Commentary

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to chug along, some communities feel it slowing to a pace at which they might feel comfortable about a return to, if not quite “business as usual,” at least “business as sort of normal-ish.” They are ready to accept a level of disease that signals they have reached a steady state. However, in other communities, the virus has picked up speed and is threatening to overwhelm the medical infrastructure. If you are in one of those fortunate and skillfully managed states in which folks are beginning to talk seriously, but with little evidence, that it is time to return to normal, it is probably far too early. Are there any metrics that could be applied to make the decision to ease restrictions more rational?

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Eons ago in pandemic terms, the World Health Organization in Thailand published a list of criteria to aid in determining when a community could consider lifting the limits that seemed to have been effective in halting transmission of the virus (“Transitioning to and maintaining a steady state of low-level or no transmission,” WHO, Thailand, 2020 Apr 18). While much more has been learned about the behavior of the virus since the spring of 2020, the criteria from the WHO in Thailand are worth considering.

Here is my summary of their criteria for returning to normalcy. First, virus transmission is controlled to the point that only sporadic cases and small clusters exist, and that all of these are traceable in origin. Second, health care and public health systems are in place with sufficient capacities to manage a shift from detection to treatment should the case load increase dramatically; this capacity should include detection, testing, isolation, and quarantine. Third, outbreaks in high-risk populations such as nursing homes have been minimized. Fourth, workplace prevention strategies are in place and have been demonstrated to be effective. Fifth, risk of imported cases is at manageable levels. Finally, communities are engaged.

It is hard to argue with the rationale behind each of these criteria. However, the United States is not Thailand, and just thinking about how this country would go about meeting those criteria provides a window into some of the reasons why we have done so poorly and will continue to be challenged in dealing with the pandemic.

First, notice that the criteria make no mention of a vaccine. One gets the sense that from the top down our country is banking too heavily on the effectiveness and widespread delivery of a vaccine. Even if and when a vaccine is developed and delivered, all of these criteria still must be met and kept in mind for a future pandemic.

Second, the criteria call for an effective health care system, but it is abundantly clear that the United States does not have a cohesive health care system and probably won’t for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is individual states cobbling together their own systems, which may in turn serve as examples for those states who haven’t had the foresight. We have had a public health system of sorts, but its credibility and effectiveness has been neutered to the point that again we must rely on each state’s ability to see through the haze and create it’s own systems for detection, testing, tracking, isolating, and quarantining – often with little help in materiel support from the federal government. The sliver of good news is that, after a bit of a stumbling start, detecting and limiting the importation of cases from abroad is being addressed.

We continue to hear and see evidence that there are segments of the population who are not engaged in the activities that we have learned are necessary to stabilize the pandemic. My sense is that those people represent a very small minority. But, it is probably large enough to make the route to a steady state on a national level long and painful. This unfortunately is to be expected in a country that was built on a framework of personal freedoms. The best you can hope for in achieving a steady state is to live in one of the states that seems to be achieving the fine balance between personal freedoms and the common good.
 

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].

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to chug along, some communities feel it slowing to a pace at which they might feel comfortable about a return to, if not quite “business as usual,” at least “business as sort of normal-ish.” They are ready to accept a level of disease that signals they have reached a steady state. However, in other communities, the virus has picked up speed and is threatening to overwhelm the medical infrastructure. If you are in one of those fortunate and skillfully managed states in which folks are beginning to talk seriously, but with little evidence, that it is time to return to normal, it is probably far too early. Are there any metrics that could be applied to make the decision to ease restrictions more rational?

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Eons ago in pandemic terms, the World Health Organization in Thailand published a list of criteria to aid in determining when a community could consider lifting the limits that seemed to have been effective in halting transmission of the virus (“Transitioning to and maintaining a steady state of low-level or no transmission,” WHO, Thailand, 2020 Apr 18). While much more has been learned about the behavior of the virus since the spring of 2020, the criteria from the WHO in Thailand are worth considering.

Here is my summary of their criteria for returning to normalcy. First, virus transmission is controlled to the point that only sporadic cases and small clusters exist, and that all of these are traceable in origin. Second, health care and public health systems are in place with sufficient capacities to manage a shift from detection to treatment should the case load increase dramatically; this capacity should include detection, testing, isolation, and quarantine. Third, outbreaks in high-risk populations such as nursing homes have been minimized. Fourth, workplace prevention strategies are in place and have been demonstrated to be effective. Fifth, risk of imported cases is at manageable levels. Finally, communities are engaged.

It is hard to argue with the rationale behind each of these criteria. However, the United States is not Thailand, and just thinking about how this country would go about meeting those criteria provides a window into some of the reasons why we have done so poorly and will continue to be challenged in dealing with the pandemic.

First, notice that the criteria make no mention of a vaccine. One gets the sense that from the top down our country is banking too heavily on the effectiveness and widespread delivery of a vaccine. Even if and when a vaccine is developed and delivered, all of these criteria still must be met and kept in mind for a future pandemic.

Second, the criteria call for an effective health care system, but it is abundantly clear that the United States does not have a cohesive health care system and probably won’t for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is individual states cobbling together their own systems, which may in turn serve as examples for those states who haven’t had the foresight. We have had a public health system of sorts, but its credibility and effectiveness has been neutered to the point that again we must rely on each state’s ability to see through the haze and create it’s own systems for detection, testing, tracking, isolating, and quarantining – often with little help in materiel support from the federal government. The sliver of good news is that, after a bit of a stumbling start, detecting and limiting the importation of cases from abroad is being addressed.

We continue to hear and see evidence that there are segments of the population who are not engaged in the activities that we have learned are necessary to stabilize the pandemic. My sense is that those people represent a very small minority. But, it is probably large enough to make the route to a steady state on a national level long and painful. This unfortunately is to be expected in a country that was built on a framework of personal freedoms. The best you can hope for in achieving a steady state is to live in one of the states that seems to be achieving the fine balance between personal freedoms and the common good.
 

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].

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to chug along, some communities feel it slowing to a pace at which they might feel comfortable about a return to, if not quite “business as usual,” at least “business as sort of normal-ish.” They are ready to accept a level of disease that signals they have reached a steady state. However, in other communities, the virus has picked up speed and is threatening to overwhelm the medical infrastructure. If you are in one of those fortunate and skillfully managed states in which folks are beginning to talk seriously, but with little evidence, that it is time to return to normal, it is probably far too early. Are there any metrics that could be applied to make the decision to ease restrictions more rational?

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Eons ago in pandemic terms, the World Health Organization in Thailand published a list of criteria to aid in determining when a community could consider lifting the limits that seemed to have been effective in halting transmission of the virus (“Transitioning to and maintaining a steady state of low-level or no transmission,” WHO, Thailand, 2020 Apr 18). While much more has been learned about the behavior of the virus since the spring of 2020, the criteria from the WHO in Thailand are worth considering.

Here is my summary of their criteria for returning to normalcy. First, virus transmission is controlled to the point that only sporadic cases and small clusters exist, and that all of these are traceable in origin. Second, health care and public health systems are in place with sufficient capacities to manage a shift from detection to treatment should the case load increase dramatically; this capacity should include detection, testing, isolation, and quarantine. Third, outbreaks in high-risk populations such as nursing homes have been minimized. Fourth, workplace prevention strategies are in place and have been demonstrated to be effective. Fifth, risk of imported cases is at manageable levels. Finally, communities are engaged.

It is hard to argue with the rationale behind each of these criteria. However, the United States is not Thailand, and just thinking about how this country would go about meeting those criteria provides a window into some of the reasons why we have done so poorly and will continue to be challenged in dealing with the pandemic.

First, notice that the criteria make no mention of a vaccine. One gets the sense that from the top down our country is banking too heavily on the effectiveness and widespread delivery of a vaccine. Even if and when a vaccine is developed and delivered, all of these criteria still must be met and kept in mind for a future pandemic.

Second, the criteria call for an effective health care system, but it is abundantly clear that the United States does not have a cohesive health care system and probably won’t for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is individual states cobbling together their own systems, which may in turn serve as examples for those states who haven’t had the foresight. We have had a public health system of sorts, but its credibility and effectiveness has been neutered to the point that again we must rely on each state’s ability to see through the haze and create it’s own systems for detection, testing, tracking, isolating, and quarantining – often with little help in materiel support from the federal government. The sliver of good news is that, after a bit of a stumbling start, detecting and limiting the importation of cases from abroad is being addressed.

We continue to hear and see evidence that there are segments of the population who are not engaged in the activities that we have learned are necessary to stabilize the pandemic. My sense is that those people represent a very small minority. But, it is probably large enough to make the route to a steady state on a national level long and painful. This unfortunately is to be expected in a country that was built on a framework of personal freedoms. The best you can hope for in achieving a steady state is to live in one of the states that seems to be achieving the fine balance between personal freedoms and the common good.
 

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].

Masks, it seems, are effective at blocking the transmission of coronavirus. They’re also pretty good at stultifying consonants. For those specialties not accustomed to wearing a mask all day, it’s frustrating: How many times have you had to repeat yourself today? Or ask your patient to say something again? (Ain’t no one got time to repeat a third time how to do that prednisone taper). Worse, we’re losing important nonverbal cues that help us connect with our patients. How can we be understood when our faces are covered and 6 feet away?

Masks muffle both verbal and nonverbal communication. For soft-spoken or high-pitched speakers, the verbal effect is significant. In particular, masks make hearing consonants more difficult. They can make the “sh,” “th,” “f,” and “s” sounds difficult to distinguish. Typically, we’d use context and lip reading to boost the signal, but this fix is blocked (and the clear mouth-window masks are kinda creepy). 

Masks also prevent us from seeing facial microexpressions, critical information when you are trying to connect with someone or to build trust. A randomized controlled trial published in 2013 indeed showed that doctors wearing a mask were perceived as less empathetic and had diminished relational continuity with patients as compared to doctors not wearing a mask. There are a few things we can do to help. 

Speak more loudly is obvious advice. Loud talking has limitations though, as it can feel rude, and it blunts inflections, which add richness and emotion. (Shouting “THIS WILL ONLY HURT A LITTLE” seems a mixed message). More important than the volume is your choice of words. Try to use simple terms and short sentences. Pause between points. Hit your consonants harder. 

