Commentary

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

“So what do you do all day?”

Everyone asks that, right after they ask, “How do you like retirement?” I tell them I like it fine.

Asking what an emeritus does all day sounds fair, but the question is harder to answer than it sounds. Last year, I asked Dave, who was already retired. He took a day to think about it.

“Sometimes I sit on the back porch and watch the birds,” he said.

Dave has long been an avid bird-watcher. Along with golf and Facebook, watching birds is a pursuit that really engages many people, but I never understood it. I still don’t.

Over the years, I’ve met people whose experience of retirement has ranged from, “I’m so busy, I don’t know how I had time to work!” to, “I miss the gang and I’m bored,” to everything in between. Before I (semi-) retired, I made a plan to not make plans, at least at first: No new hobbies, cooking lessons, or anthropology courses. I figured I would figure it out.

So I am figuring it out. No rush. After a lifetime of rushing, not rushing is part of the point.

One hobby I cultivate is napping. I always get up early, no alarm needed. By late morning I am sometimes inclined to lie down for a bit. Taking a midmorning nap has always struck me as one of life’s great pleasures, though one I could rarely enjoy, unless you count dozing off standing up while a patient described an itch that started 17 years before, on a Thursday.

Now I can shut my eyes for half an hour and wake up refreshed, ready for the rest of the day.

During which I will do ...

An older friend of mine, now long gone, wrote a witty essay on being embarrassed to work at home. He refused to answer the phone during the day and hid from the postman. Contemplating retirement, I was afraid I would also feel that way, picturing myself a pitiful pensioner shuffling abroad at mid-day, looking for a park to poison pigeons in. That of course was before “working remotely” became a goal for cool young strivers. You see them around at all hours, with things sticking out of their ears, talking urgently to no one you can see.

Now I also walk the streets proudly at 11 a.m. or 2:45 p.m. I may get one of those earbuds that stick out at 45 degrees, so people can think my ear fungus has grown branches. Maybe they’ll imagine me a mastermind of an international CBD cartel. What they think doesn’t really matter.

One thing that I actually do all day is wonder why I spent so much of my career worrying about what other people think. Dr. Smith used to refer patients. No longer. Did I fail to meet her expectations? Mr. Trelawney came in weekly with itches and pains. No more. Did I roll my eyes too obviously?

Questions like these used to trouble me. Now I can’t recall why. Instead I worry about more important things, like who will play right field for the Red Sox this year.

Though I never signed up, I am an enrolled Baby Boomer, that navel-gazing cohort now passing from the scene while pretending it won’t. I never understood my generation when it was claiming to overturn the universe in the 1960s. Now its members write and read books with chirpy titles like “Amazing Aging!” as though – because we are so wonderfully special – age, infirmity, and decline will repeal themselves just for us.

Well, anyone can dream.

I go into the office a couple of half-days a week, when I’m in town. I like bantering with the gang and chatting with old patients. They wish me well and hope I’ll refer them to someone worthy when I hang them up for good, as many of their (and my) doctors already have.

Here is one thing I don’t do all day – manage human resource issues in the office. What’s to miss?

Now and then, with lessening frequency, I muse, “Well, if I do get bored, I can always spend more time in the office.”

Time for another nap.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semi-retired, after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. Write to him at [email protected].

“So what do you do all day?”

Everyone asks that, right after they ask, “How do you like retirement?” I tell them I like it fine.

Asking what an emeritus does all day sounds fair, but the question is harder to answer than it sounds. Last year, I asked Dave, who was already retired. He took a day to think about it.

“Sometimes I sit on the back porch and watch the birds,” he said.

Dave has long been an avid bird-watcher. Along with golf and Facebook, watching birds is a pursuit that really engages many people, but I never understood it. I still don’t.

Over the years, I’ve met people whose experience of retirement has ranged from, “I’m so busy, I don’t know how I had time to work!” to, “I miss the gang and I’m bored,” to everything in between. Before I (semi-) retired, I made a plan to not make plans, at least at first: No new hobbies, cooking lessons, or anthropology courses. I figured I would figure it out.

So I am figuring it out. No rush. After a lifetime of rushing, not rushing is part of the point.

One hobby I cultivate is napping. I always get up early, no alarm needed. By late morning I am sometimes inclined to lie down for a bit. Taking a midmorning nap has always struck me as one of life’s great pleasures, though one I could rarely enjoy, unless you count dozing off standing up while a patient described an itch that started 17 years before, on a Thursday.

Now I can shut my eyes for half an hour and wake up refreshed, ready for the rest of the day.

During which I will do ...

An older friend of mine, now long gone, wrote a witty essay on being embarrassed to work at home. He refused to answer the phone during the day and hid from the postman. Contemplating retirement, I was afraid I would also feel that way, picturing myself a pitiful pensioner shuffling abroad at mid-day, looking for a park to poison pigeons in. That of course was before “working remotely” became a goal for cool young strivers. You see them around at all hours, with things sticking out of their ears, talking urgently to no one you can see.

Now I also walk the streets proudly at 11 a.m. or 2:45 p.m. I may get one of those earbuds that stick out at 45 degrees, so people can think my ear fungus has grown branches. Maybe they’ll imagine me a mastermind of an international CBD cartel. What they think doesn’t really matter.

One thing that I actually do all day is wonder why I spent so much of my career worrying about what other people think. Dr. Smith used to refer patients. No longer. Did I fail to meet her expectations? Mr. Trelawney came in weekly with itches and pains. No more. Did I roll my eyes too obviously?

Questions like these used to trouble me. Now I can’t recall why. Instead I worry about more important things, like who will play right field for the Red Sox this year.

Though I never signed up, I am an enrolled Baby Boomer, that navel-gazing cohort now passing from the scene while pretending it won’t. I never understood my generation when it was claiming to overturn the universe in the 1960s. Now its members write and read books with chirpy titles like “Amazing Aging!” as though – because we are so wonderfully special – age, infirmity, and decline will repeal themselves just for us.

Well, anyone can dream.

I go into the office a couple of half-days a week, when I’m in town. I like bantering with the gang and chatting with old patients. They wish me well and hope I’ll refer them to someone worthy when I hang them up for good, as many of their (and my) doctors already have.

Here is one thing I don’t do all day – manage human resource issues in the office. What’s to miss?

Now and then, with lessening frequency, I muse, “Well, if I do get bored, I can always spend more time in the office.”

Time for another nap.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semi-retired, after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. Write to him at [email protected].

“So what do you do all day?”

Everyone asks that, right after they ask, “How do you like retirement?” I tell them I like it fine.

Asking what an emeritus does all day sounds fair, but the question is harder to answer than it sounds. Last year, I asked Dave, who was already retired. He took a day to think about it.

“Sometimes I sit on the back porch and watch the birds,” he said.

Dave has long been an avid bird-watcher. Along with golf and Facebook, watching birds is a pursuit that really engages many people, but I never understood it. I still don’t.

Over the years, I’ve met people whose experience of retirement has ranged from, “I’m so busy, I don’t know how I had time to work!” to, “I miss the gang and I’m bored,” to everything in between. Before I (semi-) retired, I made a plan to not make plans, at least at first: No new hobbies, cooking lessons, or anthropology courses. I figured I would figure it out.

