Megan, I want to thank you so much for such an important discussion that was very informative. I think there’s going to be a follow-up to this that’ll be very, very important. Thanks again.


Robert D. Glatter, MD, is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial advisor and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Glatter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Megan Ranney, MD, MPH, is professor of emergency medicine and the academic dean at Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, Rhode Island. She is the director and founder of the Brown Emergency Digital Health Innovation (eDHI) program. She is also chief research officer for the American Foundation for Firearm Injury Reduction in Medicine, the country’s only nonprofit committed to reducing firearm injury through the public health approach, and a founding partner of GetUsPPE.org, dedicated to matching donors to health systems in need of protective equipment. Dr. Ranney has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Medscape; Merck.

Jane Barnsteiner, PhD, RN, is an emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing and an expert on patient safety, quality improvement, and system modeling. In addition to her teaching responsibilities, she was director of translational research at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Jane was one of the developers of the Quality and Safety in Education for Nurses (QSEN) initiative and is co-editor of Quality and Safety in Nursing: A Competency Based Approach to Improving Outcomes, published by Wiley. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome! I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today we have a distinguished panel joining us to discuss an important legal decision resulting in a criminal conviction, involving a medical error due to administration of the wrong medication by a critical care nurse that led to a patient’s death.

Joining us to discuss this case is Dr. Megan Ranney, professor of emergency medicine and the academic dean at Brown University School of Public Health. Also joining us is Dr. Jane Barnsteiner, emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing and an expert on patient safety, quality improvement, and system modeling. Welcome to both of you.

Jane Barnsteiner, PhD, RN: Thank you.

Megan L. Ranney, MD, MPH: Thank you. It’s a joy to be with you.

Dr. Glatter: Let’s discuss this very tragic case involving RaDonda Vaught, who was an ICU nurse who was recently convicted in Tennessee of criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult. She accidentally administered a paralytic medication, vecuronium, instead of a sedative, Versed, which was ordered to sedate a 75-year-old patient who had a brain bleed and TBI. She was scheduled to have a PET scan. After receiving the wrong medication and not really being monitored in any true way, just being in the care of an MRI tech, she suffered cardiac arrest and subsequently died.

Dr. Ranney, I want to begin with you. I saw on Twitter that you had written something that really stuck with me. I’ll quote you. “A culture of safety is one in which the system that allowed the mistake to happen is changed, not one in which the individual is scapegoated. And a culture of safety correlates with better patient outcomes that we know. This verdict is the opposite.”

I’ll let you explain from here. The system issue is the medication dispensing cabinet, in my mind, and there was a medication override. The question is, how was this override allowed to occur in the first place?

Dr. Ranney: My goodness, overrides happen every single day across this country, dozens of times a day in any particular shift. I would think of the system as being much bigger than just the Pyxis or that kind of automated dispensing cabinet, but around the larger system of the verbal orders, the time pressures that the nurse is under, the fact that the nurses are with a trainee, the fact that they’re being asked to operate outside of their normal environment by going down to MRI. There’s a series of issues.

Just as we thought about the Swiss cheese model for COVID-19, that model originated when we talked about patient safety and medical errors. It is a Swiss cheese of circumstances that allows this type of tragic error to occur.

Many of us have worked for years on trying to change the system from one of punishing people, changing it from that punitive system, to rather a system where we can do root-cause analysis, allow people to disclose errors, and allow us to inquire as to what are those series of Swiss cheese holes that allowed this mistake or any other to happen.

When you punish people, you lead them to hide their mistakes instead of allowing them to disclose them and allowing that important inquiry to happen. That’s why this is just so harmful to that culture of safety that so many of us are trying to create.

Dr. Glatter: It’s a chilling verdict in so many ways. I’m right on the same page with you, having worked for so long in the emergency department and seeing nurses that are overtaxed, overburdened, but also on patient floors. This goes to an ICU-type environment where this woman was having a nonemergent head scan and required some sedation.

The question I want to get to is how the system allowed the nurse to dispense this medication —though she was distracted, she’ll admit that. Jane, I want to get to you on this. How can we avoid this? What are the system checks that can be done in some fashion to make this safer and to avoid this tragic error?

Dr. Barnsteiner: First of all, I would say that you do not put in a major change, as they were doing with their EPIC system, as a big bank where you do the change through the entire organization. You do it in one area where you get the whole system smoothed out and all the errors taken care of so that you’re not having a problem like they had through their entire organization, which required overrides multiple times a day.

One of the things that’s been recommended is that these systems, like the Pyxis system, require the first five letters of a medication to be entered into the system so that when you have multiple medications where the first two letters are the same, the chances of pulling out the wrong medication are much smaller.

There’s a question of whether this medication, vecuronium, should have even been in this machine. You can have high-alert medications like this in baggies that have written on the front of the bag, “This is a high-alert medication. It requires two independent double checks.” These are all the things that will help alert the fatigued or distracted nurse or physician and will make things safer. There are many things that can be put into place.

Dr. Glatter: It’s almost like a hard stop. This is a different class of medication. Even if the nurse had a lapse and didn’t realize that, there should have been a hard stop asking whether you want this class. A sedative and a paralytic are two very different medications.

I’m not trying to assign any blame here. I’m just trying to look at mechanics of what happened and how we can put in place methods to avoid these types of errors where a system clearly is overtaxed and overburdened. Is it an artificial intelligence alert? Is it a pharmacy alert that goes out? Is it a Vocera message that gets triggered? It’s something to stop the nurse from doing something where they know better.

She’s used Versed before, apparently, and knows it’s a liquid and doesn’t have to be reconstituted. In my mind, as a practicing doctor for a long time, I see this and I see how it can happen. There are ways I think we can address it. Megan, I want to bring you into this and get your viewpoint.