It’s also important that you have their full attention and are giving yours. As much as possible, try to align squared up with patients. Facing your computer exacerbates the problem. Look them in their eyes and be sure they are connected with you before any complex or difficult conversations. Hearing-impaired patients are now sometimes leaving out their aids because it’s too uncomfortable to wear them with their mask. You might ask them to put them back in. Check in with patients and repeat back what you heard them say. This can help with clarity and with connecting. Use your face more: if you’ve ever acted on stage, this would be your on-stage face. Exaggerate your expressions so it’s a little easier for them to read you. 

Lastly, there are apps such as Ava or Google Live Translator, which can transcribe your speech real time. You could then share your screen with the patient so they can read exactly what you’ve said. 

Some of us are natural communicators. Even if you are not, you can mitigate some of our current challenges. I’ll admit, it’s been a bit easier for me than for others. Between my prominent eyebrows and Italian-American upbringing, I can express my way through pretty much any face covering.  If you’d like to learn how to use your hands better, then just watch this little girl: https://youtu.be/Z5wAWyqDrnc.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Masks, it seems, are effective at blocking the transmission of coronavirus. They’re also pretty good at stultifying consonants. For those specialties not accustomed to wearing a mask all day, it’s frustrating: How many times have you had to repeat yourself today? Or ask your patient to say something again? (Ain’t no one got time to repeat a third time how to do that prednisone taper). Worse, we’re losing important nonverbal cues that help us connect with our patients. How can we be understood when our faces are covered and 6 feet away?

Masks muffle both verbal and nonverbal communication. For soft-spoken or high-pitched speakers, the verbal effect is significant. In particular, masks make hearing consonants more difficult. They can make the “sh,” “th,” “f,” and “s” sounds difficult to distinguish. Typically, we’d use context and lip reading to boost the signal, but this fix is blocked (and the clear mouth-window masks are kinda creepy). 

Masks also prevent us from seeing facial microexpressions, critical information when you are trying to connect with someone or to build trust. A randomized controlled trial published in 2013 indeed showed that doctors wearing a mask were perceived as less empathetic and had diminished relational continuity with patients as compared to doctors not wearing a mask. There are a few things we can do to help. 

Speak more loudly is obvious advice. Loud talking has limitations though, as it can feel rude, and it blunts inflections, which add richness and emotion. (Shouting “THIS WILL ONLY HURT A LITTLE” seems a mixed message). More important than the volume is your choice of words. Try to use simple terms and short sentences. Pause between points. Hit your consonants harder. 

It’s also important that you have their full attention and are giving yours. As much as possible, try to align squared up with patients. Facing your computer exacerbates the problem. Look them in their eyes and be sure they are connected with you before any complex or difficult conversations. Hearing-impaired patients are now sometimes leaving out their aids because it’s too uncomfortable to wear them with their mask. You might ask them to put them back in. Check in with patients and repeat back what you heard them say. This can help with clarity and with connecting. Use your face more: if you’ve ever acted on stage, this would be your on-stage face. Exaggerate your expressions so it’s a little easier for them to read you. 

Lastly, there are apps such as Ava or Google Live Translator, which can transcribe your speech real time. You could then share your screen with the patient so they can read exactly what you’ve said. 

Some of us are natural communicators. Even if you are not, you can mitigate some of our current challenges. I’ll admit, it’s been a bit easier for me than for others. Between my prominent eyebrows and Italian-American upbringing, I can express my way through pretty much any face covering.  If you’d like to learn how to use your hands better, then just watch this little girl: https://youtu.be/Z5wAWyqDrnc.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Masks, it seems, are effective at blocking the transmission of coronavirus. They’re also pretty good at stultifying consonants. For those specialties not accustomed to wearing a mask all day, it’s frustrating: How many times have you had to repeat yourself today? Or ask your patient to say something again? (Ain’t no one got time to repeat a third time how to do that prednisone taper). Worse, we’re losing important nonverbal cues that help us connect with our patients. How can we be understood when our faces are covered and 6 feet away?

Masks muffle both verbal and nonverbal communication. For soft-spoken or high-pitched speakers, the verbal effect is significant. In particular, masks make hearing consonants more difficult. They can make the “sh,” “th,” “f,” and “s” sounds difficult to distinguish. Typically, we’d use context and lip reading to boost the signal, but this fix is blocked (and the clear mouth-window masks are kinda creepy). 

Masks also prevent us from seeing facial microexpressions, critical information when you are trying to connect with someone or to build trust. A randomized controlled trial published in 2013 indeed showed that doctors wearing a mask were perceived as less empathetic and had diminished relational continuity with patients as compared to doctors not wearing a mask. There are a few things we can do to help. 

Speak more loudly is obvious advice. Loud talking has limitations though, as it can feel rude, and it blunts inflections, which add richness and emotion. (Shouting “THIS WILL ONLY HURT A LITTLE” seems a mixed message). More important than the volume is your choice of words. Try to use simple terms and short sentences. Pause between points. Hit your consonants harder. 

It’s also important that you have their full attention and are giving yours. As much as possible, try to align squared up with patients. Facing your computer exacerbates the problem. Look them in their eyes and be sure they are connected with you before any complex or difficult conversations. Hearing-impaired patients are now sometimes leaving out their aids because it’s too uncomfortable to wear them with their mask. You might ask them to put them back in. Check in with patients and repeat back what you heard them say. This can help with clarity and with connecting. Use your face more: if you’ve ever acted on stage, this would be your on-stage face. Exaggerate your expressions so it’s a little easier for them to read you. 

Lastly, there are apps such as Ava or Google Live Translator, which can transcribe your speech real time. You could then share your screen with the patient so they can read exactly what you’ve said. 

Some of us are natural communicators. Even if you are not, you can mitigate some of our current challenges. I’ll admit, it’s been a bit easier for me than for others. Between my prominent eyebrows and Italian-American upbringing, I can express my way through pretty much any face covering.  If you’d like to learn how to use your hands better, then just watch this little girl: https://youtu.be/Z5wAWyqDrnc.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Have you been surprised and impressed by a child who says after a visit, “Thank you, Doctor [Howard]”? While it may seem antiquated to teach such manners to children these days, there are several important benefits to this education.

monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

Manners serve important functions in benefiting a person’s group with cohesiveness and the individuals themselves with acceptance in the group. Use of manners instantly suggests a more trustworthy person.

There are three main categories of manners: hygiene, courtesy, and cultural norm manners.

Hygiene manners, from using the toilet to refraining from picking one’s nose, have obvious health benefits of not spreading disease. Hygiene manners take time to teach, but parents are motivated and helped by natural reactions of disgust that even infants recognize.

Courtesy manners, on the other hand, are habits of self-control and good-faith behaviors that signal that one is putting the interests of others ahead of one’s own for the moment. Taking another’s comfort into account, basic to kindness and respect, does not require agreeing with or submitting to the other. Courtesy manners require a developing self-awareness (I can choose to act this way) and awareness of social status (I am not more important than everyone else) that begins in toddlerhood. Modeling manners around the child is the most important way to teach courtesy. Parents usually start actively teaching the child to say “please” and “thank you,” and show pride in this apparent “demonstration of appreciation” even when it is simply reinforced behavior at first. The delight of grandparents reinforces both the parents and children, and reflects manners as building tribe cohesiveness.
 

Good manners become a habit

Manners such as warm greetings, a firm handshake (before COVID-19), and prompt thanks are most believable when occurring promptly when appropriate – when they come from habit. This immediate reaction, a result of so-called “fast thinking,” develops when behaviors learned from “slow thinking” are instilled early and often until they are automatic. The other benefit of this overlearning is that the behavior then looks unambivalent; a lag of too many milliseconds makes the recipient doubt genuineness.

Parents often ask us how to handle their child‘s rude or disrespectful behavior. Praise for manners is a simple start. Toddlers and preschoolers are taught manners best by adult modeling, but also by reinforcement and praise for the basics: to say “Hello,” ask “Please,” and say “Thank you,” “Excuse me,” “You’re welcome,” or “Would you help me, please?” The behaviors also include avoiding raising one’s voice, suppressing interrupting, and apologizing when appropriate. Even shy children can learn eye contact by making a game of figuring out the other’s eye color. Shaming, yelling, and punishing for poor manners usually backfires because it shows disrespect of the child who will likely give this back.

Older children can be taught to offer other people the opportunity to go through a door first, to be first to select a seat, speak first and without interruption, or order first. There are daily opportunities for these manners of showing respect. Opening doors for others, or standing when a guest enters the room are more formal but still appreciated. Parents who use and expect courtesy manners with everyone – irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, or role as a server versus professional – show that they value others and build antiracism.

School age is a time to learn to wait before speaking to consider whether what they say could be experienced as hurtful to the other person. This requires taking someone else’s point of view, an ability that emerges around age 6 years and can be promoted when parents review with their child “How would you feel if it were you?” Role playing common scenarios of how to behave and speak when seeing a person who looks or acts different is also effective. Avoiding interrupting may be more difficult for very talkative or impulsive children, especially those with ADHD. Practicing waiting for permission to speak by being handed a “talking stick” at the dinner table can be good practice for everyone.
 

Manners are a group asset

Beyond personal benefits, manners are the basis of a civil society. Manners contribute to mutual respect, effective communication, and team collaboration. Cultural norm manners are particular to groups, helping members feel affiliated, as well as identifying those with different manners as “other.”

Teens are particularly likely to use a different code of behavior to fit in with a subgroup. This may be acceptable if restricted to within their group (such as swear words) or within certain agreed-upon limits with family members. But teens need to understand the value of learning, practicing, and using manners for their own, as well as their group’s and nation’s, well-being.