So I am figuring it out. No rush. After a lifetime of rushing, not rushing is part of the point.

One hobby I cultivate is napping. I always get up early, no alarm needed. By late morning I am sometimes inclined to lie down for a bit. Taking a midmorning nap has always struck me as one of life’s great pleasures, though one I could rarely enjoy, unless you count dozing off standing up while a patient described an itch that started 17 years before, on a Thursday.

Now I can shut my eyes for half an hour and wake up refreshed, ready for the rest of the day.

During which I will do ...

An older friend of mine, now long gone, wrote a witty essay on being embarrassed to work at home. He refused to answer the phone during the day and hid from the postman. Contemplating retirement, I was afraid I would also feel that way, picturing myself a pitiful pensioner shuffling abroad at mid-day, looking for a park to poison pigeons in. That of course was before “working remotely” became a goal for cool young strivers. You see them around at all hours, with things sticking out of their ears, talking urgently to no one you can see.

Now I also walk the streets proudly at 11 a.m. or 2:45 p.m. I may get one of those earbuds that stick out at 45 degrees, so people can think my ear fungus has grown branches. Maybe they’ll imagine me a mastermind of an international CBD cartel. What they think doesn’t really matter.

One thing that I actually do all day is wonder why I spent so much of my career worrying about what other people think. Dr. Smith used to refer patients. No longer. Did I fail to meet her expectations? Mr. Trelawney came in weekly with itches and pains. No more. Did I roll my eyes too obviously?

Questions like these used to trouble me. Now I can’t recall why. Instead I worry about more important things, like who will play right field for the Red Sox this year.

Though I never signed up, I am an enrolled Baby Boomer, that navel-gazing cohort now passing from the scene while pretending it won’t. I never understood my generation when it was claiming to overturn the universe in the 1960s. Now its members write and read books with chirpy titles like “Amazing Aging!” as though – because we are so wonderfully special – age, infirmity, and decline will repeal themselves just for us.

Well, anyone can dream.

I go into the office a couple of half-days a week, when I’m in town. I like bantering with the gang and chatting with old patients. They wish me well and hope I’ll refer them to someone worthy when I hang them up for good, as many of their (and my) doctors already have.

Here is one thing I don’t do all day – manage human resource issues in the office. What’s to miss?

Now and then, with lessening frequency, I muse, “Well, if I do get bored, I can always spend more time in the office.”

Time for another nap.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semi-retired, after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. Write to him at [email protected].

Patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for developing the herpes simplex virus (HSV)–related skin complication “eczema herpeticum,” also known as Kaposi’s varicelliform eruption. Eczema herpeticum is characterized by cutaneous pain and vesicular skin lesions, most commonly secondary to infection with HSV-1. The condition may affect individuals with atopic dermatitis or other inflammatory skin disorders. Eczema herpeticum develops when the virus infects large areas of skin, rather than being confined to a small area as in the common cold sore. Eczema herpeticum often appears on the face and neck, although it can appear anywhere on the body. In some cases, the rash may be difficult to distinguish from a patient’s baseline eczema if the latter is poorly controlled. Skin symptoms of eczema herpeticum include clusters of small blisters that are itchy and painful; vesicles that appear red, purple, or black; purulent blisters; or crusting. Classically, the morphology of vesicles or crusted lesions shows a “cluster of grapes” appearance. Eczema herpeticum may present with a high fever, chills, and swollen lymph glands.

Courtesy Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

While a clinical diagnosis based on the history, physical findings, and morphologic appearance of the rash is reasonable, testing may confirm the diagnosis. The most sensitive and specific tests are polymerase chain reaction sequencing for HSV, direct fluorescent antibody stain, and/or viral culture, while Tzanck smear may show characteristic histologic changes. Treatment is with oral antiviral therapy and treatment of the eczema.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common viral illness usually affecting infants and children. The infection often involves the hands, feet, mouth, and sometimes, the genitals and buttocks. The viral exanthem is most commonly caused by the coxsackievirus, of the enterovirus family. Coxsackievirus A16 and enterovirus A71 are the serotypes that are most commonly implicated as the causative agents. HFMD initially presents with a low-grade fever, reduced appetite, and general malaise. About 1-2 days later, the child may develop painful mouth sores with an exanthem that involves the dorsum of the hands, soles of the feet, buttocks, legs, and arms. The exanthem consists of vesicles surrounded by a thin halo of erythema, eventually rupturing and forming superficial ulcers with a gray-yellow base and erythematous rim. The exanthem is itchy, and can be macular, papular, or vesicular. The lesions are nonpruritic, and typically not painful. The diagnosis of HFMD usually is made clinically, although a physician can swab the mouth or get a stool sample for polymerase chain reaction, which will show the virus; treatment is supportive. In children with atopic dermatitis, lesions also can tend to concentrate in areas previously or currently affected by the dermatitis, similar to eczema herpeticum, and the terms eczema coxsackium or atypical HFMD are applicable. In young adults, the disease may present with erythematous papulovesicular lesions on the face, oral mucosa, extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, and palms and soles; confluent, hemorrhagic, and crusted lesions also can be seen on the extremities. Systemic symptoms usually subside in a few days; the skin lesions resolve without scarring in days to weeks.

Secondary bacterial infection is not uncommon in eczema herpeticum patients, reflecting common Staphylococcus aureus infection in atopic dermatitis patients. Streptococcus also may be seen as a concurrent infection. Treatment of secondary bacterial infection may be considered based on clinic context and culture.

Impetiginized eczema also is in the differential diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. S. aureus and Streptococci are the most important causative organisms. Lesions can manifest as a single red papule or macule that quickly becomes vesicular or eroded. Subsequently, the content dries, forming honey-colored crusts. Impetigo may resolve spontaneously, although in the context of infected eczema both topical anti-inflammatory agents (e.g. topical corticosteroids) along with systemic antibiotics may be a reasonable treatment option. Although our patient had honey-colored crusting, the wound culture showed normal bacterial flora.

Primary varicella infection causes acute fever and rash, with an initial exanthem of disseminated pruritic erythematous macules that progress beyond the papular stage, forming clear, fluid-filled vesicles (like dewdrops on a rose petal). In children, the rash presents on the stomach, back, and face, and then spreads to other parts of the body. Blisters also can arise inside the mouth.

In this patient, perioral HSV PCR 1 was positive, and wound culture showed normal oral flora with no organisms or white blood cells seen. The patient responded well to oral acyclovir, and treatment of his underlying atopic dermatitis with low-potency topical corticosteroids.
 

Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither of the physicians had relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

Sources

Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec;58(12):1358-61.

William L Weston, MD., William Howe, MD. UpToDate. Treatment of atopic dermatitis (eczema).

Christine Johnson, MD, Anna Wald, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of herpes simplex virus type 1 infection.

Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Atypical exanthems in children.

National Eczema Association. Eczema herpeticum.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptoms and diagnosis of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD).

Patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for developing the herpes simplex virus (HSV)–related skin complication “eczema herpeticum,” also known as Kaposi’s varicelliform eruption. Eczema herpeticum is characterized by cutaneous pain and vesicular skin lesions, most commonly secondary to infection with HSV-1. The condition may affect individuals with atopic dermatitis or other inflammatory skin disorders. Eczema herpeticum develops when the virus infects large areas of skin, rather than being confined to a small area as in the common cold sore. Eczema herpeticum often appears on the face and neck, although it can appear anywhere on the body. In some cases, the rash may be difficult to distinguish from a patient’s baseline eczema if the latter is poorly controlled. Skin symptoms of eczema herpeticum include clusters of small blisters that are itchy and painful; vesicles that appear red, purple, or black; purulent blisters; or crusting. Classically, the morphology of vesicles or crusted lesions shows a “cluster of grapes” appearance. Eczema herpeticum may present with a high fever, chills, and swollen lymph glands.

Courtesy Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

While a clinical diagnosis based on the history, physical findings, and morphologic appearance of the rash is reasonable, testing may confirm the diagnosis. The most sensitive and specific tests are polymerase chain reaction sequencing for HSV, direct fluorescent antibody stain, and/or viral culture, while Tzanck smear may show characteristic histologic changes. Treatment is with oral antiviral therapy and treatment of the eczema.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common viral illness usually affecting infants and children. The infection often involves the hands, feet, mouth, and sometimes, the genitals and buttocks. The viral exanthem is most commonly caused by the coxsackievirus, of the enterovirus family. Coxsackievirus A16 and enterovirus A71 are the serotypes that are most commonly implicated as the causative agents. HFMD initially presents with a low-grade fever, reduced appetite, and general malaise. About 1-2 days later, the child may develop painful mouth sores with an exanthem that involves the dorsum of the hands, soles of the feet, buttocks, legs, and arms. The exanthem consists of vesicles surrounded by a thin halo of erythema, eventually rupturing and forming superficial ulcers with a gray-yellow base and erythematous rim. The exanthem is itchy, and can be macular, papular, or vesicular. The lesions are nonpruritic, and typically not painful. The diagnosis of HFMD usually is made clinically, although a physician can swab the mouth or get a stool sample for polymerase chain reaction, which will show the virus; treatment is supportive. In children with atopic dermatitis, lesions also can tend to concentrate in areas previously or currently affected by the dermatitis, similar to eczema herpeticum, and the terms eczema coxsackium or atypical HFMD are applicable. In young adults, the disease may present with erythematous papulovesicular lesions on the face, oral mucosa, extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, and palms and soles; confluent, hemorrhagic, and crusted lesions also can be seen on the extremities. Systemic symptoms usually subside in a few days; the skin lesions resolve without scarring in days to weeks.

Secondary bacterial infection is not uncommon in eczema herpeticum patients, reflecting common Staphylococcus aureus infection in atopic dermatitis patients. Streptococcus also may be seen as a concurrent infection. Treatment of secondary bacterial infection may be considered based on clinic context and culture.

Impetiginized eczema also is in the differential diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. S. aureus and Streptococci are the most important causative organisms. Lesions can manifest as a single red papule or macule that quickly becomes vesicular or eroded. Subsequently, the content dries, forming honey-colored crusts. Impetigo may resolve spontaneously, although in the context of infected eczema both topical anti-inflammatory agents (e.g. topical corticosteroids) along with systemic antibiotics may be a reasonable treatment option. Although our patient had honey-colored crusting, the wound culture showed normal bacterial flora.

Primary varicella infection causes acute fever and rash, with an initial exanthem of disseminated pruritic erythematous macules that progress beyond the papular stage, forming clear, fluid-filled vesicles (like dewdrops on a rose petal). In children, the rash presents on the stomach, back, and face, and then spreads to other parts of the body. Blisters also can arise inside the mouth.

In this patient, perioral HSV PCR 1 was positive, and wound culture showed normal oral flora with no organisms or white blood cells seen. The patient responded well to oral acyclovir, and treatment of his underlying atopic dermatitis with low-potency topical corticosteroids.
 

Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither of the physicians had relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

Sources

Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec;58(12):1358-61.

William L Weston, MD., William Howe, MD. UpToDate. Treatment of atopic dermatitis (eczema).

Christine Johnson, MD, Anna Wald, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of herpes simplex virus type 1 infection.

Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Atypical exanthems in children.

National Eczema Association. Eczema herpeticum.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptoms and diagnosis of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD).

Patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for developing the herpes simplex virus (HSV)–related skin complication “eczema herpeticum,” also known as Kaposi’s varicelliform eruption. Eczema herpeticum is characterized by cutaneous pain and vesicular skin lesions, most commonly secondary to infection with HSV-1. The condition may affect individuals with atopic dermatitis or other inflammatory skin disorders. Eczema herpeticum develops when the virus infects large areas of skin, rather than being confined to a small area as in the common cold sore. Eczema herpeticum often appears on the face and neck, although it can appear anywhere on the body. In some cases, the rash may be difficult to distinguish from a patient’s baseline eczema if the latter is poorly controlled. Skin symptoms of eczema herpeticum include clusters of small blisters that are itchy and painful; vesicles that appear red, purple, or black; purulent blisters; or crusting. Classically, the morphology of vesicles or crusted lesions shows a “cluster of grapes” appearance. Eczema herpeticum may present with a high fever, chills, and swollen lymph glands.

Courtesy Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

While a clinical diagnosis based on the history, physical findings, and morphologic appearance of the rash is reasonable, testing may confirm the diagnosis. The most sensitive and specific tests are polymerase chain reaction sequencing for HSV, direct fluorescent antibody stain, and/or viral culture, while Tzanck smear may show characteristic histologic changes. Treatment is with oral antiviral therapy and treatment of the eczema.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common viral illness usually affecting infants and children. The infection often involves the hands, feet, mouth, and sometimes, the genitals and buttocks. The viral exanthem is most commonly caused by the coxsackievirus, of the enterovirus family. Coxsackievirus A16 and enterovirus A71 are the serotypes that are most commonly implicated as the causative agents. HFMD initially presents with a low-grade fever, reduced appetite, and general malaise. About 1-2 days later, the child may develop painful mouth sores with an exanthem that involves the dorsum of the hands, soles of the feet, buttocks, legs, and arms. The exanthem consists of vesicles surrounded by a thin halo of erythema, eventually rupturing and forming superficial ulcers with a gray-yellow base and erythematous rim. The exanthem is itchy, and can be macular, papular, or vesicular. The lesions are nonpruritic, and typically not painful. The diagnosis of HFMD usually is made clinically, although a physician can swab the mouth or get a stool sample for polymerase chain reaction, which will show the virus; treatment is supportive. In children with atopic dermatitis, lesions also can tend to concentrate in areas previously or currently affected by the dermatitis, similar to eczema herpeticum, and the terms eczema coxsackium or atypical HFMD are applicable. In young adults, the disease may present with erythematous papulovesicular lesions on the face, oral mucosa, extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, and palms and soles; confluent, hemorrhagic, and crusted lesions also can be seen on the extremities. Systemic symptoms usually subside in a few days; the skin lesions resolve without scarring in days to weeks.

Secondary bacterial infection is not uncommon in eczema herpeticum patients, reflecting common Staphylococcus aureus infection in atopic dermatitis patients. Streptococcus also may be seen as a concurrent infection. Treatment of secondary bacterial infection may be considered based on clinic context and culture.