Dr. Ranney: We’re working in an environment right now — and obviously, this happened pre-COVID — where medicines are constantly in short supply and we’re constantly dealing with substitutions of one for another. This has worsened during COVID, but it existed in the pre-COVID era as well. We’d have time periods where, like today, we’re out of D50 and we have to use D10, or we have a different formulation of a common antibiotic.

I could totally imagine that this nurse had been exposed to multiple medication substitution and so they were rushing; they thought, well, they just put one thing in instead of another and didn’t make that kind of cognitive connection.

What we know so well from our studies of human factors, engineering, and the way that systems work is that when someone is cognitively overloaded and constantly having to think outside the box and make decisions, particularly when they’re exposed to a new system for ordering medicine, there’s only so much that the brain can do at a time. This person was set up for this type of error.

Again, not to say that they didn’t do something wrong. That’s why we have a civil system. That’s why we have licensing. That’s why we have malpractice. To call this a criminal error when they were working within a system that had all these other problems where they were constantly having to make do for system failures, it’s almost inevitable that at some point something really horrible happened.

I’m sorry that it was this nurse, and how horrible for the patient and the family. I’m not excusing that. You can totally imagine, as a practicing physician, nurse, or anyone else in the healthcare system, how this happened.

Dr. Barnsteiner: The other part of it was that they did not have in place, at this time, the barcoding system in this particular patient area. What nurses are used to doing is when they have to pull a medication, they’re using the barcoding system to coordinate with what’s in the electronic health record, with the medication, and with the person’s ID band.

Those are all well-known safety checks that obviously were used to being used by this nurse in the critical care unit but that weren’t available in this MRI area. That is something that absolutely is a system failure. Those kinds of safety systems have to be available at any place in a health system where medications are being delivered.

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s an important point. Here, we have a technology that can supersede the ability of a human to make a mistake, and to have that in place is very critical. I want to go back to the idea of medical malpractice vs homicide charges.

Megan, you made a point of this. This nurse is now an example of someone who went to trial and was convicted, and it could have a chilling effect on healthcare providers. Pre-COVID, post-COVID, it is just chilling. It makes people want to leave the field. It causes PTSD. The psychiatric downstream effects of such an error are just immense.

I don’t know how the district attorney went for criminal charges here. I’m not an attorney and we don’t have a legal expert with us. For this to have happened is just setting precedent that it’s okay to have the effect of making so many people leave the field.

Dr. Ranney: I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve certainly been on the front lines, not only for the past 2 years during COVID but for almost 20 years prior to that. I will say that these types of errors are never-events that sit with our colleagues and friends for their entire career. No one goes into medicine intending to hurt someone. The system fails us and fails the patient.

There are certainly examples of intentional harm, and those people deserve to be prosecuted. This type of thing where a system let them down, again, should require an inquiry of the system. Don’t punish the individuals to the point of putting them in jail.

I think about my last few months working in the emergency department and what my nurses, in particular, have said to me. They worry that they’re going to lose their license and their ability to practice because of the horrific circumstances that we’ve been working in — the understaffing, the lack of access to standard medications, the long wait times, and on and on. They’re not able to take care of patients the way that they’ve been taught to do.

They’re worried already about the downstream effects on their sense of self, as well as on their ability to maintain their livelihood. When you put something like this on top of it, where again, an unintentional error that was potentiated by a somewhat broken system or by a series of Swiss cheese holes that just happened to line up, what message does that send to my nursing colleagues who have stayed on the front lines and who know that they have not been able to provide the standard of care that they’re used to?

Dr. Barnsteiner: On Friday, I did a program on fair and just culture with three health systems and a university school of nursing. Already, some of the faculty reported that students are talking about transferring to another major outside of the School of Nursing because of their worry about this particular guilty verdict.

The other thing is that we already have a tremendous shortage of nurses. We’ve seen many people leave the profession or retire in the past couple of years, and this is only going to compound it further. It is a sobering message that the public can’t afford to have, actually, because this will impact the quality of care and the safety of care that can be delivered to people and families as a result of not having sufficient numbers of professionals to deliver care.

Dr. Glatter: That’s such an important point. In any high-reliability organization, a culture of safety is key. There are tenets we try to adhere to. When we have people leaving the field after seeing a case like this, it’s chilling. We have to re-educate the public and we need to have a realignment of how errors are handled.

This is just the beginning. Her sentencing is going to be in about a month, and we’ll see what happens on reckless homicide charges and neglect. I think there’s going to be a follow-up to this and we’re going to need to discuss this more.

I just wanted to get a couple of takeaways for our audience to just really sear in the brain what we can learn from such an event.

Dr. Ranney: The big takeaway, to me, is the importance of us both continuing to use our voices and working across professional boundaries to help to create this culture of safety, one in which we all feel safe and supported in advocating for systems that work for us. We cannot ask nurses, respiratory technicians, radiology technicians, physicians, or anyone else within the healthcare system to work unsupported, and we have to recognize the degree to which we are all interdependent. My biggest takeaway is for us to use our voices together.

Dr. Barnsteiner: The takeaway that I would have from this, and what I’m working with a number of health systems on, is to have the chair of the board, the CEO of the hospital, the chief medical officer, and the chief nursing officer together promulgate a statement that is sent out to all employees to discuss this verdict and to say what they’re doing to promote a high-reliability organization and a fair and just culture. They should also ask for open conversation and for employees to let the top leadership know any concerns that they have about vulnerabilities in the system. It’s extremely important right now with this verdict that the leaders in healthcare settings, as well as in education settings, let people know what they’ll be doing to protect their employees.