As a developmental-behavioral pediatrician, I have cared for many children with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Deficits in social interaction skills are a basic criterion for the diagnosis of ASD. Overtraining is especially needed for children with ASD whose mirror movements, social attention, and imitation are weak. For children with these conditions, making manners a strong habit takes more effort but is even more vital than for neurotypical children. Temple Grandin, a famous adult with ASD, has described how her mother taught her manners as a survival skill. She reports incorporating manners very consciously and methodically because they did not come naturally. Children with even rote social skills are liked better by peers and teachers, their atypical behaviors is better tolerated, and they get more positive feedback that encourages integration inside and outside the classroom. Manners may make the difference between being allowed in or expelled from classrooms, libraries, clubs, teams, or religious institutions. When it is time to get a job, social skills are the key factor for employment for these individuals and a significant help for neurotypical individuals as well. Failure to signal socially appropriate behavior can make a person appear threatening and has had the rare but tragic result of rough or fatal handling by police.

Has the teaching of manners waned? Perhaps, because, for some families, the child is being socialized mostly by nonfamily caregivers who have low use of manners. Some parents have made teaching manners a low priority or even resisted using manners themselves as inauthentic. This may reflect prioritizing a “laid-back” lifestyle and speaking crudely as a sign of independence, perhaps in reaction to lack of autonomy at work. Mastering the careful interactions developed over time to avoid invoking an aggressive response depend on direct feedback from reactions of the recipient. With so much of our communication done electronically, asynchronously, even anonymously, the usual feedback has been reduced. Practicing curses, insults, and put-downs online easily extends to in-person interactions without the perpetrator even noticing and are generally reinforced and repeated without parental supervision. Disrespectful behavior from community leaders also reduces the threshold for society.

When people are ignorant of or choose not to use manners they may be perceived as “other” and hostile. This may lead to distrust, dislike, and lowered ability to find the common ground needed for making decisions that benefit the greater society. Oliver Wendell Holmes said “Under bad manners ... lies very commonly an overestimate of our special individuality, as distinguished from our generic humanity (“The Professor at the Breakfast Table,” 1858). Working for major goals that benefit all of humanity is essential to survival in our highly interconnected world. Considering all of humanity is a difficult concept for children, and even for many adults, but it starts with using civil behavior at home, in school, and in one’s community.
 

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

Have you been surprised and impressed by a child who says after a visit, “Thank you, Doctor [Howard]”? While it may seem antiquated to teach such manners to children these days, there are several important benefits to this education.

monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

Manners serve important functions in benefiting a person’s group with cohesiveness and the individuals themselves with acceptance in the group. Use of manners instantly suggests a more trustworthy person.

There are three main categories of manners: hygiene, courtesy, and cultural norm manners.

Hygiene manners, from using the toilet to refraining from picking one’s nose, have obvious health benefits of not spreading disease. Hygiene manners take time to teach, but parents are motivated and helped by natural reactions of disgust that even infants recognize.

Courtesy manners, on the other hand, are habits of self-control and good-faith behaviors that signal that one is putting the interests of others ahead of one’s own for the moment. Taking another’s comfort into account, basic to kindness and respect, does not require agreeing with or submitting to the other. Courtesy manners require a developing self-awareness (I can choose to act this way) and awareness of social status (I am not more important than everyone else) that begins in toddlerhood. Modeling manners around the child is the most important way to teach courtesy. Parents usually start actively teaching the child to say “please” and “thank you,” and show pride in this apparent “demonstration of appreciation” even when it is simply reinforced behavior at first. The delight of grandparents reinforces both the parents and children, and reflects manners as building tribe cohesiveness.
 

Good manners become a habit

Manners such as warm greetings, a firm handshake (before COVID-19), and prompt thanks are most believable when occurring promptly when appropriate – when they come from habit. This immediate reaction, a result of so-called “fast thinking,” develops when behaviors learned from “slow thinking” are instilled early and often until they are automatic. The other benefit of this overlearning is that the behavior then looks unambivalent; a lag of too many milliseconds makes the recipient doubt genuineness.

Parents often ask us how to handle their child‘s rude or disrespectful behavior. Praise for manners is a simple start. Toddlers and preschoolers are taught manners best by adult modeling, but also by reinforcement and praise for the basics: to say “Hello,” ask “Please,” and say “Thank you,” “Excuse me,” “You’re welcome,” or “Would you help me, please?” The behaviors also include avoiding raising one’s voice, suppressing interrupting, and apologizing when appropriate. Even shy children can learn eye contact by making a game of figuring out the other’s eye color. Shaming, yelling, and punishing for poor manners usually backfires because it shows disrespect of the child who will likely give this back.

Older children can be taught to offer other people the opportunity to go through a door first, to be first to select a seat, speak first and without interruption, or order first. There are daily opportunities for these manners of showing respect. Opening doors for others, or standing when a guest enters the room are more formal but still appreciated. Parents who use and expect courtesy manners with everyone – irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, or role as a server versus professional – show that they value others and build antiracism.

School age is a time to learn to wait before speaking to consider whether what they say could be experienced as hurtful to the other person. This requires taking someone else’s point of view, an ability that emerges around age 6 years and can be promoted when parents review with their child “How would you feel if it were you?” Role playing common scenarios of how to behave and speak when seeing a person who looks or acts different is also effective. Avoiding interrupting may be more difficult for very talkative or impulsive children, especially those with ADHD. Practicing waiting for permission to speak by being handed a “talking stick” at the dinner table can be good practice for everyone.
 

Manners are a group asset

Beyond personal benefits, manners are the basis of a civil society. Manners contribute to mutual respect, effective communication, and team collaboration. Cultural norm manners are particular to groups, helping members feel affiliated, as well as identifying those with different manners as “other.”

Teens are particularly likely to use a different code of behavior to fit in with a subgroup. This may be acceptable if restricted to within their group (such as swear words) or within certain agreed-upon limits with family members. But teens need to understand the value of learning, practicing, and using manners for their own, as well as their group’s and nation’s, well-being.

As a developmental-behavioral pediatrician, I have cared for many children with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Deficits in social interaction skills are a basic criterion for the diagnosis of ASD. Overtraining is especially needed for children with ASD whose mirror movements, social attention, and imitation are weak. For children with these conditions, making manners a strong habit takes more effort but is even more vital than for neurotypical children. Temple Grandin, a famous adult with ASD, has described how her mother taught her manners as a survival skill. She reports incorporating manners very consciously and methodically because they did not come naturally. Children with even rote social skills are liked better by peers and teachers, their atypical behaviors is better tolerated, and they get more positive feedback that encourages integration inside and outside the classroom. Manners may make the difference between being allowed in or expelled from classrooms, libraries, clubs, teams, or religious institutions. When it is time to get a job, social skills are the key factor for employment for these individuals and a significant help for neurotypical individuals as well. Failure to signal socially appropriate behavior can make a person appear threatening and has had the rare but tragic result of rough or fatal handling by police.

Has the teaching of manners waned? Perhaps, because, for some families, the child is being socialized mostly by nonfamily caregivers who have low use of manners. Some parents have made teaching manners a low priority or even resisted using manners themselves as inauthentic. This may reflect prioritizing a “laid-back” lifestyle and speaking crudely as a sign of independence, perhaps in reaction to lack of autonomy at work. Mastering the careful interactions developed over time to avoid invoking an aggressive response depend on direct feedback from reactions of the recipient. With so much of our communication done electronically, asynchronously, even anonymously, the usual feedback has been reduced. Practicing curses, insults, and put-downs online easily extends to in-person interactions without the perpetrator even noticing and are generally reinforced and repeated without parental supervision. Disrespectful behavior from community leaders also reduces the threshold for society.

When people are ignorant of or choose not to use manners they may be perceived as “other” and hostile. This may lead to distrust, dislike, and lowered ability to find the common ground needed for making decisions that benefit the greater society. Oliver Wendell Holmes said “Under bad manners ... lies very commonly an overestimate of our special individuality, as distinguished from our generic humanity (“The Professor at the Breakfast Table,” 1858). Working for major goals that benefit all of humanity is essential to survival in our highly interconnected world. Considering all of humanity is a difficult concept for children, and even for many adults, but it starts with using civil behavior at home, in school, and in one’s community.
 

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

Have you been surprised and impressed by a child who says after a visit, “Thank you, Doctor [Howard]”? While it may seem antiquated to teach such manners to children these days, there are several important benefits to this education.

monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

Manners serve important functions in benefiting a person’s group with cohesiveness and the individuals themselves with acceptance in the group. Use of manners instantly suggests a more trustworthy person.

There are three main categories of manners: hygiene, courtesy, and cultural norm manners.

Hygiene manners, from using the toilet to refraining from picking one’s nose, have obvious health benefits of not spreading disease. Hygiene manners take time to teach, but parents are motivated and helped by natural reactions of disgust that even infants recognize.

Courtesy manners, on the other hand, are habits of self-control and good-faith behaviors that signal that one is putting the interests of others ahead of one’s own for the moment. Taking another’s comfort into account, basic to kindness and respect, does not require agreeing with or submitting to the other. Courtesy manners require a developing self-awareness (I can choose to act this way) and awareness of social status (I am not more important than everyone else) that begins in toddlerhood. Modeling manners around the child is the most important way to teach courtesy. Parents usually start actively teaching the child to say “please” and “thank you,” and show pride in this apparent “demonstration of appreciation” even when it is simply reinforced behavior at first. The delight of grandparents reinforces both the parents and children, and reflects manners as building tribe cohesiveness.
 

Good manners become a habit

Manners such as warm greetings, a firm handshake (before COVID-19), and prompt thanks are most believable when occurring promptly when appropriate – when they come from habit. This immediate reaction, a result of so-called “fast thinking,” develops when behaviors learned from “slow thinking” are instilled early and often until they are automatic. The other benefit of this overlearning is that the behavior then looks unambivalent; a lag of too many milliseconds makes the recipient doubt genuineness.

Parents often ask us how to handle their child‘s rude or disrespectful behavior. Praise for manners is a simple start. Toddlers and preschoolers are taught manners best by adult modeling, but also by reinforcement and praise for the basics: to say “Hello,” ask “Please,” and say “Thank you,” “Excuse me,” “You’re welcome,” or “Would you help me, please?” The behaviors also include avoiding raising one’s voice, suppressing interrupting, and apologizing when appropriate. Even shy children can learn eye contact by making a game of figuring out the other’s eye color. Shaming, yelling, and punishing for poor manners usually backfires because it shows disrespect of the child who will likely give this back.