Impetiginized eczema also is in the differential diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. S. aureus and Streptococci are the most important causative organisms. Lesions can manifest as a single red papule or macule that quickly becomes vesicular or eroded. Subsequently, the content dries, forming honey-colored crusts. Impetigo may resolve spontaneously, although in the context of infected eczema both topical anti-inflammatory agents (e.g. topical corticosteroids) along with systemic antibiotics may be a reasonable treatment option. Although our patient had honey-colored crusting, the wound culture showed normal bacterial flora.

Primary varicella infection causes acute fever and rash, with an initial exanthem of disseminated pruritic erythematous macules that progress beyond the papular stage, forming clear, fluid-filled vesicles (like dewdrops on a rose petal). In children, the rash presents on the stomach, back, and face, and then spreads to other parts of the body. Blisters also can arise inside the mouth.

In this patient, perioral HSV PCR 1 was positive, and wound culture showed normal oral flora with no organisms or white blood cells seen. The patient responded well to oral acyclovir, and treatment of his underlying atopic dermatitis with low-potency topical corticosteroids.
 

Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither of the physicians had relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

Sources

Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec;58(12):1358-61.

William L Weston, MD., William Howe, MD. UpToDate. Treatment of atopic dermatitis (eczema).

Christine Johnson, MD, Anna Wald, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of herpes simplex virus type 1 infection.

Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Atypical exanthems in children.

National Eczema Association. Eczema herpeticum.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptoms and diagnosis of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD).

Efforts toward early identification and treatment are an important facet of the public health work in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

O_Lypa/iStock/Getty Images

The prevalence of ASD is rising. With the most recent estimate from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention of 1 in 59* children aged 8 years,¹ it is important for pediatric health care providers to have an understanding of current recommendations for treatment so they can counsel and guide affected families. ASD is a heterogeneous condition, so this article seeks to touch on broad principles, recognizing that clinicians must take into account the full clinical picture of each individual and family.

It is important to acknowledge that while there is no cure for ASD, there are treatment modalities that have an evidence base for addressing specific areas that may be impaired in children with autism. While it is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the potential areas of intervention in children with ASD, it is important to be keep in mind a few important principles.

1. The best evidenced treatment for addressing challenging and problematic behavior as well as improving a host of outcomes in children with ASD is itself behavioral in nature. These treatments are based on the principles of applied behavioral analysis,² an educational and therapeutic approach which involves looking at antecedents and consequences of behaviors. This approach also looks to shape, motivate, and reinforce functional behaviors while discouraging harmful and disruptive ones.

2. Because communication often is impaired in children with ASD, providers always should investigate for possible medical causes of pain or discomfort that might explain sudden behavior change, as well as environmental changes that could be involved.

3. The overarching principle of psychopharmacology in ASD is to start low, and go slow – because children with ASD often are particularly sensitive to medication side effects.
 

Irritability/aggression/extreme mood lability

There are only two medications with Food and Drug Administration labeling for an autism specific condition, and those are aripiprazole and risperidone, two second-generation antipsychotic agents approved for irritability associated with ASD on the basis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy.^3,4 Included under the umbrella of irritability are aggression, deliberate self-injurious behavior, extreme temper tantrums, and quick and extreme mood changes. For aripiprazole the approved ages are 6-17 years; a dosing range of 2-15 mg/day is recommended. For risperidone, the approved age range is 5-17 years; the recommended dosing range is 0.25-4 mg/day. Prior to starting either of these medications, a cardiac history should be obtained, and baseline laboratory values, particularly lipid levels and hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) are recommended. All second-generation antipsychotics carry the risk of tardive dyskinesia (a movement disorder), as well as risk of weight gain and metabolic effects. Baseline weight prior to medication initiation with routine follow-up measurement is encouraged. In light of the burden of potential side effects, these medications tend to be reserved by clinicians for circumstances where there is a significant impact on functioning. Both medications are available in liquid form for children with difficulty swallowing pills.

ADHD

There are positive RCTs of methylphenidate in co-occurring ASD and ADHD,⁵ making it the preferred first line agent for treatment. Amphetamine salt based stimulant preparations do not have any RCTs in co-occurring ASD, but theoretically should be similarly effective. Again, the principle of starting low and going slow is applicable. Second line are the alpha 2 adrenergic agonists guanfacine and clonidine, both of whose long-acting formulations are approved for treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents without ASD, as well as atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for ADHD. Guanfacine and atomoxetine have the stronger evidence base in the co-occurring condition. None of the second-line medications come in liquid preparation, although the immediate-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine both can be crushed and are used in clinical practice when the extended-release forms are not practicable.

Anxiety disorders and depression

Repetitive behaviors and insistence on sameness are broad headings that can be thought of as similar to obsessive compulsive disorder in children without ASD. However, controlled studies of SSRIs and clomipramine (a tricyclic antidepressant) have not shown a clear benefit in these behaviors in children with autism. There are no RCTs looking specifically at treatment of anxiety disorders in children with ASD, but expert consensus is that pharmacologic treatment is similar to that of children without ASD, with the SSRIs fluoxetine and sertraline the first-line agents due to the robust evidence for these two medications in treatment of anxiety disorders in children.⁶ Especially for kids with higher functioning ASD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be considered and has some evidence for the co-occurring condition. Similarly, there are no RCTs for co-occurring depression in ASD, and clinical practice is to treat it as you would depression in the non-ASD population. Be aware that the studies of SSRIs in children with ASD reported higher than typical rates of behavioral activation on these medications, and again the principle of starting low and going slow is emphasized. Fluoxetine and sertraline both come in liquid form.

Insomnia

Insomnia is a common occurrence in children with ASD, and studies suggest melatonin can be effective, with immediate release clonidine a consideration with some limited evidence, if melatonin is not successful.

Finally I would be remiss in not mentioning that there is preliminary evidence from review⁷ and meta-analysis⁸ articles to suggest that regular exercise for individuals with ASD has a positive effect on multiple symptom domains, suggesting that this is an important additional treatment recommendation for children and families.

In conclusion, identification and treatment of ASD and co-occurring syndromes is often challenging, and while specialty referral often will be necessary, it is hoped that this overview provides a helpful frame of reference for primary care providers who encounter these conditions in clinical practice.

For further reading on this important subject, I recommend the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with ASD and the Parents Medication Guide for Autism Spectrum Disorders.
 

Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. ​MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-6):1–23*

2. National Standards Project, Phase 2. National Autism Center 2015.

3. N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 1;347(5):314-21.

4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;48(11):1110-9.

5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;62(11):1266-74.

6. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb;137(Supplement 2):S115-S123.

7. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2010 Dec;4(4):565-76.

8. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012;6(1):46-57.

*This article was updated 4/2/2020.

Efforts toward early identification and treatment are an important facet of the public health work in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

O_Lypa/iStock/Getty Images

The prevalence of ASD is rising. With the most recent estimate from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention of 1 in 59* children aged 8 years,¹ it is important for pediatric health care providers to have an understanding of current recommendations for treatment so they can counsel and guide affected families. ASD is a heterogeneous condition, so this article seeks to touch on broad principles, recognizing that clinicians must take into account the full clinical picture of each individual and family.