Dr. Glatter: Jane and Megan, I want to thank you so much for such an important discussion that was very informative. I think there’s going to be a follow-up to this that’ll be very, very important. Thanks again.


Robert D. Glatter, MD, is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial advisor and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Glatter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Megan Ranney, MD, MPH, is professor of emergency medicine and the academic dean at Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, Rhode Island. She is the director and founder of the Brown Emergency Digital Health Innovation (eDHI) program. She is also chief research officer for the American Foundation for Firearm Injury Reduction in Medicine, the country’s only nonprofit committed to reducing firearm injury through the public health approach, and a founding partner of GetUsPPE.org, dedicated to matching donors to health systems in need of protective equipment. Dr. Ranney has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Medscape; Merck.

Jane Barnsteiner, PhD, RN, is an emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing and an expert on patient safety, quality improvement, and system modeling. In addition to her teaching responsibilities, she was director of translational research at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Jane was one of the developers of the Quality and Safety in Education for Nurses (QSEN) initiative and is co-editor of Quality and Safety in Nursing: A Competency Based Approach to Improving Outcomes, published by Wiley. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When benzodiazepines were first introduced, they were greeted with enthusiasm. Librium came first, in 1960, followed by Valium in 1962, and they were seen as an improvement over barbiturates for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and seizures. From 1968 to 1982, Valium (diazepam) was the No. 1–selling U.S. pharmaceutical: 2.3 billion tablets of Valium were sold in 1978 alone. Valium was even the subject of a 1966 Rolling Stones hit, “Mother’s Little Helper.”

By the 1980s, it became apparent that there was a downside to these medications: patients became tolerant, dependent, and some became addicted to the medications. In older patients an association was noted with falls and cognitive impairment. And while safe in overdoses when they are the only agent, combined with alcohol or opioids, benzodiazepines can be lethal and have played a significant role in the current overdose crisis.

Because of the problems that are associated with their use, benzodiazepines and their relatives, the Z-drugs used for sleep, have become stigmatized, as have the patients who use them and perhaps even the doctors who prescribe them. Still, there are circumstances where patients find these medications to be helpful, where other medications don’t work, or don’t work quickly enough. They provide fast relief in conditions where there are not always good alternatives.

In the Facebook group, “Psychiatry for All Physicians,” it’s not uncommon for physicians to ask what to do with older patients who are transferred to them on therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines or zolpidem. These are outpatients coming for routine care, and they find the medications helpful and don’t want to discontinue them. They have tried other medications that were not helpful. I’ve been surprised at how often the respondents insist the patient should be told he must taper off the medication. “Just say no,” is often the advice, and perhaps it’s more about the doctor’s discomfort than it is about the individual patient. For sleep issues, cognitive-behavioral therapy is given as the gold-standard treatment, while in my practice I have found it difficult to motivate patients to engage in it, and of those who do, it is sometimes helpful, but not a panacea. Severe anxiety and sleepless nights, however, are not benign conditions.

This “just say no, hold the line” sentiment has me wondering if our pendulum has swung too far with respect to prescribing benzodiazepines. Is this just one more issue that has become strongly polarized? Certainly the literature would support that idea, with some physicians writing about how benzodiazepines are underused, and others urging avoidance.

I posted a poll on Twitter: Has the anti-benzo movement gone too far? In addition, I started a Twitter thread of my own thoughts about prescribing and deprescribing these medications and will give a synopsis of those ideas here.

Clearly, benzodiazepines are harmful to some patients, they have side effects, can be difficult to stop because of withdrawal symptoms, and they carry the risk of addiction. That’s not in question. Many medications, however, have the potential to do more harm than good, for example ibuprofen can cause bleeding or renal problems, and Fosamax, used to treat osteoporosis, can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw and femur, to name just two.

It would be so much easier if we could know in advance who benzodiazepines will harm, just as it would be good if we could know in advance who will get tardive dyskinesia or dyslipidemia from antipsychotic medications, or who will have life-threatening adverse reactions from cancer chemotherapy with no tumor response. There are risks to both starting and stopping sedatives, and if we insist a patient stop a medication because of potential risk, then we are cutting them off from being a partner in their own care. It also creates an adversarial relationship that can be draining for the doctor and upsetting for the patient.

By definition, if someone needs hospitalization for a psychiatric condition, their outpatient benzodiazepine is not keeping them stable and stopping it may be a good idea. If someone is seen in an ED for a fall, it’s common to blame the benzodiazepine, but older people who are not on these medications also fall and have memory problems. In his book, “Being Mortal: Illness, Medicine, and What Matters Most in the End” (New York: Picador, 2014), Atul Gawande, MD, makes the point that taking more than four prescriptions medications increases the risk for falls in the elderly. Still, no one is suggesting patients be taken off their antidepressants, antihypertensives, or blood thinners.

Finally, the question is not should we be giving benzodiazepines out without careful consideration – the answer is clearly no. Physicians don’t pass out benzodiazepines “like candy” for all the above reasons. They are initiated because the patient is suffering and sometimes desperate. Anxiety, panic, intractable insomnia, and severe agitation are all miserable, and alternative treatments may take weeks to work, or not work at all. Yet these subjective symptoms may be dismissed by physicians.

So what do I do in my own practice? I don’t encourage patients to take potentially addictive medications, but I do sometimes use them. I give ‘as needed’ benzodiazepines to people in distress who don’t have a history of misusing them. I never plan to start them as a permanent standing medication, though once in a while that ends up happening. As with other medications, it is best to use the minimally effective dose.