Older children can be taught to offer other people the opportunity to go through a door first, to be first to select a seat, speak first and without interruption, or order first. There are daily opportunities for these manners of showing respect. Opening doors for others, or standing when a guest enters the room are more formal but still appreciated. Parents who use and expect courtesy manners with everyone – irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, or role as a server versus professional – show that they value others and build antiracism.

School age is a time to learn to wait before speaking to consider whether what they say could be experienced as hurtful to the other person. This requires taking someone else’s point of view, an ability that emerges around age 6 years and can be promoted when parents review with their child “How would you feel if it were you?” Role playing common scenarios of how to behave and speak when seeing a person who looks or acts different is also effective. Avoiding interrupting may be more difficult for very talkative or impulsive children, especially those with ADHD. Practicing waiting for permission to speak by being handed a “talking stick” at the dinner table can be good practice for everyone.
 

Manners are a group asset

Beyond personal benefits, manners are the basis of a civil society. Manners contribute to mutual respect, effective communication, and team collaboration. Cultural norm manners are particular to groups, helping members feel affiliated, as well as identifying those with different manners as “other.”

Teens are particularly likely to use a different code of behavior to fit in with a subgroup. This may be acceptable if restricted to within their group (such as swear words) or within certain agreed-upon limits with family members. But teens need to understand the value of learning, practicing, and using manners for their own, as well as their group’s and nation’s, well-being.

As a developmental-behavioral pediatrician, I have cared for many children with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Deficits in social interaction skills are a basic criterion for the diagnosis of ASD. Overtraining is especially needed for children with ASD whose mirror movements, social attention, and imitation are weak. For children with these conditions, making manners a strong habit takes more effort but is even more vital than for neurotypical children. Temple Grandin, a famous adult with ASD, has described how her mother taught her manners as a survival skill. She reports incorporating manners very consciously and methodically because they did not come naturally. Children with even rote social skills are liked better by peers and teachers, their atypical behaviors is better tolerated, and they get more positive feedback that encourages integration inside and outside the classroom. Manners may make the difference between being allowed in or expelled from classrooms, libraries, clubs, teams, or religious institutions. When it is time to get a job, social skills are the key factor for employment for these individuals and a significant help for neurotypical individuals as well. Failure to signal socially appropriate behavior can make a person appear threatening and has had the rare but tragic result of rough or fatal handling by police.

Has the teaching of manners waned? Perhaps, because, for some families, the child is being socialized mostly by nonfamily caregivers who have low use of manners. Some parents have made teaching manners a low priority or even resisted using manners themselves as inauthentic. This may reflect prioritizing a “laid-back” lifestyle and speaking crudely as a sign of independence, perhaps in reaction to lack of autonomy at work. Mastering the careful interactions developed over time to avoid invoking an aggressive response depend on direct feedback from reactions of the recipient. With so much of our communication done electronically, asynchronously, even anonymously, the usual feedback has been reduced. Practicing curses, insults, and put-downs online easily extends to in-person interactions without the perpetrator even noticing and are generally reinforced and repeated without parental supervision. Disrespectful behavior from community leaders also reduces the threshold for society.

When people are ignorant of or choose not to use manners they may be perceived as “other” and hostile. This may lead to distrust, dislike, and lowered ability to find the common ground needed for making decisions that benefit the greater society. Oliver Wendell Holmes said “Under bad manners ... lies very commonly an overestimate of our special individuality, as distinguished from our generic humanity (“The Professor at the Breakfast Table,” 1858). Working for major goals that benefit all of humanity is essential to survival in our highly interconnected world. Considering all of humanity is a difficult concept for children, and even for many adults, but it starts with using civil behavior at home, in school, and in one’s community.
 

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

During dermatologic surgery, surgical smoke created by electrocautery is known to contain not only nanoparticles and carcinogenic compounds but also infectious particles.¹ Poor awareness of the risks associated with breathing surgical smoke and lack of safety practices among US dermatology residents has been documented.² In this era of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, these issues are particularly pertinent due to the theoretical risk of viral transmission through aerosolized particles. There are few studies investigating viral transmission during surgery, but large numbers of health care workers in close contact with the upper aerodigestive tract during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures have become infected with COVID-19, leading to the recommendation of added safety measures for surgeons in other fields.³ Recommendations do not yet exist for dermatologic surgeons, and it is not yet known if this population is at higher risk for COVID-19 infection due to aerosolized viral particles in the air or in surgical smoke. Nonetheless, we feel that additional safety measures during dermatologic surgery are warranted, particularly when operating on areas of higher viral load such as the nasal or oral mucosae, and understanding of safety equipment is paramount. Thus, we aimed to assess the awareness of safety measures among training dermatologists and dermatologic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In April 2020, one of the authors (S.I.B.J.) gave a lecture to residents and fellows of accredited dermatology residency or fellowship programs in the United States on surgical masks and surgical smoke in dermatologic surgery on an online videoconferencing platform through our institution. During the lecture, participants were polled regarding their understanding of these topics. Forty-one attendees were included in this analysis, with a 100% response rate. Results showed that 54% (22/41) of respondents indicated they had not had formal lectures on surgical smoke content and management, and 51% (21/41) responded that they do not use a smoke evacuator during surgical procedures. When asked why smoke evacuators are not used, 27% (11/41) responded that the equipment is too cumbersome, 12% (5/41) reported that smoke evacuators are not available at their practice or institution, 7% did not believe that smoke evacuators are necessary, and 5% did not know they are used in dermatology. Additionally, 66% (27/41) said they had not had formal presentations on personal protective equipment (PPE) or masks, though 93% (38/41) said they wear a surgical mask during surgery. Despite the high percentage of respondents using masks, 82% (31/38) did not know what type of mask they were wearing, and the remainder wore a variety of American Society for Testing and Materials–rated (levels 1, 2, or 3) and European Standards type II (EN14683) masks. Following the presentation, 100% of respondents said they were likely to use a smoke evacuator if made available, and 100% reported that they had a better understanding of respirators and masks.

In summary, more than 50% of dermatology trainees in our study had not been formally educated regarding PPE despite its importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of respondents were unaware of the dangers of surgical smoke, and a small number of respondents believed that smoke evacuators were not necessary or did not know that they were even used in dermatology. Based on the results of this quick survey during a lecture to dermatology trainees, we believe it is important to alert educators to this knowledge gap regarding PPE in the dermatology teaching curriculum. We have shown that even a short lecture format was an effective way of disseminating information about PPE and surgical safety. We believe that safety measures are more important now during a time when risk for infection with a potentially fatal virus is high. We encourage clinical educators to emphasize the importance of personal safety to trainees during residency, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During dermatologic surgery, surgical smoke created by electrocautery is known to contain not only nanoparticles and carcinogenic compounds but also infectious particles.¹ Poor awareness of the risks associated with breathing surgical smoke and lack of safety practices among US dermatology residents has been documented.² In this era of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, these issues are particularly pertinent due to the theoretical risk of viral transmission through aerosolized particles. There are few studies investigating viral transmission during surgery, but large numbers of health care workers in close contact with the upper aerodigestive tract during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures have become infected with COVID-19, leading to the recommendation of added safety measures for surgeons in other fields.³ Recommendations do not yet exist for dermatologic surgeons, and it is not yet known if this population is at higher risk for COVID-19 infection due to aerosolized viral particles in the air or in surgical smoke. Nonetheless, we feel that additional safety measures during dermatologic surgery are warranted, particularly when operating on areas of higher viral load such as the nasal or oral mucosae, and understanding of safety equipment is paramount. Thus, we aimed to assess the awareness of safety measures among training dermatologists and dermatologic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In April 2020, one of the authors (S.I.B.J.) gave a lecture to residents and fellows of accredited dermatology residency or fellowship programs in the United States on surgical masks and surgical smoke in dermatologic surgery on an online videoconferencing platform through our institution. During the lecture, participants were polled regarding their understanding of these topics. Forty-one attendees were included in this analysis, with a 100% response rate. Results showed that 54% (22/41) of respondents indicated they had not had formal lectures on surgical smoke content and management, and 51% (21/41) responded that they do not use a smoke evacuator during surgical procedures. When asked why smoke evacuators are not used, 27% (11/41) responded that the equipment is too cumbersome, 12% (5/41) reported that smoke evacuators are not available at their practice or institution, 7% did not believe that smoke evacuators are necessary, and 5% did not know they are used in dermatology. Additionally, 66% (27/41) said they had not had formal presentations on personal protective equipment (PPE) or masks, though 93% (38/41) said they wear a surgical mask during surgery. Despite the high percentage of respondents using masks, 82% (31/38) did not know what type of mask they were wearing, and the remainder wore a variety of American Society for Testing and Materials–rated (levels 1, 2, or 3) and European Standards type II (EN14683) masks. Following the presentation, 100% of respondents said they were likely to use a smoke evacuator if made available, and 100% reported that they had a better understanding of respirators and masks.