It is important to acknowledge that while there is no cure for ASD, there are treatment modalities that have an evidence base for addressing specific areas that may be impaired in children with autism. While it is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the potential areas of intervention in children with ASD, it is important to be keep in mind a few important principles.

1. The best evidenced treatment for addressing challenging and problematic behavior as well as improving a host of outcomes in children with ASD is itself behavioral in nature. These treatments are based on the principles of applied behavioral analysis,² an educational and therapeutic approach which involves looking at antecedents and consequences of behaviors. This approach also looks to shape, motivate, and reinforce functional behaviors while discouraging harmful and disruptive ones.

2. Because communication often is impaired in children with ASD, providers always should investigate for possible medical causes of pain or discomfort that might explain sudden behavior change, as well as environmental changes that could be involved.

3. The overarching principle of psychopharmacology in ASD is to start low, and go slow – because children with ASD often are particularly sensitive to medication side effects.
 

Irritability/aggression/extreme mood lability

There are only two medications with Food and Drug Administration labeling for an autism specific condition, and those are aripiprazole and risperidone, two second-generation antipsychotic agents approved for irritability associated with ASD on the basis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy.^3,4 Included under the umbrella of irritability are aggression, deliberate self-injurious behavior, extreme temper tantrums, and quick and extreme mood changes. For aripiprazole the approved ages are 6-17 years; a dosing range of 2-15 mg/day is recommended. For risperidone, the approved age range is 5-17 years; the recommended dosing range is 0.25-4 mg/day. Prior to starting either of these medications, a cardiac history should be obtained, and baseline laboratory values, particularly lipid levels and hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) are recommended. All second-generation antipsychotics carry the risk of tardive dyskinesia (a movement disorder), as well as risk of weight gain and metabolic effects. Baseline weight prior to medication initiation with routine follow-up measurement is encouraged. In light of the burden of potential side effects, these medications tend to be reserved by clinicians for circumstances where there is a significant impact on functioning. Both medications are available in liquid form for children with difficulty swallowing pills.

ADHD

There are positive RCTs of methylphenidate in co-occurring ASD and ADHD,⁵ making it the preferred first line agent for treatment. Amphetamine salt based stimulant preparations do not have any RCTs in co-occurring ASD, but theoretically should be similarly effective. Again, the principle of starting low and going slow is applicable. Second line are the alpha 2 adrenergic agonists guanfacine and clonidine, both of whose long-acting formulations are approved for treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents without ASD, as well as atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for ADHD. Guanfacine and atomoxetine have the stronger evidence base in the co-occurring condition. None of the second-line medications come in liquid preparation, although the immediate-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine both can be crushed and are used in clinical practice when the extended-release forms are not practicable.

Anxiety disorders and depression

Repetitive behaviors and insistence on sameness are broad headings that can be thought of as similar to obsessive compulsive disorder in children without ASD. However, controlled studies of SSRIs and clomipramine (a tricyclic antidepressant) have not shown a clear benefit in these behaviors in children with autism. There are no RCTs looking specifically at treatment of anxiety disorders in children with ASD, but expert consensus is that pharmacologic treatment is similar to that of children without ASD, with the SSRIs fluoxetine and sertraline the first-line agents due to the robust evidence for these two medications in treatment of anxiety disorders in children.⁶ Especially for kids with higher functioning ASD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be considered and has some evidence for the co-occurring condition. Similarly, there are no RCTs for co-occurring depression in ASD, and clinical practice is to treat it as you would depression in the non-ASD population. Be aware that the studies of SSRIs in children with ASD reported higher than typical rates of behavioral activation on these medications, and again the principle of starting low and going slow is emphasized. Fluoxetine and sertraline both come in liquid form.

Insomnia

Insomnia is a common occurrence in children with ASD, and studies suggest melatonin can be effective, with immediate release clonidine a consideration with some limited evidence, if melatonin is not successful.

Finally I would be remiss in not mentioning that there is preliminary evidence from review⁷ and meta-analysis⁸ articles to suggest that regular exercise for individuals with ASD has a positive effect on multiple symptom domains, suggesting that this is an important additional treatment recommendation for children and families.

In conclusion, identification and treatment of ASD and co-occurring syndromes is often challenging, and while specialty referral often will be necessary, it is hoped that this overview provides a helpful frame of reference for primary care providers who encounter these conditions in clinical practice.

For further reading on this important subject, I recommend the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with ASD and the Parents Medication Guide for Autism Spectrum Disorders.
 

Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. ​MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-6):1–23*

2. National Standards Project, Phase 2. National Autism Center 2015.

3. N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 1;347(5):314-21.

4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;48(11):1110-9.

5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;62(11):1266-74.

6. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb;137(Supplement 2):S115-S123.

7. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2010 Dec;4(4):565-76.

8. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012;6(1):46-57.

*This article was updated 4/2/2020.

Efforts toward early identification and treatment are an important facet of the public health work in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

O_Lypa/iStock/Getty Images

The prevalence of ASD is rising. With the most recent estimate from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention of 1 in 59* children aged 8 years,¹ it is important for pediatric health care providers to have an understanding of current recommendations for treatment so they can counsel and guide affected families. ASD is a heterogeneous condition, so this article seeks to touch on broad principles, recognizing that clinicians must take into account the full clinical picture of each individual and family.

It is important to acknowledge that while there is no cure for ASD, there are treatment modalities that have an evidence base for addressing specific areas that may be impaired in children with autism. While it is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the potential areas of intervention in children with ASD, it is important to be keep in mind a few important principles.

1. The best evidenced treatment for addressing challenging and problematic behavior as well as improving a host of outcomes in children with ASD is itself behavioral in nature. These treatments are based on the principles of applied behavioral analysis,² an educational and therapeutic approach which involves looking at antecedents and consequences of behaviors. This approach also looks to shape, motivate, and reinforce functional behaviors while discouraging harmful and disruptive ones.

2. Because communication often is impaired in children with ASD, providers always should investigate for possible medical causes of pain or discomfort that might explain sudden behavior change, as well as environmental changes that could be involved.

3. The overarching principle of psychopharmacology in ASD is to start low, and go slow – because children with ASD often are particularly sensitive to medication side effects.
 

Irritability/aggression/extreme mood lability

There are only two medications with Food and Drug Administration labeling for an autism specific condition, and those are aripiprazole and risperidone, two second-generation antipsychotic agents approved for irritability associated with ASD on the basis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy.^3,4 Included under the umbrella of irritability are aggression, deliberate self-injurious behavior, extreme temper tantrums, and quick and extreme mood changes. For aripiprazole the approved ages are 6-17 years; a dosing range of 2-15 mg/day is recommended. For risperidone, the approved age range is 5-17 years; the recommended dosing range is 0.25-4 mg/day. Prior to starting either of these medications, a cardiac history should be obtained, and baseline laboratory values, particularly lipid levels and hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) are recommended. All second-generation antipsychotics carry the risk of tardive dyskinesia (a movement disorder), as well as risk of weight gain and metabolic effects. Baseline weight prior to medication initiation with routine follow-up measurement is encouraged. In light of the burden of potential side effects, these medications tend to be reserved by clinicians for circumstances where there is a significant impact on functioning. Both medications are available in liquid form for children with difficulty swallowing pills.