There is some controversy as to whether it is best to use anxiety medications on an “as-needed” basis or as a standing dosage. Psychiatrists who prescribe benzodiazepines more liberally often feel it’s better to give standing doses and prevent breakthrough anxiety. Patients may appear to be ‘medication seeking’ not because they are addicted, but because the doses used are too low to adequately treat their anxiety.

My hope is that there is less risk of tolerance, dependence, or addiction with less-frequent dosing, and I prescribe as-needed benzodiazepines for panic attacks, agitated major depression while we wait for the antidepressant to “kick in,” insomnia during manic episodes, and to people who get very anxious in specific situations such as flying or for medical procedures. I sometimes prescribe them for people with insomnia that does not respond to other treatments, or for disabling generalized anxiety.

For patients who have taken benzodiazepines for many years, I continue to discuss the risks, but often they are not looking to fix something that isn’t broken, or to live a risk-free life. A few of the patients who have come to me on low standing doses of sedatives are now in their 80’s, yet they remain active, live independently, drive, travel, and have busy social lives. One could argue either that the medications are working, or that the patient has become dependent on them and needs them to prevent withdrawal.

These medications present a quandary: by denying patients treatment with benzodiazepines, we are sparing some people addictions (this is good, we should be careful), but we are leaving some people to suffer. There is no perfect answer.

What I do know is that doctors should think carefully and consider the patient in front of them. “No Benzos Ever For Anyone” or “you must come off because there is risk and people will think I am a bad doctor for prescribing them to you” can be done by a robot.

So, yes, I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far; there is a place for these medications in acute treatment for those at low risk of addiction, and there are people who benefit from them over the long run. At times, they provide immense relief to someone who is really struggling.

So what was the result of my Twitter poll? Of the 219 voters, 34.2% voted: “No, the pendulum has not swung too far, and these medications are harmful”; 65.8% voted: “Yes, these medications are helpful.” There were many comments expressing a wide variety of sentiments. Of those who had taken prescription benzodiazepines, some felt they had been harmed and wished they had never been started on them, and others continue to find them helpful. Psychiatrists, it seems, see them from the vantage point of the populations they treat.

People who are uncomfortable search for answers, and those answers may come in the form of meditation or exercise, medicines, or illicit drugs. It’s interesting that these same patients can now easily obtain “medical” marijuana, and the Rolling Stones’ “Mother’s Little Helper” is often replaced by a gin and tonic.

Dr. Dinah Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

When benzodiazepines were first introduced, they were greeted with enthusiasm. Librium came first, in 1960, followed by Valium in 1962, and they were seen as an improvement over barbiturates for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and seizures. From 1968 to 1982, Valium (diazepam) was the No. 1–selling U.S. pharmaceutical: 2.3 billion tablets of Valium were sold in 1978 alone. Valium was even the subject of a 1966 Rolling Stones hit, “Mother’s Little Helper.”

By the 1980s, it became apparent that there was a downside to these medications: patients became tolerant, dependent, and some became addicted to the medications. In older patients an association was noted with falls and cognitive impairment. And while safe in overdoses when they are the only agent, combined with alcohol or opioids, benzodiazepines can be lethal and have played a significant role in the current overdose crisis.

Because of the problems that are associated with their use, benzodiazepines and their relatives, the Z-drugs used for sleep, have become stigmatized, as have the patients who use them and perhaps even the doctors who prescribe them. Still, there are circumstances where patients find these medications to be helpful, where other medications don’t work, or don’t work quickly enough. They provide fast relief in conditions where there are not always good alternatives.

In the Facebook group, “Psychiatry for All Physicians,” it’s not uncommon for physicians to ask what to do with older patients who are transferred to them on therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines or zolpidem. These are outpatients coming for routine care, and they find the medications helpful and don’t want to discontinue them. They have tried other medications that were not helpful. I’ve been surprised at how often the respondents insist the patient should be told he must taper off the medication. “Just say no,” is often the advice, and perhaps it’s more about the doctor’s discomfort than it is about the individual patient. For sleep issues, cognitive-behavioral therapy is given as the gold-standard treatment, while in my practice I have found it difficult to motivate patients to engage in it, and of those who do, it is sometimes helpful, but not a panacea. Severe anxiety and sleepless nights, however, are not benign conditions.

This “just say no, hold the line” sentiment has me wondering if our pendulum has swung too far with respect to prescribing benzodiazepines. Is this just one more issue that has become strongly polarized? Certainly the literature would support that idea, with some physicians writing about how benzodiazepines are underused, and others urging avoidance.

I posted a poll on Twitter: Has the anti-benzo movement gone too far? In addition, I started a Twitter thread of my own thoughts about prescribing and deprescribing these medications and will give a synopsis of those ideas here.

Clearly, benzodiazepines are harmful to some patients, they have side effects, can be difficult to stop because of withdrawal symptoms, and they carry the risk of addiction. That’s not in question. Many medications, however, have the potential to do more harm than good, for example ibuprofen can cause bleeding or renal problems, and Fosamax, used to treat osteoporosis, can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw and femur, to name just two.

It would be so much easier if we could know in advance who benzodiazepines will harm, just as it would be good if we could know in advance who will get tardive dyskinesia or dyslipidemia from antipsychotic medications, or who will have life-threatening adverse reactions from cancer chemotherapy with no tumor response. There are risks to both starting and stopping sedatives, and if we insist a patient stop a medication because of potential risk, then we are cutting them off from being a partner in their own care. It also creates an adversarial relationship that can be draining for the doctor and upsetting for the patient.