In summary, more than 50% of dermatology trainees in our study had not been formally educated regarding PPE despite its importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of respondents were unaware of the dangers of surgical smoke, and a small number of respondents believed that smoke evacuators were not necessary or did not know that they were even used in dermatology. Based on the results of this quick survey during a lecture to dermatology trainees, we believe it is important to alert educators to this knowledge gap regarding PPE in the dermatology teaching curriculum. We have shown that even a short lecture format was an effective way of disseminating information about PPE and surgical safety. We believe that safety measures are more important now during a time when risk for infection with a potentially fatal virus is high. We encourage clinical educators to emphasize the importance of personal safety to trainees during residency, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During dermatologic surgery, surgical smoke created by electrocautery is known to contain not only nanoparticles and carcinogenic compounds but also infectious particles.¹ Poor awareness of the risks associated with breathing surgical smoke and lack of safety practices among US dermatology residents has been documented.² In this era of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, these issues are particularly pertinent due to the theoretical risk of viral transmission through aerosolized particles. There are few studies investigating viral transmission during surgery, but large numbers of health care workers in close contact with the upper aerodigestive tract during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures have become infected with COVID-19, leading to the recommendation of added safety measures for surgeons in other fields.³ Recommendations do not yet exist for dermatologic surgeons, and it is not yet known if this population is at higher risk for COVID-19 infection due to aerosolized viral particles in the air or in surgical smoke. Nonetheless, we feel that additional safety measures during dermatologic surgery are warranted, particularly when operating on areas of higher viral load such as the nasal or oral mucosae, and understanding of safety equipment is paramount. Thus, we aimed to assess the awareness of safety measures among training dermatologists and dermatologic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In April 2020, one of the authors (S.I.B.J.) gave a lecture to residents and fellows of accredited dermatology residency or fellowship programs in the United States on surgical masks and surgical smoke in dermatologic surgery on an online videoconferencing platform through our institution. During the lecture, participants were polled regarding their understanding of these topics. Forty-one attendees were included in this analysis, with a 100% response rate. Results showed that 54% (22/41) of respondents indicated they had not had formal lectures on surgical smoke content and management, and 51% (21/41) responded that they do not use a smoke evacuator during surgical procedures. When asked why smoke evacuators are not used, 27% (11/41) responded that the equipment is too cumbersome, 12% (5/41) reported that smoke evacuators are not available at their practice or institution, 7% did not believe that smoke evacuators are necessary, and 5% did not know they are used in dermatology. Additionally, 66% (27/41) said they had not had formal presentations on personal protective equipment (PPE) or masks, though 93% (38/41) said they wear a surgical mask during surgery. Despite the high percentage of respondents using masks, 82% (31/38) did not know what type of mask they were wearing, and the remainder wore a variety of American Society for Testing and Materials–rated (levels 1, 2, or 3) and European Standards type II (EN14683) masks. Following the presentation, 100% of respondents said they were likely to use a smoke evacuator if made available, and 100% reported that they had a better understanding of respirators and masks.

In summary, more than 50% of dermatology trainees in our study had not been formally educated regarding PPE despite its importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of respondents were unaware of the dangers of surgical smoke, and a small number of respondents believed that smoke evacuators were not necessary or did not know that they were even used in dermatology. Based on the results of this quick survey during a lecture to dermatology trainees, we believe it is important to alert educators to this knowledge gap regarding PPE in the dermatology teaching curriculum. We have shown that even a short lecture format was an effective way of disseminating information about PPE and surgical safety. We believe that safety measures are more important now during a time when risk for infection with a potentially fatal virus is high. We encourage clinical educators to emphasize the importance of personal safety to trainees during residency, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Each year on Oct. 10, the world takes a moment to commemorate the significance of mental health and its impact on an individual’s life. This year, as we continue to reflect beyond World Mental Health Day, we see the world in a different light. Creating awareness for mental health issues and expanding access to psychiatric services has now become more essential than ever before.

The year 2020 will forever be known as the beginning of the “COVID era” as, unfortunately, the whole world as we know it adapts and reconstructs amid the rise of this global pandemic. This era has brought with it a wave of unemployment, social isolation, economic disaster, death, and disability. It is inevitable that such changes have brought forth perpetual fear and uncertainty, which have taken their toll not only on individuals’ physical health but largely on their mental health as well.

Factors that perpetuate deteriorating mental health include unemployment, poverty, isolation, fear and loss of loved ones – all of which have been further exacerbated globally, thanks to the current pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 450 million people in the world suffer from mental illness, and one in four individuals are affected by mental illness in some stage of their lives. This means that mental illness accounts for 13% of the total global burden of disease.

The past few months have been particularly challenging for health care workers around the globe. These challenges include providing care in difficult circumstances, going to work afraid of bringing COVID-19 home, and vulnerability toward becoming mentally and physically ill. An immense sense of responsibility toward patients with mental illness, coupled with continuous fear of becoming infected with this novel virus, has made managing the mental health of our patients all the more challenging.

As a psychiatrist (A.A.M.), I have noticed a massive increase in both the incidence and prevalence of mental illness. Emergency departments are full of patients presenting with suicidal attempts/ideation. Substance abuse has increased in greater magnitude, and outpatients are presenting with escalating numbers of depression and anxiety. Relapse of symptoms among stable patients has been another major problem. Incidents of domestic violence, road rage, and impaired driving secondary to alcoholism leading to psychiatric consultations have also risen drastically.

Mental health units in hospitals are tremendously busy with scarce availability of beds. The increase in waiting times for allocation of beds has also become a major concern globally.

Governments have allocated more funds and are actively attempting to mobilize resources in the developed world. However, adapting to the circumstances has proven to be far more challenging in many regions of the developing world. To avoid personal contacts in health settings, governments have allowed virtual consultations, which has proven to be a highly commendable decision. The use of telephone and video consultations has allowed physicians, particularly psychiatrists, to continue to provide health care to their patients while maintaining social distance. Crisis services have also become far more active, which can help in alleviating mental health emergencies to a great extent.

International crisis is possible

According to the director of the World Federation for Mental Health, citing the report of World Economic Forum, mental health problems could cost the global economy up to $16 trillion between 2010 and 2030, and if this matter is not addressed, it could potentially lead to an international mental health crisis. If the pandemic continues to create such a large impact for a prolonged period of time, the state of mental health globally will continue to be a major concern.

Universal effort is imperative to strengthen the mental health service and increase our ability to provide care for vulnerable individuals. This can be achieved through collaboration with other stakeholders, the allied health sector, the WHO, and the World Bank. The efforts should be directed toward the availability of funds, mobilizing and enhancing resources and training health care and crisis workers. This focus should not only be for developed countries but also for developing countries alike because we are all suffering from the impacts of this global crisis together.

It is important to raise awareness and support one another now more than ever before as we strive to improve and strengthen our mental health on this World Mental Health Day.
 

Dr. Muhammad is clinical professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Ms. Amin is a 5th-year MBBS student at St. George’s University Hospital in London.

Each year on Oct. 10, the world takes a moment to commemorate the significance of mental health and its impact on an individual’s life. This year, as we continue to reflect beyond World Mental Health Day, we see the world in a different light. Creating awareness for mental health issues and expanding access to psychiatric services has now become more essential than ever before.

The year 2020 will forever be known as the beginning of the “COVID era” as, unfortunately, the whole world as we know it adapts and reconstructs amid the rise of this global pandemic. This era has brought with it a wave of unemployment, social isolation, economic disaster, death, and disability. It is inevitable that such changes have brought forth perpetual fear and uncertainty, which have taken their toll not only on individuals’ physical health but largely on their mental health as well.

Factors that perpetuate deteriorating mental health include unemployment, poverty, isolation, fear and loss of loved ones – all of which have been further exacerbated globally, thanks to the current pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 450 million people in the world suffer from mental illness, and one in four individuals are affected by mental illness in some stage of their lives. This means that mental illness accounts for 13% of the total global burden of disease.

The past few months have been particularly challenging for health care workers around the globe. These challenges include providing care in difficult circumstances, going to work afraid of bringing COVID-19 home, and vulnerability toward becoming mentally and physically ill. An immense sense of responsibility toward patients with mental illness, coupled with continuous fear of becoming infected with this novel virus, has made managing the mental health of our patients all the more challenging.

As a psychiatrist (A.A.M.), I have noticed a massive increase in both the incidence and prevalence of mental illness. Emergency departments are full of patients presenting with suicidal attempts/ideation. Substance abuse has increased in greater magnitude, and outpatients are presenting with escalating numbers of depression and anxiety. Relapse of symptoms among stable patients has been another major problem. Incidents of domestic violence, road rage, and impaired driving secondary to alcoholism leading to psychiatric consultations have also risen drastically.

Mental health units in hospitals are tremendously busy with scarce availability of beds. The increase in waiting times for allocation of beds has also become a major concern globally.

Governments have allocated more funds and are actively attempting to mobilize resources in the developed world. However, adapting to the circumstances has proven to be far more challenging in many regions of the developing world. To avoid personal contacts in health settings, governments have allowed virtual consultations, which has proven to be a highly commendable decision. The use of telephone and video consultations has allowed physicians, particularly psychiatrists, to continue to provide health care to their patients while maintaining social distance. Crisis services have also become far more active, which can help in alleviating mental health emergencies to a great extent.

International crisis is possible

According to the director of the World Federation for Mental Health, citing the report of World Economic Forum, mental health problems could cost the global economy up to $16 trillion between 2010 and 2030, and if this matter is not addressed, it could potentially lead to an international mental health crisis. If the pandemic continues to create such a large impact for a prolonged period of time, the state of mental health globally will continue to be a major concern.

Universal effort is imperative to strengthen the mental health service and increase our ability to provide care for vulnerable individuals. This can be achieved through collaboration with other stakeholders, the allied health sector, the WHO, and the World Bank. The efforts should be directed toward the availability of funds, mobilizing and enhancing resources and training health care and crisis workers. This focus should not only be for developed countries but also for developing countries alike because we are all suffering from the impacts of this global crisis together.

It is important to raise awareness and support one another now more than ever before as we strive to improve and strengthen our mental health on this World Mental Health Day.
 

Dr. Muhammad is clinical professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Ms. Amin is a 5th-year MBBS student at St. George’s University Hospital in London.

Each year on Oct. 10, the world takes a moment to commemorate the significance of mental health and its impact on an individual’s life. This year, as we continue to reflect beyond World Mental Health Day, we see the world in a different light. Creating awareness for mental health issues and expanding access to psychiatric services has now become more essential than ever before.

The year 2020 will forever be known as the beginning of the “COVID era” as, unfortunately, the whole world as we know it adapts and reconstructs amid the rise of this global pandemic. This era has brought with it a wave of unemployment, social isolation, economic disaster, death, and disability. It is inevitable that such changes have brought forth perpetual fear and uncertainty, which have taken their toll not only on individuals’ physical health but largely on their mental health as well.

Factors that perpetuate deteriorating mental health include unemployment, poverty, isolation, fear and loss of loved ones – all of which have been further exacerbated globally, thanks to the current pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 450 million people in the world suffer from mental illness, and one in four individuals are affected by mental illness in some stage of their lives. This means that mental illness accounts for 13% of the total global burden of disease.