ADHD

There are positive RCTs of methylphenidate in co-occurring ASD and ADHD,⁵ making it the preferred first line agent for treatment. Amphetamine salt based stimulant preparations do not have any RCTs in co-occurring ASD, but theoretically should be similarly effective. Again, the principle of starting low and going slow is applicable. Second line are the alpha 2 adrenergic agonists guanfacine and clonidine, both of whose long-acting formulations are approved for treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents without ASD, as well as atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for ADHD. Guanfacine and atomoxetine have the stronger evidence base in the co-occurring condition. None of the second-line medications come in liquid preparation, although the immediate-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine both can be crushed and are used in clinical practice when the extended-release forms are not practicable.

Anxiety disorders and depression

Repetitive behaviors and insistence on sameness are broad headings that can be thought of as similar to obsessive compulsive disorder in children without ASD. However, controlled studies of SSRIs and clomipramine (a tricyclic antidepressant) have not shown a clear benefit in these behaviors in children with autism. There are no RCTs looking specifically at treatment of anxiety disorders in children with ASD, but expert consensus is that pharmacologic treatment is similar to that of children without ASD, with the SSRIs fluoxetine and sertraline the first-line agents due to the robust evidence for these two medications in treatment of anxiety disorders in children.⁶ Especially for kids with higher functioning ASD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be considered and has some evidence for the co-occurring condition. Similarly, there are no RCTs for co-occurring depression in ASD, and clinical practice is to treat it as you would depression in the non-ASD population. Be aware that the studies of SSRIs in children with ASD reported higher than typical rates of behavioral activation on these medications, and again the principle of starting low and going slow is emphasized. Fluoxetine and sertraline both come in liquid form.

Insomnia

Insomnia is a common occurrence in children with ASD, and studies suggest melatonin can be effective, with immediate release clonidine a consideration with some limited evidence, if melatonin is not successful.

Finally I would be remiss in not mentioning that there is preliminary evidence from review⁷ and meta-analysis⁸ articles to suggest that regular exercise for individuals with ASD has a positive effect on multiple symptom domains, suggesting that this is an important additional treatment recommendation for children and families.

In conclusion, identification and treatment of ASD and co-occurring syndromes is often challenging, and while specialty referral often will be necessary, it is hoped that this overview provides a helpful frame of reference for primary care providers who encounter these conditions in clinical practice.

For further reading on this important subject, I recommend the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with ASD and the Parents Medication Guide for Autism Spectrum Disorders.
 

Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. ​MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-6):1–23*

2. National Standards Project, Phase 2. National Autism Center 2015.

3. N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 1;347(5):314-21.

4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;48(11):1110-9.

5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;62(11):1266-74.

6. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb;137(Supplement 2):S115-S123.

7. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2010 Dec;4(4):565-76.

8. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012;6(1):46-57.

*This article was updated 4/2/2020.

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

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. Write to him at [email protected].

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

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. Write to him at [email protected].

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

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. Write to him at [email protected].

I don’t know how successful you have been at getting your adolescent patients to follow your suggestions, but I would guess that my batting average was in the low 100s. Even when I try stepping off my soapbox to involve the patient in a nonjudgmental dialogue, my successes pale in comparison to my failures.

Vladimir Vladimirov/E+/Getty Images

Just looking at our national statistics for obesity, it’s pretty obvious that we are all doing a pretty rotten job of modifying our patients behaviors. You could point to a few encouraging numbers but they are few and far between. You could claim correctly that by the time a child reaches preschool, the die is already cast, throw up your arms, and not even raise the subject of diet with your overweight teenage patients.

A recent article in the journal Appetite hints at a group of strategies for molding patient behavior that so far have gotten very little attention from physicians (“Do perceived norms of social media users eating habits and preferences predict our own food consumption and BMI?” Appetite. 2020 Jan 18. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104611). Researchers at the department of psychology at Ashton University in Birmingham, England, surveyed more than 350 college-age students asking them about the dietary preference of their Facebook contacts and their own dietary habits. What the investigators found was that respondents who perceived their peers ate a healthy diet ate a healthier diet. Conversely, if the respondents thought their social media contacts ate junk food, they reported eating more of an unhealthy diet themselves.

In other words, it appears that, through social media, we have the potential to influence the eating habits of our patients’ peers. Before we get too excited, it should be pointed out that this study from England wasn’t of a long enough duration to demonstrate an effect on body mass index. And another study of 176 children recently published in Pediatrics found that while influencer marketing of unhealthy foods increased children’s immediate food intake, the equivalent marketing of healthy foods had no effect (“Social influencer marketing and children’s food intake: A randomized trial.” Pediatrics. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2554).

Not being terribly aware of the whos, whats, and wheres of influencers, I did a little bit of Internet searching at the Influencer Marketing hub and learned that influencers comes in all shapes and sizes, from “nanoinfluencers” who have acknowledged expertise and a very small Internet following numbering as few as a hundred to “megainfluencers” who have more than a million followers and might charge large entities a million dollars for a single post. The influencer’s content could appear as a blog, a YouTube video, a podcast, or simply a social media post.

The field of influencer marketing is new and growing exponentially. We would be wise as a group and as individuals to learn as much as we can about how we can use influencers to promote healthy behaviors. This initiative could come in the form of an office dedicated to Influencer Marketing created by the American Academy of Pediatrics. That group could search for megainfluencers who might be funded by the academy. But it also could develop a handbook for individual practitioners and groups to help them identify nano- and micro- (1,000-40,000 followers) influencers in their own practices.

You probably don’t ask your patients about their social media habits other than to caution them about time management. Maybe it’s time to dig a little deeper. You may find that you have a potent influencer hidden in your practice. She or he might just be willing to spread a good word or two for you.
 

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 don’t know how successful you have been at getting your adolescent patients to follow your suggestions, but I would guess that my batting average was in the low 100s. Even when I try stepping off my soapbox to involve the patient in a nonjudgmental dialogue, my successes pale in comparison to my failures.

Vladimir Vladimirov/E+/Getty Images

Just looking at our national statistics for obesity, it’s pretty obvious that we are all doing a pretty rotten job of modifying our patients behaviors. You could point to a few encouraging numbers but they are few and far between. You could claim correctly that by the time a child reaches preschool, the die is already cast, throw up your arms, and not even raise the subject of diet with your overweight teenage patients.

A recent article in the journal Appetite hints at a group of strategies for molding patient behavior that so far have gotten very little attention from physicians (“Do perceived norms of social media users eating habits and preferences predict our own food consumption and BMI?” Appetite. 2020 Jan 18. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104611). Researchers at the department of psychology at Ashton University in Birmingham, England, surveyed more than 350 college-age students asking them about the dietary preference of their Facebook contacts and their own dietary habits. What the investigators found was that respondents who perceived their peers ate a healthy diet ate a healthier diet. Conversely, if the respondents thought their social media contacts ate junk food, they reported eating more of an unhealthy diet themselves.