By definition, if someone needs hospitalization for a psychiatric condition, their outpatient benzodiazepine is not keeping them stable and stopping it may be a good idea. If someone is seen in an ED for a fall, it’s common to blame the benzodiazepine, but older people who are not on these medications also fall and have memory problems. In his book, “Being Mortal: Illness, Medicine, and What Matters Most in the End” (New York: Picador, 2014), Atul Gawande, MD, makes the point that taking more than four prescriptions medications increases the risk for falls in the elderly. Still, no one is suggesting patients be taken off their antidepressants, antihypertensives, or blood thinners.

Finally, the question is not should we be giving benzodiazepines out without careful consideration – the answer is clearly no. Physicians don’t pass out benzodiazepines “like candy” for all the above reasons. They are initiated because the patient is suffering and sometimes desperate. Anxiety, panic, intractable insomnia, and severe agitation are all miserable, and alternative treatments may take weeks to work, or not work at all. Yet these subjective symptoms may be dismissed by physicians.

So what do I do in my own practice? I don’t encourage patients to take potentially addictive medications, but I do sometimes use them. I give ‘as needed’ benzodiazepines to people in distress who don’t have a history of misusing them. I never plan to start them as a permanent standing medication, though once in a while that ends up happening. As with other medications, it is best to use the minimally effective dose.

There is some controversy as to whether it is best to use anxiety medications on an “as-needed” basis or as a standing dosage. Psychiatrists who prescribe benzodiazepines more liberally often feel it’s better to give standing doses and prevent breakthrough anxiety. Patients may appear to be ‘medication seeking’ not because they are addicted, but because the doses used are too low to adequately treat their anxiety.

My hope is that there is less risk of tolerance, dependence, or addiction with less-frequent dosing, and I prescribe as-needed benzodiazepines for panic attacks, agitated major depression while we wait for the antidepressant to “kick in,” insomnia during manic episodes, and to people who get very anxious in specific situations such as flying or for medical procedures. I sometimes prescribe them for people with insomnia that does not respond to other treatments, or for disabling generalized anxiety.

For patients who have taken benzodiazepines for many years, I continue to discuss the risks, but often they are not looking to fix something that isn’t broken, or to live a risk-free life. A few of the patients who have come to me on low standing doses of sedatives are now in their 80’s, yet they remain active, live independently, drive, travel, and have busy social lives. One could argue either that the medications are working, or that the patient has become dependent on them and needs them to prevent withdrawal.

These medications present a quandary: by denying patients treatment with benzodiazepines, we are sparing some people addictions (this is good, we should be careful), but we are leaving some people to suffer. There is no perfect answer.

What I do know is that doctors should think carefully and consider the patient in front of them. “No Benzos Ever For Anyone” or “you must come off because there is risk and people will think I am a bad doctor for prescribing them to you” can be done by a robot.

So, yes, I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far; there is a place for these medications in acute treatment for those at low risk of addiction, and there are people who benefit from them over the long run. At times, they provide immense relief to someone who is really struggling.

So what was the result of my Twitter poll? Of the 219 voters, 34.2% voted: “No, the pendulum has not swung too far, and these medications are harmful”; 65.8% voted: “Yes, these medications are helpful.” There were many comments expressing a wide variety of sentiments. Of those who had taken prescription benzodiazepines, some felt they had been harmed and wished they had never been started on them, and others continue to find them helpful. Psychiatrists, it seems, see them from the vantage point of the populations they treat.

People who are uncomfortable search for answers, and those answers may come in the form of meditation or exercise, medicines, or illicit drugs. It’s interesting that these same patients can now easily obtain “medical” marijuana, and the Rolling Stones’ “Mother’s Little Helper” is often replaced by a gin and tonic.

Dr. Dinah Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

When benzodiazepines were first introduced, they were greeted with enthusiasm. Librium came first, in 1960, followed by Valium in 1962, and they were seen as an improvement over barbiturates for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and seizures. From 1968 to 1982, Valium (diazepam) was the No. 1–selling U.S. pharmaceutical: 2.3 billion tablets of Valium were sold in 1978 alone. Valium was even the subject of a 1966 Rolling Stones hit, “Mother’s Little Helper.”

By the 1980s, it became apparent that there was a downside to these medications: patients became tolerant, dependent, and some became addicted to the medications. In older patients an association was noted with falls and cognitive impairment. And while safe in overdoses when they are the only agent, combined with alcohol or opioids, benzodiazepines can be lethal and have played a significant role in the current overdose crisis.

Because of the problems that are associated with their use, benzodiazepines and their relatives, the Z-drugs used for sleep, have become stigmatized, as have the patients who use them and perhaps even the doctors who prescribe them. Still, there are circumstances where patients find these medications to be helpful, where other medications don’t work, or don’t work quickly enough. They provide fast relief in conditions where there are not always good alternatives.

In the Facebook group, “Psychiatry for All Physicians,” it’s not uncommon for physicians to ask what to do with older patients who are transferred to them on therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines or zolpidem. These are outpatients coming for routine care, and they find the medications helpful and don’t want to discontinue them. They have tried other medications that were not helpful. I’ve been surprised at how often the respondents insist the patient should be told he must taper off the medication. “Just say no,” is often the advice, and perhaps it’s more about the doctor’s discomfort than it is about the individual patient. For sleep issues, cognitive-behavioral therapy is given as the gold-standard treatment, while in my practice I have found it difficult to motivate patients to engage in it, and of those who do, it is sometimes helpful, but not a panacea. Severe anxiety and sleepless nights, however, are not benign conditions.

This “just say no, hold the line” sentiment has me wondering if our pendulum has swung too far with respect to prescribing benzodiazepines. Is this just one more issue that has become strongly polarized? Certainly the literature would support that idea, with some physicians writing about how benzodiazepines are underused, and others urging avoidance.