The past few months have been particularly challenging for health care workers around the globe. These challenges include providing care in difficult circumstances, going to work afraid of bringing COVID-19 home, and vulnerability toward becoming mentally and physically ill. An immense sense of responsibility toward patients with mental illness, coupled with continuous fear of becoming infected with this novel virus, has made managing the mental health of our patients all the more challenging.

As a psychiatrist (A.A.M.), I have noticed a massive increase in both the incidence and prevalence of mental illness. Emergency departments are full of patients presenting with suicidal attempts/ideation. Substance abuse has increased in greater magnitude, and outpatients are presenting with escalating numbers of depression and anxiety. Relapse of symptoms among stable patients has been another major problem. Incidents of domestic violence, road rage, and impaired driving secondary to alcoholism leading to psychiatric consultations have also risen drastically.

Mental health units in hospitals are tremendously busy with scarce availability of beds. The increase in waiting times for allocation of beds has also become a major concern globally.

Governments have allocated more funds and are actively attempting to mobilize resources in the developed world. However, adapting to the circumstances has proven to be far more challenging in many regions of the developing world. To avoid personal contacts in health settings, governments have allowed virtual consultations, which has proven to be a highly commendable decision. The use of telephone and video consultations has allowed physicians, particularly psychiatrists, to continue to provide health care to their patients while maintaining social distance. Crisis services have also become far more active, which can help in alleviating mental health emergencies to a great extent.

International crisis is possible

According to the director of the World Federation for Mental Health, citing the report of World Economic Forum, mental health problems could cost the global economy up to $16 trillion between 2010 and 2030, and if this matter is not addressed, it could potentially lead to an international mental health crisis. If the pandemic continues to create such a large impact for a prolonged period of time, the state of mental health globally will continue to be a major concern.

Universal effort is imperative to strengthen the mental health service and increase our ability to provide care for vulnerable individuals. This can be achieved through collaboration with other stakeholders, the allied health sector, the WHO, and the World Bank. The efforts should be directed toward the availability of funds, mobilizing and enhancing resources and training health care and crisis workers. This focus should not only be for developed countries but also for developing countries alike because we are all suffering from the impacts of this global crisis together.

It is important to raise awareness and support one another now more than ever before as we strive to improve and strengthen our mental health on this World Mental Health Day.
 

Dr. Muhammad is clinical professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Ms. Amin is a 5th-year MBBS student at St. George’s University Hospital in London.

A 42-year-old woman with psoriasis presents for a checkup at the dermatology clinic. Her psoriasis has been fairly stable on methotrexate with no recent flares. She presents her concern of the coronavirus pandemic continuing into the flu season and mentions she would like to minimize her chances of having a respiratory illness. The influenza vaccine has just become available, and she inquires when she can get the vaccine and whether it will interfere with her treatment. What are your recommendations for the patient?

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated, inflammatory skin condition stemming from hyperproliferation of keratinocytes that classically involves erythematous skin plaques with overlying scale. Treatment options vary widely and include topical modalities, phototherapy, immunosuppressants, and biologic agents. Selection of treatment largely depends on the severity and extent of body surface area involvement; systemic therapy generally is indicated when the affected body surface area is greater than 5% to 10%. In patients on systemic therapy, increased susceptibility to infection is a priority concern for prescribing physicians. In the context of continuing immunosuppressive medications, vaccines that reduce susceptibility to infectious diseases can play an important role in reducing morbidity and mortality for these patients; however, an important consideration is that in patients with chronic conditions and frequent hospital visits, vaccines may be administered by various clinicians who may not be familiar with the management of immunosuppressive treatments. It is pivotal for prescribing dermatologists to provide appropriate vaccination instructions for the patient and any future clinicians to ensure vaccine efficacy in these patients.

The intramuscular influenza vaccine is a killed vaccine that is administered annually and has been shown to be safe for use in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients.^1,2 Despite its safety, questions remain regarding the efficacy of vaccines while a patient is unable to mount a normal immune response and whether the treatment must be altered to maximize immunogenicity. The common systemic treatment options for psoriasis and any recommendations that can be made regarding administration of the influenza vaccine in that context are outlined in the Table. Given the sparsity of clinical data measuring vaccine immunogenicity in patients with psoriasis, vaccine guidelines are drawn from patients with various conditions who are receiving the same dose of medication as indicated for psoriasis.

A 42-year-old woman with psoriasis presents for a checkup at the dermatology clinic. Her psoriasis has been fairly stable on methotrexate with no recent flares. She presents her concern of the coronavirus pandemic continuing into the flu season and mentions she would like to minimize her chances of having a respiratory illness. The influenza vaccine has just become available, and she inquires when she can get the vaccine and whether it will interfere with her treatment. What are your recommendations for the patient?

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated, inflammatory skin condition stemming from hyperproliferation of keratinocytes that classically involves erythematous skin plaques with overlying scale. Treatment options vary widely and include topical modalities, phototherapy, immunosuppressants, and biologic agents. Selection of treatment largely depends on the severity and extent of body surface area involvement; systemic therapy generally is indicated when the affected body surface area is greater than 5% to 10%. In patients on systemic therapy, increased susceptibility to infection is a priority concern for prescribing physicians. In the context of continuing immunosuppressive medications, vaccines that reduce susceptibility to infectious diseases can play an important role in reducing morbidity and mortality for these patients; however, an important consideration is that in patients with chronic conditions and frequent hospital visits, vaccines may be administered by various clinicians who may not be familiar with the management of immunosuppressive treatments. It is pivotal for prescribing dermatologists to provide appropriate vaccination instructions for the patient and any future clinicians to ensure vaccine efficacy in these patients.

The intramuscular influenza vaccine is a killed vaccine that is administered annually and has been shown to be safe for use in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients.^1,2 Despite its safety, questions remain regarding the efficacy of vaccines while a patient is unable to mount a normal immune response and whether the treatment must be altered to maximize immunogenicity. The common systemic treatment options for psoriasis and any recommendations that can be made regarding administration of the influenza vaccine in that context are outlined in the Table. Given the sparsity of clinical data measuring vaccine immunogenicity in patients with psoriasis, vaccine guidelines are drawn from patients with various conditions who are receiving the same dose of medication as indicated for psoriasis.

A 42-year-old woman with psoriasis presents for a checkup at the dermatology clinic. Her psoriasis has been fairly stable on methotrexate with no recent flares. She presents her concern of the coronavirus pandemic continuing into the flu season and mentions she would like to minimize her chances of having a respiratory illness. The influenza vaccine has just become available, and she inquires when she can get the vaccine and whether it will interfere with her treatment. What are your recommendations for the patient?

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated, inflammatory skin condition stemming from hyperproliferation of keratinocytes that classically involves erythematous skin plaques with overlying scale. Treatment options vary widely and include topical modalities, phototherapy, immunosuppressants, and biologic agents. Selection of treatment largely depends on the severity and extent of body surface area involvement; systemic therapy generally is indicated when the affected body surface area is greater than 5% to 10%. In patients on systemic therapy, increased susceptibility to infection is a priority concern for prescribing physicians. In the context of continuing immunosuppressive medications, vaccines that reduce susceptibility to infectious diseases can play an important role in reducing morbidity and mortality for these patients; however, an important consideration is that in patients with chronic conditions and frequent hospital visits, vaccines may be administered by various clinicians who may not be familiar with the management of immunosuppressive treatments. It is pivotal for prescribing dermatologists to provide appropriate vaccination instructions for the patient and any future clinicians to ensure vaccine efficacy in these patients.

The intramuscular influenza vaccine is a killed vaccine that is administered annually and has been shown to be safe for use in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients.^1,2 Despite its safety, questions remain regarding the efficacy of vaccines while a patient is unable to mount a normal immune response and whether the treatment must be altered to maximize immunogenicity. The common systemic treatment options for psoriasis and any recommendations that can be made regarding administration of the influenza vaccine in that context are outlined in the Table. Given the sparsity of clinical data measuring vaccine immunogenicity in patients with psoriasis, vaccine guidelines are drawn from patients with various conditions who are receiving the same dose of medication as indicated for psoriasis.

The year 2020 was marked by historic protests across the United States and the globe sparked by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and so many other Black people. The protests heightened awareness of racism as a public health crisis and triggered an antiracism movement. Racism is a pervasive and systemic issue that has profound adverse effects on health.^1,2 Racism is associated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes and negative patient experiences in the health care system.^3,4 As evidenced by the current coronavirus pandemic, race is a sociopolitical construct that continues to disadvantage Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other People of Color.^5,6,7,8 The association between racism and adverse health outcomes has been discussed for decades in the medical literature, including the family medicine literature. Today there is a renewed call to action for family medicine, a specialty that emerged as a counterculture to reform mainstream medicine,⁹ to both confront systemic racism and eliminate health disparities. This effort will require collaboration, commitment, education, and transformative conversations around racism, health inequity, and advocacy so that we can better serve our patients and our communities.

The editors of several North American family medicine publications have come together to address this call to action and share resources on racism across our readerships. We acknowledge those members of the family medicine scholar community who have been fighting for equity consistent with the Black Lives Matter movement by writing about racism, health inequities, and personal experiences of practicing as Black family physicians. While we recognize that much more work is needed, we want to amplify these voices. We have compiled a bibliography of scholarship generated by the family medicine community on the topic of racism in medicine.

The collection can be accessed here.

While this list is likely not complete, it does include over 250 published manuscripts and demonstrates expertise as well as a commitment to addressing these complex issues. For example, in 2016, Dr. J. Nwando Olayiwola, chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Ohio State University, wrote an essay on her experiences taking care of patients as a Black family physician.¹⁰ In January of 2019, Family Medicine published an entire issue devoted to racism in education and training.¹¹ Dr. Eduardo Medina, a family physician and public health scholar, co-authored a call to action in 2016 for health professionals to dismantle structural racism and support Black lives to achieve health equity. His recent 2020 article builds on that theme and describes the disproportionate deaths of Black people due to racial injustice and the COVID-19 pandemic as converging public health emergencies.^12,13 In the wake of these emergencies a fundamental transformation is warranted, and family physicians can play a key role.

