Commentary

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.¹ Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”² This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.³ Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.³ From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.⁴

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.³ Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.^5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.⁸ However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.⁶

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.⁴ Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.⁹ A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM¹⁰; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.⁹ Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.

Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.¹¹ A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.¹¹ The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.¹²

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,¹³ but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.¹⁴ These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.

There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.¹ Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”² This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.³ Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.³ From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.⁴

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.³ Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.^5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.⁸ However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.⁶

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.⁴ Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.⁹ A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM¹⁰; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.⁹ Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.

Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.¹¹ A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.¹¹ The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.¹²

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,¹³ but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.¹⁴ These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.

There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.¹ Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”² This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.³ Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.³ From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.⁴

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.³ Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.^5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.⁸ However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.⁶

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.⁴ Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.⁹ A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM¹⁰; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.⁹ Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.

Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.¹¹ A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.¹¹ The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.¹²

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,¹³ but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.¹⁴ These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.

There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

To say that the pandemic has dropped us into uncharted territory is an understatement of unmeasurable proportions. Every day we learn more about it, and every day that new information brings us new challenges. COVID-19 is playing by its own set of rules. To keep pace with it societies have been forced to adapt to them, and members of those societies have had to realize that these new rules must be obeyed or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

BananaStock/Thinkstock

I’m not sure exactly when it happened but gradually over my 7 and a half decades on this planet it appears that following the rules and understanding the value of “No” have become concepts to be ignored and left to gather dust in the attics and basements of our society. The tug of war between well-considered rules and the often misinterpreted concept of freedom has been ebbing and flowing since Eve plucked a forbidden apple off that tree.

In some parts of the world, the twin skills of saying and responding to “No” have become lost arts. I think it is not by chance that, of the four books I have written for parents, the one titled “How to Say No to Your Toddler” has become the most widely distributed, having been translated into Italian, Polish, and Russian. It is only slightly comforting to learn that at least some parents understand that creating rules can be important, but realize they aren’t quite sure how go about it.

As it has become clear that social distancing and mask wearing are associated with curtailing the spread of COVID-19, state and local governments have had to bone up on their long-forgotten No-saying skills. This relearning process has been particularly painful for school administrators who may have been warned that “You’ll never be able to get first and second graders to wear masks” or that “College students just won’t obey the rules.”

Both of these cautions are based on observations by educators with years of experience and certainly have a ring of truth to them. But could it be that these pessimistic predictions reflect a society in which parents and educators have lost the talent for crafting sensible rules and linking them to enforceable and rational consequences?

As colleges throughout the country have reopened using a variety of learning and residential strategies, there have been numerous incidents that validate the gloomy predictions of student misbehavior. Smaller schools seem to be having less difficulty, which is not surprising given their relative ease in fostering a sense of community. Many schools have been forced to rollback their plans for in-person learning because students have failed to follow some very simple but unpopular rules.

In a swift and decisive response to student misbehavior, Northeastern University in Boston dismissed 11 first-year students and will not refund their tuition when officials discovered a prohibited social gathering in one of the resident facilities (“Northeastern Dismisses 11 Students for Gathering in Violation of COVID-19 Policies,” by Ian Thomsen, News at Northwestern). This response seemed to have come as a surprise to many students and parents around the country who have become accustomed a diet of warnings and minor sanctions.

Whether this action by Northeastern will trigger similar responses by other universities remains to be seen. But we can hope that it sets an example of how learning about “No” can be an important part of one’s education.
 

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].

To say that the pandemic has dropped us into uncharted territory is an understatement of unmeasurable proportions. Every day we learn more about it, and every day that new information brings us new challenges. COVID-19 is playing by its own set of rules. To keep pace with it societies have been forced to adapt to them, and members of those societies have had to realize that these new rules must be obeyed or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

BananaStock/Thinkstock

I’m not sure exactly when it happened but gradually over my 7 and a half decades on this planet it appears that following the rules and understanding the value of “No” have become concepts to be ignored and left to gather dust in the attics and basements of our society. The tug of war between well-considered rules and the often misinterpreted concept of freedom has been ebbing and flowing since Eve plucked a forbidden apple off that tree.

In some parts of the world, the twin skills of saying and responding to “No” have become lost arts. I think it is not by chance that, of the four books I have written for parents, the one titled “How to Say No to Your Toddler” has become the most widely distributed, having been translated into Italian, Polish, and Russian. It is only slightly comforting to learn that at least some parents understand that creating rules can be important, but realize they aren’t quite sure how go about it.