I posted a poll on Twitter: Has the anti-benzo movement gone too far? In addition, I started a Twitter thread of my own thoughts about prescribing and deprescribing these medications and will give a synopsis of those ideas here.

Clearly, benzodiazepines are harmful to some patients, they have side effects, can be difficult to stop because of withdrawal symptoms, and they carry the risk of addiction. That’s not in question. Many medications, however, have the potential to do more harm than good, for example ibuprofen can cause bleeding or renal problems, and Fosamax, used to treat osteoporosis, can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw and femur, to name just two.

It would be so much easier if we could know in advance who benzodiazepines will harm, just as it would be good if we could know in advance who will get tardive dyskinesia or dyslipidemia from antipsychotic medications, or who will have life-threatening adverse reactions from cancer chemotherapy with no tumor response. There are risks to both starting and stopping sedatives, and if we insist a patient stop a medication because of potential risk, then we are cutting them off from being a partner in their own care. It also creates an adversarial relationship that can be draining for the doctor and upsetting for the patient.

By definition, if someone needs hospitalization for a psychiatric condition, their outpatient benzodiazepine is not keeping them stable and stopping it may be a good idea. If someone is seen in an ED for a fall, it’s common to blame the benzodiazepine, but older people who are not on these medications also fall and have memory problems. In his book, “Being Mortal: Illness, Medicine, and What Matters Most in the End” (New York: Picador, 2014), Atul Gawande, MD, makes the point that taking more than four prescriptions medications increases the risk for falls in the elderly. Still, no one is suggesting patients be taken off their antidepressants, antihypertensives, or blood thinners.

Finally, the question is not should we be giving benzodiazepines out without careful consideration – the answer is clearly no. Physicians don’t pass out benzodiazepines “like candy” for all the above reasons. They are initiated because the patient is suffering and sometimes desperate. Anxiety, panic, intractable insomnia, and severe agitation are all miserable, and alternative treatments may take weeks to work, or not work at all. Yet these subjective symptoms may be dismissed by physicians.

So what do I do in my own practice? I don’t encourage patients to take potentially addictive medications, but I do sometimes use them. I give ‘as needed’ benzodiazepines to people in distress who don’t have a history of misusing them. I never plan to start them as a permanent standing medication, though once in a while that ends up happening. As with other medications, it is best to use the minimally effective dose.

There is some controversy as to whether it is best to use anxiety medications on an “as-needed” basis or as a standing dosage. Psychiatrists who prescribe benzodiazepines more liberally often feel it’s better to give standing doses and prevent breakthrough anxiety. Patients may appear to be ‘medication seeking’ not because they are addicted, but because the doses used are too low to adequately treat their anxiety.

My hope is that there is less risk of tolerance, dependence, or addiction with less-frequent dosing, and I prescribe as-needed benzodiazepines for panic attacks, agitated major depression while we wait for the antidepressant to “kick in,” insomnia during manic episodes, and to people who get very anxious in specific situations such as flying or for medical procedures. I sometimes prescribe them for people with insomnia that does not respond to other treatments, or for disabling generalized anxiety.

For patients who have taken benzodiazepines for many years, I continue to discuss the risks, but often they are not looking to fix something that isn’t broken, or to live a risk-free life. A few of the patients who have come to me on low standing doses of sedatives are now in their 80’s, yet they remain active, live independently, drive, travel, and have busy social lives. One could argue either that the medications are working, or that the patient has become dependent on them and needs them to prevent withdrawal.

These medications present a quandary: by denying patients treatment with benzodiazepines, we are sparing some people addictions (this is good, we should be careful), but we are leaving some people to suffer. There is no perfect answer.

What I do know is that doctors should think carefully and consider the patient in front of them. “No Benzos Ever For Anyone” or “you must come off because there is risk and people will think I am a bad doctor for prescribing them to you” can be done by a robot.

So, yes, I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far; there is a place for these medications in acute treatment for those at low risk of addiction, and there are people who benefit from them over the long run. At times, they provide immense relief to someone who is really struggling.

So what was the result of my Twitter poll? Of the 219 voters, 34.2% voted: “No, the pendulum has not swung too far, and these medications are harmful”; 65.8% voted: “Yes, these medications are helpful.” There were many comments expressing a wide variety of sentiments. Of those who had taken prescription benzodiazepines, some felt they had been harmed and wished they had never been started on them, and others continue to find them helpful. Psychiatrists, it seems, see them from the vantage point of the populations they treat.

People who are uncomfortable search for answers, and those answers may come in the form of meditation or exercise, medicines, or illicit drugs. It’s interesting that these same patients can now easily obtain “medical” marijuana, and the Rolling Stones’ “Mother’s Little Helper” is often replaced by a gin and tonic.

Dr. Dinah Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

Topiramate, introduced as an antiepileptic drug (AED), is currently most widely used for prevention of migraine headaches.

Because reproductive-aged women represent a population in which migraines are prevalent, clinicians need guidance to help women taking topiramate make sound contraceptive choices.

Several issues are relevant here. First, women who have migraines with aura should avoid estrogen-containing contraceptive pills, patches, and rings. Instead, progestin-only methods, including the contraceptive implant, may be recommended to patients with migraines.

Second, because topiramate, as with a number of other AEDs, is a teratogen, women using this medication need highly effective contraception. This consideration may also lead clinicians to recommend use of the implant in women with migraines.

Finally, topiramate, along with other AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, and oxcarbazepine) induces hepatic enzymes, which results in reduced serum contraceptive steroid levels.

Because there is uncertainty regarding the degree to which the use of topiramate reduces serum levels of etonogestrel (the progestin released by the implant), investigators performed a prospective study to assess the pharmacokinetic impact of topiramate in women with the implant.