In other words, it appears that, through social media, we have the potential to influence the eating habits of our patients’ peers. Before we get too excited, it should be pointed out that this study from England wasn’t of a long enough duration to demonstrate an effect on body mass index. And another study of 176 children recently published in Pediatrics found that while influencer marketing of unhealthy foods increased children’s immediate food intake, the equivalent marketing of healthy foods had no effect (“Social influencer marketing and children’s food intake: A randomized trial.” Pediatrics. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2554).

Not being terribly aware of the whos, whats, and wheres of influencers, I did a little bit of Internet searching at the Influencer Marketing hub and learned that influencers comes in all shapes and sizes, from “nanoinfluencers” who have acknowledged expertise and a very small Internet following numbering as few as a hundred to “megainfluencers” who have more than a million followers and might charge large entities a million dollars for a single post. The influencer’s content could appear as a blog, a YouTube video, a podcast, or simply a social media post.

The field of influencer marketing is new and growing exponentially. We would be wise as a group and as individuals to learn as much as we can about how we can use influencers to promote healthy behaviors. This initiative could come in the form of an office dedicated to Influencer Marketing created by the American Academy of Pediatrics. That group could search for megainfluencers who might be funded by the academy. But it also could develop a handbook for individual practitioners and groups to help them identify nano- and micro- (1,000-40,000 followers) influencers in their own practices.

You probably don’t ask your patients about their social media habits other than to caution them about time management. Maybe it’s time to dig a little deeper. You may find that you have a potent influencer hidden in your practice. She or he might just be willing to spread a good word or two for you.
 

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 don’t know how successful you have been at getting your adolescent patients to follow your suggestions, but I would guess that my batting average was in the low 100s. Even when I try stepping off my soapbox to involve the patient in a nonjudgmental dialogue, my successes pale in comparison to my failures.

Vladimir Vladimirov/E+/Getty Images

Just looking at our national statistics for obesity, it’s pretty obvious that we are all doing a pretty rotten job of modifying our patients behaviors. You could point to a few encouraging numbers but they are few and far between. You could claim correctly that by the time a child reaches preschool, the die is already cast, throw up your arms, and not even raise the subject of diet with your overweight teenage patients.

A recent article in the journal Appetite hints at a group of strategies for molding patient behavior that so far have gotten very little attention from physicians (“Do perceived norms of social media users eating habits and preferences predict our own food consumption and BMI?” Appetite. 2020 Jan 18. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104611). Researchers at the department of psychology at Ashton University in Birmingham, England, surveyed more than 350 college-age students asking them about the dietary preference of their Facebook contacts and their own dietary habits. What the investigators found was that respondents who perceived their peers ate a healthy diet ate a healthier diet. Conversely, if the respondents thought their social media contacts ate junk food, they reported eating more of an unhealthy diet themselves.

In other words, it appears that, through social media, we have the potential to influence the eating habits of our patients’ peers. Before we get too excited, it should be pointed out that this study from England wasn’t of a long enough duration to demonstrate an effect on body mass index. And another study of 176 children recently published in Pediatrics found that while influencer marketing of unhealthy foods increased children’s immediate food intake, the equivalent marketing of healthy foods had no effect (“Social influencer marketing and children’s food intake: A randomized trial.” Pediatrics. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2554).

Not being terribly aware of the whos, whats, and wheres of influencers, I did a little bit of Internet searching at the Influencer Marketing hub and learned that influencers comes in all shapes and sizes, from “nanoinfluencers” who have acknowledged expertise and a very small Internet following numbering as few as a hundred to “megainfluencers” who have more than a million followers and might charge large entities a million dollars for a single post. The influencer’s content could appear as a blog, a YouTube video, a podcast, or simply a social media post.

The field of influencer marketing is new and growing exponentially. We would be wise as a group and as individuals to learn as much as we can about how we can use influencers to promote healthy behaviors. This initiative could come in the form of an office dedicated to Influencer Marketing created by the American Academy of Pediatrics. That group could search for megainfluencers who might be funded by the academy. But it also could develop a handbook for individual practitioners and groups to help them identify nano- and micro- (1,000-40,000 followers) influencers in their own practices.

You probably don’t ask your patients about their social media habits other than to caution them about time management. Maybe it’s time to dig a little deeper. You may find that you have a potent influencer hidden in your practice. She or he might just be willing to spread a good word or two for you.
 

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].

Coronavirus fever is gripping the world. What I hope to do here is open a discussion of what psychiatrists and other clinicians can do to mitigate the psychological consequences of COVID-19. I am focusing on the right now.

The psychological consequences are fear of the disease, effects of possible quarantine, and the potential effects of the economic slowdown on the world economy.

Fear of the disease is gripping the nation. With invisible diseases, that is not irrational. If you do not know whether you are exposed and/or spreading it to coworkers, children, or aged parents, then the fear of contagion is logical. So I would not “poo-poo” the “worried well.” If you do not know whether you are exposed or contagious, anxiety is a legitimate concern – especially if you have parents in nursing homes.

The quarantine issue is harder. I have long thought that quarantine would be harder to implement in the United States than in nations like China. But self or home quarantine is currently the de facto solution for those who have been exposed. What are some remedies?

For everybody, having an adequate supply of basic supplies at home is essential. As in preparing for a snowstorm or hurricane, adequate food, water, and yes, toilet paper, is important to relieve anxiety.

Psychiatrists can encourage patients to have an adequate supply of their medications. That may mean that we prescribe more pills. If the patient has suicidal tendencies, we can ask other family members to safeguard those medications.

A salient question is how likely people who are addicted to alcohol or opiates are to stay in place if they are withdrawing. In previous presentations, delivered some 20 years ago, I have (facetiously) suggested horse-drawn wagons of beer to avoid people breaking quarantine in search of the substances they are physically dependent on.

For people in methadone clinics who require daily visits that kind of approach may be harder. I do not have a solution, other than to plan for the eventuality of large-scale withdrawal and the behavioral consequences, which, unfortunately, often involve crime. Telemedicine may be a solution, but we are not yet equipped for it.

The longer-term psychological impacts of a major economic slowdown are not yet known. Based on past epidemics and other disasters, they might include unemployment and the related consequences of domestic violence and suicide.

COVID-19 is spreading fast. As clinicians, we must take steps to protect ourselves and our patients. Because this is a new virus, we have a lot to learn about it. We must be agile, because our actions will need to change over time.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington.

Coronavirus fever is gripping the world. What I hope to do here is open a discussion of what psychiatrists and other clinicians can do to mitigate the psychological consequences of COVID-19. I am focusing on the right now.

The psychological consequences are fear of the disease, effects of possible quarantine, and the potential effects of the economic slowdown on the world economy.

Fear of the disease is gripping the nation. With invisible diseases, that is not irrational. If you do not know whether you are exposed and/or spreading it to coworkers, children, or aged parents, then the fear of contagion is logical. So I would not “poo-poo” the “worried well.” If you do not know whether you are exposed or contagious, anxiety is a legitimate concern – especially if you have parents in nursing homes.

The quarantine issue is harder. I have long thought that quarantine would be harder to implement in the United States than in nations like China. But self or home quarantine is currently the de facto solution for those who have been exposed. What are some remedies?

For everybody, having an adequate supply of basic supplies at home is essential. As in preparing for a snowstorm or hurricane, adequate food, water, and yes, toilet paper, is important to relieve anxiety.