We, the editors of family medicine journals, commit to actively examine the effects of racism on society and health and to take action to eliminate structural racism in our editorial processes. As an intellectual home for our profession, we have a unique responsibility and opportunity to educate and continue the conversation about institutional racism, health inequities, and antiracism in medicine. We will take immediate steps to enact tangible advances on these fronts. We will encourage and mentor authors from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will ensure that content includes an emphasis on cultural humility, diversity and inclusion, implicit bias, and the impact of racism on medicine and health. We will recruit editors and editorial board members from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will encourage collaboration and accountability within our specialty to confront systemic racism through content and processes in all of our individual publications. We recognize that these are small steps in an ongoing process of active antiracism, but we believe these steps are crucial. As editors in family medicine, we are committed to progress toward equity and justice.

Simultaneously published in American Family Physician, Annals of Family Medicine, Canadian Family Physician, Family Medicine, FP Essentials, FPIN/Evidence Based Practice, FPM, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, The Journal of Family Practice, and PRiMER.

Acknowledgement –

The authors thank Renee Crichlow, MD, Byron Jasper, MD, MPH, and Victoria Murrain, DO, for their insightful comments on this editorial.

The year 2020 was marked by historic protests across the United States and the globe sparked by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and so many other Black people. The protests heightened awareness of racism as a public health crisis and triggered an antiracism movement. Racism is a pervasive and systemic issue that has profound adverse effects on health.^1,2 Racism is associated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes and negative patient experiences in the health care system.^3,4 As evidenced by the current coronavirus pandemic, race is a sociopolitical construct that continues to disadvantage Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other People of Color.^5,6,7,8 The association between racism and adverse health outcomes has been discussed for decades in the medical literature, including the family medicine literature. Today there is a renewed call to action for family medicine, a specialty that emerged as a counterculture to reform mainstream medicine,⁹ to both confront systemic racism and eliminate health disparities. This effort will require collaboration, commitment, education, and transformative conversations around racism, health inequity, and advocacy so that we can better serve our patients and our communities.

The editors of several North American family medicine publications have come together to address this call to action and share resources on racism across our readerships. We acknowledge those members of the family medicine scholar community who have been fighting for equity consistent with the Black Lives Matter movement by writing about racism, health inequities, and personal experiences of practicing as Black family physicians. While we recognize that much more work is needed, we want to amplify these voices. We have compiled a bibliography of scholarship generated by the family medicine community on the topic of racism in medicine.

The collection can be accessed here.

While this list is likely not complete, it does include over 250 published manuscripts and demonstrates expertise as well as a commitment to addressing these complex issues. For example, in 2016, Dr. J. Nwando Olayiwola, chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Ohio State University, wrote an essay on her experiences taking care of patients as a Black family physician.¹⁰ In January of 2019, Family Medicine published an entire issue devoted to racism in education and training.¹¹ Dr. Eduardo Medina, a family physician and public health scholar, co-authored a call to action in 2016 for health professionals to dismantle structural racism and support Black lives to achieve health equity. His recent 2020 article builds on that theme and describes the disproportionate deaths of Black people due to racial injustice and the COVID-19 pandemic as converging public health emergencies.^12,13 In the wake of these emergencies a fundamental transformation is warranted, and family physicians can play a key role.

We, the editors of family medicine journals, commit to actively examine the effects of racism on society and health and to take action to eliminate structural racism in our editorial processes. As an intellectual home for our profession, we have a unique responsibility and opportunity to educate and continue the conversation about institutional racism, health inequities, and antiracism in medicine. We will take immediate steps to enact tangible advances on these fronts. We will encourage and mentor authors from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will ensure that content includes an emphasis on cultural humility, diversity and inclusion, implicit bias, and the impact of racism on medicine and health. We will recruit editors and editorial board members from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will encourage collaboration and accountability within our specialty to confront systemic racism through content and processes in all of our individual publications. We recognize that these are small steps in an ongoing process of active antiracism, but we believe these steps are crucial. As editors in family medicine, we are committed to progress toward equity and justice.

Simultaneously published in American Family Physician, Annals of Family Medicine, Canadian Family Physician, Family Medicine, FP Essentials, FPIN/Evidence Based Practice, FPM, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, The Journal of Family Practice, and PRiMER.

Acknowledgement –

The authors thank Renee Crichlow, MD, Byron Jasper, MD, MPH, and Victoria Murrain, DO, for their insightful comments on this editorial.

The year 2020 was marked by historic protests across the United States and the globe sparked by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and so many other Black people. The protests heightened awareness of racism as a public health crisis and triggered an antiracism movement. Racism is a pervasive and systemic issue that has profound adverse effects on health.^1,2 Racism is associated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes and negative patient experiences in the health care system.^3,4 As evidenced by the current coronavirus pandemic, race is a sociopolitical construct that continues to disadvantage Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other People of Color.^5,6,7,8 The association between racism and adverse health outcomes has been discussed for decades in the medical literature, including the family medicine literature. Today there is a renewed call to action for family medicine, a specialty that emerged as a counterculture to reform mainstream medicine,⁹ to both confront systemic racism and eliminate health disparities. This effort will require collaboration, commitment, education, and transformative conversations around racism, health inequity, and advocacy so that we can better serve our patients and our communities.

The editors of several North American family medicine publications have come together to address this call to action and share resources on racism across our readerships. We acknowledge those members of the family medicine scholar community who have been fighting for equity consistent with the Black Lives Matter movement by writing about racism, health inequities, and personal experiences of practicing as Black family physicians. While we recognize that much more work is needed, we want to amplify these voices. We have compiled a bibliography of scholarship generated by the family medicine community on the topic of racism in medicine.

The collection can be accessed here.

While this list is likely not complete, it does include over 250 published manuscripts and demonstrates expertise as well as a commitment to addressing these complex issues. For example, in 2016, Dr. J. Nwando Olayiwola, chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Ohio State University, wrote an essay on her experiences taking care of patients as a Black family physician.¹⁰ In January of 2019, Family Medicine published an entire issue devoted to racism in education and training.¹¹ Dr. Eduardo Medina, a family physician and public health scholar, co-authored a call to action in 2016 for health professionals to dismantle structural racism and support Black lives to achieve health equity. His recent 2020 article builds on that theme and describes the disproportionate deaths of Black people due to racial injustice and the COVID-19 pandemic as converging public health emergencies.^12,13 In the wake of these emergencies a fundamental transformation is warranted, and family physicians can play a key role.

We, the editors of family medicine journals, commit to actively examine the effects of racism on society and health and to take action to eliminate structural racism in our editorial processes. As an intellectual home for our profession, we have a unique responsibility and opportunity to educate and continue the conversation about institutional racism, health inequities, and antiracism in medicine. We will take immediate steps to enact tangible advances on these fronts. We will encourage and mentor authors from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will ensure that content includes an emphasis on cultural humility, diversity and inclusion, implicit bias, and the impact of racism on medicine and health. We will recruit editors and editorial board members from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will encourage collaboration and accountability within our specialty to confront systemic racism through content and processes in all of our individual publications. We recognize that these are small steps in an ongoing process of active antiracism, but we believe these steps are crucial. As editors in family medicine, we are committed to progress toward equity and justice.

Simultaneously published in American Family Physician, Annals of Family Medicine, Canadian Family Physician, Family Medicine, FP Essentials, FPIN/Evidence Based Practice, FPM, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, The Journal of Family Practice, and PRiMER.

Acknowledgement –

The authors thank Renee Crichlow, MD, Byron Jasper, MD, MPH, and Victoria Murrain, DO, for their insightful comments on this editorial.

I read, with great interest, Dr. Farford’s thorough review article “Diabetic retinopathy: the FP’s role in preserving vision” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:120-126). I am a family physician with ophthalmology training. For more than 20 years, I have regularly performed dilated eye exams and reviewed nonmydriatic fundus photos for uninsured patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) at the community health clinic where I work. The burden of visual loss from poorly controlled diabetes is staggering.

I do, however, want to point out some inaccuracies in the labeling of 2 of the photos included in Table 1.

• The photo labeled “Severe NPDR [nonproliferative DR]”—Figure 1A—actually shows an eye that has been treated with panretinal photocoagulation (multiple laser scars present in all quadrants) with nice regression of DR. Along the superior temporal arcade there is fibrosis, which likely represents regression of vitreal neovascularization or resolution of vitreal hemorrhage. There is little apparent active DR in this photo. The caption indicated the presence of intraretinal microvascular abnormalities; however, while these abnormalities may be present, they are not evident due to the photo resolution.   
• The photo labeled “Proliferative diabetic retinopathy”—Figure 2a—does not show evidence of neovascularization of the disc or the retina. This photo would be more accurately labeled “severe DR with likely clinically significant macular edema.”

The 2 photos shown here, from my photo collection, are perhaps more instructive:

• FIGURE 1B is an example of severe NPDR and maculopathy (this eye has undergone previous panretinal photocoagulation, a treatment option for severe NPDR and proliferative DR [defined as new vessel growth or neovascularization]).
• FIGURE 2b is an example of proliferative DR with vitreal hemorrhage that can lead to irreversible visual loss via traction retinal detachment. 

I appreciate your efforts in publishing Dr. Farford’s article. DR is a broad, complicated topic, and this informative article will help many FPs.

Kenneth Libre, MD
Central City Community Health Center
Salt Lake City, UT

I read, with great interest, Dr. Farford’s thorough review article “Diabetic retinopathy: the FP’s role in preserving vision” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:120-126). I am a family physician with ophthalmology training. For more than 20 years, I have regularly performed dilated eye exams and reviewed nonmydriatic fundus photos for uninsured patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) at the community health clinic where I work. The burden of visual loss from poorly controlled diabetes is staggering.

I do, however, want to point out some inaccuracies in the labeling of 2 of the photos included in Table 1.

• The photo labeled “Severe NPDR [nonproliferative DR]”—Figure 1A—actually shows an eye that has been treated with panretinal photocoagulation (multiple laser scars present in all quadrants) with nice regression of DR. Along the superior temporal arcade there is fibrosis, which likely represents regression of vitreal neovascularization or resolution of vitreal hemorrhage. There is little apparent active DR in this photo. The caption indicated the presence of intraretinal microvascular abnormalities; however, while these abnormalities may be present, they are not evident due to the photo resolution.   
• The photo labeled “Proliferative diabetic retinopathy”—Figure 2a—does not show evidence of neovascularization of the disc or the retina. This photo would be more accurately labeled “severe DR with likely clinically significant macular edema.”