Ongoing users of contraceptive implants who agreed to use additional nonhormonal contraception were recruited to a 6-week study, during which they took topiramate and periodically had blood drawn.

Overall, use of topiramate was found to lower serum etonogestrel levels from baseline on a dose-related basis. At study completion, almost one-third of study participants were found to have serum progestin levels lower than the threshold associated with predictable ovulation suppression.

The results of this carefully conducted study support guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that women seeking contraception and using topiramate or other enzyme-inducing AEDs should be encouraged to use intrauterine devices or injectable contraception. The contraceptive efficacy of these latter methods is not diminished by concomitant use of enzyme inducers.

I am Andrew Kaunitz. Please take care of yourself and each other.

Any views expressed above are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Andrew M. Kaunitz is a professor and Associate Chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida, Jacksonville.

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

Topiramate, introduced as an antiepileptic drug (AED), is currently most widely used for prevention of migraine headaches.

Because reproductive-aged women represent a population in which migraines are prevalent, clinicians need guidance to help women taking topiramate make sound contraceptive choices.

Several issues are relevant here. First, women who have migraines with aura should avoid estrogen-containing contraceptive pills, patches, and rings. Instead, progestin-only methods, including the contraceptive implant, may be recommended to patients with migraines.

Second, because topiramate, as with a number of other AEDs, is a teratogen, women using this medication need highly effective contraception. This consideration may also lead clinicians to recommend use of the implant in women with migraines.

Finally, topiramate, along with other AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, and oxcarbazepine) induces hepatic enzymes, which results in reduced serum contraceptive steroid levels.

Because there is uncertainty regarding the degree to which the use of topiramate reduces serum levels of etonogestrel (the progestin released by the implant), investigators performed a prospective study to assess the pharmacokinetic impact of topiramate in women with the implant.

Ongoing users of contraceptive implants who agreed to use additional nonhormonal contraception were recruited to a 6-week study, during which they took topiramate and periodically had blood drawn.

Overall, use of topiramate was found to lower serum etonogestrel levels from baseline on a dose-related basis. At study completion, almost one-third of study participants were found to have serum progestin levels lower than the threshold associated with predictable ovulation suppression.

The results of this carefully conducted study support guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that women seeking contraception and using topiramate or other enzyme-inducing AEDs should be encouraged to use intrauterine devices or injectable contraception. The contraceptive efficacy of these latter methods is not diminished by concomitant use of enzyme inducers.

I am Andrew Kaunitz. Please take care of yourself and each other.

Any views expressed above are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Andrew M. Kaunitz is a professor and Associate Chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida, Jacksonville.

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

Topiramate, introduced as an antiepileptic drug (AED), is currently most widely used for prevention of migraine headaches.

Because reproductive-aged women represent a population in which migraines are prevalent, clinicians need guidance to help women taking topiramate make sound contraceptive choices.

Several issues are relevant here. First, women who have migraines with aura should avoid estrogen-containing contraceptive pills, patches, and rings. Instead, progestin-only methods, including the contraceptive implant, may be recommended to patients with migraines.

Second, because topiramate, as with a number of other AEDs, is a teratogen, women using this medication need highly effective contraception. This consideration may also lead clinicians to recommend use of the implant in women with migraines.

Finally, topiramate, along with other AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, and oxcarbazepine) induces hepatic enzymes, which results in reduced serum contraceptive steroid levels.

Because there is uncertainty regarding the degree to which the use of topiramate reduces serum levels of etonogestrel (the progestin released by the implant), investigators performed a prospective study to assess the pharmacokinetic impact of topiramate in women with the implant.

Ongoing users of contraceptive implants who agreed to use additional nonhormonal contraception were recruited to a 6-week study, during which they took topiramate and periodically had blood drawn.

Overall, use of topiramate was found to lower serum etonogestrel levels from baseline on a dose-related basis. At study completion, almost one-third of study participants were found to have serum progestin levels lower than the threshold associated with predictable ovulation suppression.

The results of this carefully conducted study support guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that women seeking contraception and using topiramate or other enzyme-inducing AEDs should be encouraged to use intrauterine devices or injectable contraception. The contraceptive efficacy of these latter methods is not diminished by concomitant use of enzyme inducers.

I am Andrew Kaunitz. Please take care of yourself and each other.

Any views expressed above are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Andrew M. Kaunitz is a professor and Associate Chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida, Jacksonville.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

None of us like being wrong, especially about a patient’s diagnosis. To help you avoid diagnostic errors for 4 difficult diagnoses, read and study the article in this issue of JFP by Rosen and colleagues.¹ They discuss misdiagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica, fibromyalgia, ovarian cancer, and Lewy body dementia to illustrate how we can go astray if we do not take care to pause and think through things carefully. They point out that, for quick and mostly accurate diagnoses, pattern recognition or type 1 thinking serves us well in a busy office practice. However, we must frequently pause and reflect, using type 2 thinking—especially when the puzzle pieces don’t quite fit together.

I still recall vividly a diagnostic error I made many years ago. One of my patients, whom I had diagnosed and was treating for hyperlipidemia, returned for follow-up while I was on vacation. My partner conducted the follow-up visit. To my chagrin, he noticed her puffy face and weight gain and ordered thyroid studies. Sure enough, my patient was severely hypothyroid, and her lipid levels normalized with thyroid replacement therapy.

I recall vividly a diagnostic error I made years ago. I was treating a patient for hyperlipidemia but my partner recognized it as a case of severe hypothyroid.