As it has become clear that social distancing and mask wearing are associated with curtailing the spread of COVID-19, state and local governments have had to bone up on their long-forgotten No-saying skills. This relearning process has been particularly painful for school administrators who may have been warned that “You’ll never be able to get first and second graders to wear masks” or that “College students just won’t obey the rules.”

Both of these cautions are based on observations by educators with years of experience and certainly have a ring of truth to them. But could it be that these pessimistic predictions reflect a society in which parents and educators have lost the talent for crafting sensible rules and linking them to enforceable and rational consequences?

As colleges throughout the country have reopened using a variety of learning and residential strategies, there have been numerous incidents that validate the gloomy predictions of student misbehavior. Smaller schools seem to be having less difficulty, which is not surprising given their relative ease in fostering a sense of community. Many schools have been forced to rollback their plans for in-person learning because students have failed to follow some very simple but unpopular rules.

In a swift and decisive response to student misbehavior, Northeastern University in Boston dismissed 11 first-year students and will not refund their tuition when officials discovered a prohibited social gathering in one of the resident facilities (“Northeastern Dismisses 11 Students for Gathering in Violation of COVID-19 Policies,” by Ian Thomsen, News at Northwestern). This response seemed to have come as a surprise to many students and parents around the country who have become accustomed a diet of warnings and minor sanctions.

Whether this action by Northeastern will trigger similar responses by other universities remains to be seen. But we can hope that it sets an example of how learning about “No” can be an important part of one’s education.
 

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].

To say that the pandemic has dropped us into uncharted territory is an understatement of unmeasurable proportions. Every day we learn more about it, and every day that new information brings us new challenges. COVID-19 is playing by its own set of rules. To keep pace with it societies have been forced to adapt to them, and members of those societies have had to realize that these new rules must be obeyed or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

BananaStock/Thinkstock

I’m not sure exactly when it happened but gradually over my 7 and a half decades on this planet it appears that following the rules and understanding the value of “No” have become concepts to be ignored and left to gather dust in the attics and basements of our society. The tug of war between well-considered rules and the often misinterpreted concept of freedom has been ebbing and flowing since Eve plucked a forbidden apple off that tree.

In some parts of the world, the twin skills of saying and responding to “No” have become lost arts. I think it is not by chance that, of the four books I have written for parents, the one titled “How to Say No to Your Toddler” has become the most widely distributed, having been translated into Italian, Polish, and Russian. It is only slightly comforting to learn that at least some parents understand that creating rules can be important, but realize they aren’t quite sure how go about it.

As it has become clear that social distancing and mask wearing are associated with curtailing the spread of COVID-19, state and local governments have had to bone up on their long-forgotten No-saying skills. This relearning process has been particularly painful for school administrators who may have been warned that “You’ll never be able to get first and second graders to wear masks” or that “College students just won’t obey the rules.”

Both of these cautions are based on observations by educators with years of experience and certainly have a ring of truth to them. But could it be that these pessimistic predictions reflect a society in which parents and educators have lost the talent for crafting sensible rules and linking them to enforceable and rational consequences?

As colleges throughout the country have reopened using a variety of learning and residential strategies, there have been numerous incidents that validate the gloomy predictions of student misbehavior. Smaller schools seem to be having less difficulty, which is not surprising given their relative ease in fostering a sense of community. Many schools have been forced to rollback their plans for in-person learning because students have failed to follow some very simple but unpopular rules.

In a swift and decisive response to student misbehavior, Northeastern University in Boston dismissed 11 first-year students and will not refund their tuition when officials discovered a prohibited social gathering in one of the resident facilities (“Northeastern Dismisses 11 Students for Gathering in Violation of COVID-19 Policies,” by Ian Thomsen, News at Northwestern). This response seemed to have come as a surprise to many students and parents around the country who have become accustomed a diet of warnings and minor sanctions.

Whether this action by Northeastern will trigger similar responses by other universities remains to be seen. But we can hope that it sets an example of how learning about “No” can be an important part of one’s education.
 

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 we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.

Greg Pollock - Fotolia.com

When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.

When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.

The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. Here in Maine, the organizations responsible for making decisions about school sports struggled for months in making their decision. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.

Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.

There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.

Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
 

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.” Email him at [email protected].

As we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.

Greg Pollock - Fotolia.com

When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.

When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.

The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. Here in Maine, the organizations responsible for making decisions about school sports struggled for months in making their decision. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.

Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.

There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.

Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
 

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.” Email him at [email protected].

As we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.

Greg Pollock - Fotolia.com

When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.

When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.

The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. Here in Maine, the organizations responsible for making decisions about school sports struggled for months in making their decision. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.

Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.

There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.

Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
 

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.” Email him at [email protected].

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.