The 2 photos shown here, from my photo collection, are perhaps more instructive:

• FIGURE 1B is an example of severe NPDR and maculopathy (this eye has undergone previous panretinal photocoagulation, a treatment option for severe NPDR and proliferative DR [defined as new vessel growth or neovascularization]).
• FIGURE 2b is an example of proliferative DR with vitreal hemorrhage that can lead to irreversible visual loss via traction retinal detachment. 

I appreciate your efforts in publishing Dr. Farford’s article. DR is a broad, complicated topic, and this informative article will help many FPs.

Kenneth Libre, MD
Central City Community Health Center
Salt Lake City, UT

I read, with great interest, Dr. Farford’s thorough review article “Diabetic retinopathy: the FP’s role in preserving vision” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:120-126). I am a family physician with ophthalmology training. For more than 20 years, I have regularly performed dilated eye exams and reviewed nonmydriatic fundus photos for uninsured patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) at the community health clinic where I work. The burden of visual loss from poorly controlled diabetes is staggering.

I do, however, want to point out some inaccuracies in the labeling of 2 of the photos included in Table 1.

• The photo labeled “Severe NPDR [nonproliferative DR]”—Figure 1A—actually shows an eye that has been treated with panretinal photocoagulation (multiple laser scars present in all quadrants) with nice regression of DR. Along the superior temporal arcade there is fibrosis, which likely represents regression of vitreal neovascularization or resolution of vitreal hemorrhage. There is little apparent active DR in this photo. The caption indicated the presence of intraretinal microvascular abnormalities; however, while these abnormalities may be present, they are not evident due to the photo resolution.   
• The photo labeled “Proliferative diabetic retinopathy”—Figure 2a—does not show evidence of neovascularization of the disc or the retina. This photo would be more accurately labeled “severe DR with likely clinically significant macular edema.”

The 2 photos shown here, from my photo collection, are perhaps more instructive:

• FIGURE 1B is an example of severe NPDR and maculopathy (this eye has undergone previous panretinal photocoagulation, a treatment option for severe NPDR and proliferative DR [defined as new vessel growth or neovascularization]).
• FIGURE 2b is an example of proliferative DR with vitreal hemorrhage that can lead to irreversible visual loss via traction retinal detachment. 

I appreciate your efforts in publishing Dr. Farford’s article. DR is a broad, complicated topic, and this informative article will help many FPs.

Kenneth Libre, MD
Central City Community Health Center
Salt Lake City, UT

Thanks to Dr. Linn et al for “Tips and tools for safe opioid prescribing” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:280-292), which addressed an important topic: the risks of, and poor evidence for, chronic opioids in noncancer pain.

We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain.

Pain management is challenging, and it is easy to prescribe opioids from a desire to help. However, we must translate the evidence of chronic opioids’ poor benefit and real harms into practice. No studies show a long-term benefit of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, but they do demonstrate abundant findings of harm. As a family medicine community, we should be practicing at the highest level of evidence and addressing legacy opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain.

Increasing opioid doses for pain only offers short-term benefits and can result in rapid tolerance and withdrawal. We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain. We do not need more ways to initiate opioids or tables on how to dose long-acting opioids—drugs that increase mortality.¹ Let’s stop using poorly validated tools like DIRE to ignore the evidence against opioids (validated with 61 retrospective chart reviews; 81% sensitivity, 76% specificity for predicting efficacy of opioids).^2,3

A 2018 randomized controlled trial of 240 patients with back, knee, or hip osteoarthritis found opioids were not superior to nonopioid medication for pain-related function at 12 months and had more adverse effects.⁴ A 2015 systematic review concluded there was insufficient evidence of long-term benefits of opioids but a dose-dependent risk of serious harm.⁵ Just 1 year of taking low-dose opioids can increase the risk of opioid use disorder by 0.7%, compared with 0.004% with no opioids.⁵

Practical approaches exist. Excellent examples of modern pain care have been developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and state-level initiatives such as the Oregon Pain Guidance.^6-8 All use a similar clinical algorithm (FIGURE). If pain is poorly controlled, a slow medically supervised tapering of opioids is indicated.

Start the pain management conversation by saying: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. I worry that opioids are causing more harm than good now.”

It can be challenging to raise the subject of opioid tapering with patients; I use Stanford’s BRAVO method to guide these conversations.^9,10 At my facility, we are tapering about 50 legacy opioid patients, and most are surprised to find that their pain is the same or better with reduced to no opioids, with fewer adverse effects. Many are happier on sublingual buprenorphine, a safer opioid analgesic.¹¹ The algorithm shown in the FIGURE and the BRAVO method should be more widely used within our specialty for a safe and patient-centered approach to chronic pain. 

Above all, let the patient know that you are with them on this journey to safe pain management. Start the conversation: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. Our understanding of what opioids do for pain has changed, and I worry they’re causing more harm than good now. This is a scary thing to talk about, but I’ll be with you every step of the way.”

Matt Perez, MD
Neighborcare Health
Seattle

Thanks to Dr. Linn et al for “Tips and tools for safe opioid prescribing” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:280-292), which addressed an important topic: the risks of, and poor evidence for, chronic opioids in noncancer pain.

We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain.

Pain management is challenging, and it is easy to prescribe opioids from a desire to help. However, we must translate the evidence of chronic opioids’ poor benefit and real harms into practice. No studies show a long-term benefit of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, but they do demonstrate abundant findings of harm. As a family medicine community, we should be practicing at the highest level of evidence and addressing legacy opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain.

Increasing opioid doses for pain only offers short-term benefits and can result in rapid tolerance and withdrawal. We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain. We do not need more ways to initiate opioids or tables on how to dose long-acting opioids—drugs that increase mortality.¹ Let’s stop using poorly validated tools like DIRE to ignore the evidence against opioids (validated with 61 retrospective chart reviews; 81% sensitivity, 76% specificity for predicting efficacy of opioids).^2,3

A 2018 randomized controlled trial of 240 patients with back, knee, or hip osteoarthritis found opioids were not superior to nonopioid medication for pain-related function at 12 months and had more adverse effects.⁴ A 2015 systematic review concluded there was insufficient evidence of long-term benefits of opioids but a dose-dependent risk of serious harm.⁵ Just 1 year of taking low-dose opioids can increase the risk of opioid use disorder by 0.7%, compared with 0.004% with no opioids.⁵

Practical approaches exist. Excellent examples of modern pain care have been developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and state-level initiatives such as the Oregon Pain Guidance.^6-8 All use a similar clinical algorithm (FIGURE). If pain is poorly controlled, a slow medically supervised tapering of opioids is indicated.

Start the pain management conversation by saying: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. I worry that opioids are causing more harm than good now.”

It can be challenging to raise the subject of opioid tapering with patients; I use Stanford’s BRAVO method to guide these conversations.^9,10 At my facility, we are tapering about 50 legacy opioid patients, and most are surprised to find that their pain is the same or better with reduced to no opioids, with fewer adverse effects. Many are happier on sublingual buprenorphine, a safer opioid analgesic.¹¹ The algorithm shown in the FIGURE and the BRAVO method should be more widely used within our specialty for a safe and patient-centered approach to chronic pain. 

Above all, let the patient know that you are with them on this journey to safe pain management. Start the conversation: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. Our understanding of what opioids do for pain has changed, and I worry they’re causing more harm than good now. This is a scary thing to talk about, but I’ll be with you every step of the way.”

Matt Perez, MD
Neighborcare Health
Seattle

Thanks to Dr. Linn et al for “Tips and tools for safe opioid prescribing” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:280-292), which addressed an important topic: the risks of, and poor evidence for, chronic opioids in noncancer pain.

We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain.

Pain management is challenging, and it is easy to prescribe opioids from a desire to help. However, we must translate the evidence of chronic opioids’ poor benefit and real harms into practice. No studies show a long-term benefit of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, but they do demonstrate abundant findings of harm. As a family medicine community, we should be practicing at the highest level of evidence and addressing legacy opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain.

Increasing opioid doses for pain only offers short-term benefits and can result in rapid tolerance and withdrawal. We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain. We do not need more ways to initiate opioids or tables on how to dose long-acting opioids—drugs that increase mortality.¹ Let’s stop using poorly validated tools like DIRE to ignore the evidence against opioids (validated with 61 retrospective chart reviews; 81% sensitivity, 76% specificity for predicting efficacy of opioids).^2,3

A 2018 randomized controlled trial of 240 patients with back, knee, or hip osteoarthritis found opioids were not superior to nonopioid medication for pain-related function at 12 months and had more adverse effects.⁴ A 2015 systematic review concluded there was insufficient evidence of long-term benefits of opioids but a dose-dependent risk of serious harm.⁵ Just 1 year of taking low-dose opioids can increase the risk of opioid use disorder by 0.7%, compared with 0.004% with no opioids.⁵

Practical approaches exist. Excellent examples of modern pain care have been developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and state-level initiatives such as the Oregon Pain Guidance.^6-8 All use a similar clinical algorithm (FIGURE). If pain is poorly controlled, a slow medically supervised tapering of opioids is indicated.

Start the pain management conversation by saying: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. I worry that opioids are causing more harm than good now.”

It can be challenging to raise the subject of opioid tapering with patients; I use Stanford’s BRAVO method to guide these conversations.^9,10 At my facility, we are tapering about 50 legacy opioid patients, and most are surprised to find that their pain is the same or better with reduced to no opioids, with fewer adverse effects. Many are happier on sublingual buprenorphine, a safer opioid analgesic.¹¹ The algorithm shown in the FIGURE and the BRAVO method should be more widely used within our specialty for a safe and patient-centered approach to chronic pain. 

Above all, let the patient know that you are with them on this journey to safe pain management. Start the conversation: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. Our understanding of what opioids do for pain has changed, and I worry they’re causing more harm than good now. This is a scary thing to talk about, but I’ll be with you every step of the way.”

Matt Perez, MD
Neighborcare Health
Seattle

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.