A happier tale for me was making the correct diagnosis for a woman with chronic cough. She had been evaluated by multiple specialists during the prior year and treated with a nasal steroid for allergies, a proton pump inhibitor for reflux, and a steroid inhaler for possible asthma. None of these relieved her cough. After reviewing her medication list and noting that it included amitriptyline, which has anticholinergic adverse effects, I recommended she stop taking that medication and the cough resolved.

John Ely, MD, MPH, a family physician who has spent his academic career investigating causes of and solutions to diagnostic errors, has outlined important steps we can take. These include: (1) obtaining your own complete medical history, (2) performing a “focused and purposeful” physical exam, (3) generating initial hypotheses and differentiating them through additional history taking, exams, and diagnostic tests, (4) pausing to reflect [my emphasis], and (5) embarking on a plan (while acknowledging uncertainty) and ensuring there is a pathway for follow-up.²

To help avoid diagnostic errors, Dr. Ely developed and uses a set of checklists that cover the differential diagnosis for 72 presenting complaints/conditions, including syncope, back pain, insomnia, and headache.² When you are faced with diagnostic uncertainty, it takes just a few minutes to run through the checklist for the patient’s presenting complaint.

None of us like being wrong, especially about a patient’s diagnosis. To help you avoid diagnostic errors for 4 difficult diagnoses, read and study the article in this issue of JFP by Rosen and colleagues.¹ They discuss misdiagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica, fibromyalgia, ovarian cancer, and Lewy body dementia to illustrate how we can go astray if we do not take care to pause and think through things carefully. They point out that, for quick and mostly accurate diagnoses, pattern recognition or type 1 thinking serves us well in a busy office practice. However, we must frequently pause and reflect, using type 2 thinking—especially when the puzzle pieces don’t quite fit together.

I still recall vividly a diagnostic error I made many years ago. One of my patients, whom I had diagnosed and was treating for hyperlipidemia, returned for follow-up while I was on vacation. My partner conducted the follow-up visit. To my chagrin, he noticed her puffy face and weight gain and ordered thyroid studies. Sure enough, my patient was severely hypothyroid, and her lipid levels normalized with thyroid replacement therapy.

I recall vividly a diagnostic error I made years ago. I was treating a patient for hyperlipidemia but my partner recognized it as a case of severe hypothyroid.

A happier tale for me was making the correct diagnosis for a woman with chronic cough. She had been evaluated by multiple specialists during the prior year and treated with a nasal steroid for allergies, a proton pump inhibitor for reflux, and a steroid inhaler for possible asthma. None of these relieved her cough. After reviewing her medication list and noting that it included amitriptyline, which has anticholinergic adverse effects, I recommended she stop taking that medication and the cough resolved.

John Ely, MD, MPH, a family physician who has spent his academic career investigating causes of and solutions to diagnostic errors, has outlined important steps we can take. These include: (1) obtaining your own complete medical history, (2) performing a “focused and purposeful” physical exam, (3) generating initial hypotheses and differentiating them through additional history taking, exams, and diagnostic tests, (4) pausing to reflect [my emphasis], and (5) embarking on a plan (while acknowledging uncertainty) and ensuring there is a pathway for follow-up.²

To help avoid diagnostic errors, Dr. Ely developed and uses a set of checklists that cover the differential diagnosis for 72 presenting complaints/conditions, including syncope, back pain, insomnia, and headache.² When you are faced with diagnostic uncertainty, it takes just a few minutes to run through the checklist for the patient’s presenting complaint.

None of us like being wrong, especially about a patient’s diagnosis. To help you avoid diagnostic errors for 4 difficult diagnoses, read and study the article in this issue of JFP by Rosen and colleagues.¹ They discuss misdiagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica, fibromyalgia, ovarian cancer, and Lewy body dementia to illustrate how we can go astray if we do not take care to pause and think through things carefully. They point out that, for quick and mostly accurate diagnoses, pattern recognition or type 1 thinking serves us well in a busy office practice. However, we must frequently pause and reflect, using type 2 thinking—especially when the puzzle pieces don’t quite fit together.

I still recall vividly a diagnostic error I made many years ago. One of my patients, whom I had diagnosed and was treating for hyperlipidemia, returned for follow-up while I was on vacation. My partner conducted the follow-up visit. To my chagrin, he noticed her puffy face and weight gain and ordered thyroid studies. Sure enough, my patient was severely hypothyroid, and her lipid levels normalized with thyroid replacement therapy.

I recall vividly a diagnostic error I made years ago. I was treating a patient for hyperlipidemia but my partner recognized it as a case of severe hypothyroid.

A happier tale for me was making the correct diagnosis for a woman with chronic cough. She had been evaluated by multiple specialists during the prior year and treated with a nasal steroid for allergies, a proton pump inhibitor for reflux, and a steroid inhaler for possible asthma. None of these relieved her cough. After reviewing her medication list and noting that it included amitriptyline, which has anticholinergic adverse effects, I recommended she stop taking that medication and the cough resolved.

John Ely, MD, MPH, a family physician who has spent his academic career investigating causes of and solutions to diagnostic errors, has outlined important steps we can take. These include: (1) obtaining your own complete medical history, (2) performing a “focused and purposeful” physical exam, (3) generating initial hypotheses and differentiating them through additional history taking, exams, and diagnostic tests, (4) pausing to reflect [my emphasis], and (5) embarking on a plan (while acknowledging uncertainty) and ensuring there is a pathway for follow-up.²

To help avoid diagnostic errors, Dr. Ely developed and uses a set of checklists that cover the differential diagnosis for 72 presenting complaints/conditions, including syncope, back pain, insomnia, and headache.² When you are faced with diagnostic uncertainty, it takes just a few minutes to run through the checklist for the patient’s presenting complaint.