Psychiatrists can encourage patients to have an adequate supply of their medications. That may mean that we prescribe more pills. If the patient has suicidal tendencies, we can ask other family members to safeguard those medications.

A salient question is how likely people who are addicted to alcohol or opiates are to stay in place if they are withdrawing. In previous presentations, delivered some 20 years ago, I have (facetiously) suggested horse-drawn wagons of beer to avoid people breaking quarantine in search of the substances they are physically dependent on.

For people in methadone clinics who require daily visits that kind of approach may be harder. I do not have a solution, other than to plan for the eventuality of large-scale withdrawal and the behavioral consequences, which, unfortunately, often involve crime. Telemedicine may be a solution, but we are not yet equipped for it.

The longer-term psychological impacts of a major economic slowdown are not yet known. Based on past epidemics and other disasters, they might include unemployment and the related consequences of domestic violence and suicide.

COVID-19 is spreading fast. As clinicians, we must take steps to protect ourselves and our patients. Because this is a new virus, we have a lot to learn about it. We must be agile, because our actions will need to change over time.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington.

Coronavirus fever is gripping the world. What I hope to do here is open a discussion of what psychiatrists and other clinicians can do to mitigate the psychological consequences of COVID-19. I am focusing on the right now.

The psychological consequences are fear of the disease, effects of possible quarantine, and the potential effects of the economic slowdown on the world economy.

Fear of the disease is gripping the nation. With invisible diseases, that is not irrational. If you do not know whether you are exposed and/or spreading it to coworkers, children, or aged parents, then the fear of contagion is logical. So I would not “poo-poo” the “worried well.” If you do not know whether you are exposed or contagious, anxiety is a legitimate concern – especially if you have parents in nursing homes.

The quarantine issue is harder. I have long thought that quarantine would be harder to implement in the United States than in nations like China. But self or home quarantine is currently the de facto solution for those who have been exposed. What are some remedies?

For everybody, having an adequate supply of basic supplies at home is essential. As in preparing for a snowstorm or hurricane, adequate food, water, and yes, toilet paper, is important to relieve anxiety.

Psychiatrists can encourage patients to have an adequate supply of their medications. That may mean that we prescribe more pills. If the patient has suicidal tendencies, we can ask other family members to safeguard those medications.

A salient question is how likely people who are addicted to alcohol or opiates are to stay in place if they are withdrawing. In previous presentations, delivered some 20 years ago, I have (facetiously) suggested horse-drawn wagons of beer to avoid people breaking quarantine in search of the substances they are physically dependent on.

For people in methadone clinics who require daily visits that kind of approach may be harder. I do not have a solution, other than to plan for the eventuality of large-scale withdrawal and the behavioral consequences, which, unfortunately, often involve crime. Telemedicine may be a solution, but we are not yet equipped for it.

The longer-term psychological impacts of a major economic slowdown are not yet known. Based on past epidemics and other disasters, they might include unemployment and the related consequences of domestic violence and suicide.

COVID-19 is spreading fast. As clinicians, we must take steps to protect ourselves and our patients. Because this is a new virus, we have a lot to learn about it. We must be agile, because our actions will need to change over time.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

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].

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

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].

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

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].

CASE A patient experiences unnessary inconvenience, distress, and cost following IUD placement

Ms. J had a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD) placed at her postpartum visit. Her physician asked her to return for a string check in 4 to 6 weeks. She was dismayed at the prospect of re-presenting for care, as she is losing the Medicaid coverage that paid for her pregnancy care. One month later, she arranged for a babysitter so she could obtain the recommended string check. The physician told her the strings seemed longer than expected and ordered ultrasonography. Ms. J is distressed because of the mounting cost of care but is anxious to ensure that the IUD will prevent future pregnancy.

Should the routine IUD string check be reconsidered?

The string check dissension

Intrauterine devices offer reliable contraception with a high rate of satisfaction and a remarkably low rate of complications.^1-3 With the increased uptake of IUDs, the value of “string checks” is being debated, with myriad responses from professional groups, manufacturers, and individual clinicians. For many practicing ObGyns, the question remains: Should patients be counseled about presenting for or doing their own IUD string checks?

Indeed, all IUD manufacturers recommend monthly self-examination to evaluate string presence.^4-8 Manufacturers’ websites prominently display this information in material directed toward current or potential users, so many patients may be familiar already with this recommendation before their clinician visit. Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that no routine follow-up or monitoring is needed.⁹

In our case scenario, follow-up is clearly burdensome and ultimately costly. Instead, clinicians can advise patients to return with rare but important to recognize complications (such as perforation, expulsion, infection), adverse effects, or desire for change. While no data are available to support in-office or at-home string checks, data do show that women reliably present when intervention is needed.

Here, we explore 5 questions relevant to IUD string checks and discuss why it is time to rethink this practice habit.

What is the purpose of a string check?

String checks serve as a surrogate for assessing an IUD’s position and function. A string check can be performed by a clinician, who observes the IUD strings on speculum exam or palpates the strings on bimanual exam, or by the patient doing a self-exam. A positive string check purportedly assures both the IUD user and the health care provider that an IUD remains in a fundal, intrauterine position, thus providing an ongoing reliable contraceptive effect.

However, string check reliability in detecting contraceptive effectiveness is uncertain. Strings that subjectively feel or appear longer than anticipated can lead to unnecessary additional evaluation and emotional distress: These are harms. By contrast, when an expulsion occurs, it often is a partial expulsion or displacement, with unclear effect on patient or physician perception of the strings on examination. One retrospective review identified women with a history of IUD placement and a positive pregnancy test; those with an intrauterine pregnancy (74%) frequently also had a malpositioned IUD (55%) and rarely identifiable string issues (16%).¹⁰ Before asking patients and clinicians to use resources for performing string evaluations, the association between this action and outcomes of interest must be elucidated.

If not for assessing risk of expulsion, IUD follow-up allows the clinician to evaluate for other complications or adverse effects and to address patient concerns. This practice often is performed when the patient is starting a new medication or medical intervention. However, a systematic review involving 4 studies of IUD follow-up visits or phone calls after contraceptive initiation generated limited data, with no notable impact on contraceptive continuation or indicated use.¹¹

Most important, data show that patients present to their clinician when issues arise with IUD use. One prospective study of 280 women compared multiple follow-up visits with a single 6-week follow-up visit after IUD placement; 10 expulsions were identified, and 8 of these were noted at unscheduled visits when patients presented with symptoms.¹² This study suggests that there is little benefit in scheduled follow-up or set self-checks.

Furthermore, in a study in Finland of more than 17,000 IUD users, the rare participants who became pregnant during IUD use promptly presented for care because of a change in menses, pain, or symptoms of pregnancy.¹³ While IUDs are touted as user independent, this overlooks the reality: Data show that device failure, although rare, is rapidly and appropriately addressed by the user.

Continue to: Does the risk of IUD expulsion warrant string checks?...

Does the risk of IUD expulsion warrant string checks?

The risk of IUD expulsion is estimated to be 1% at 1 month and 4% at 1 year, with a contraceptive failure rate of 0.4% at 1 year. The risk of expulsion does not differ by age group, including adolescents, or parity, but it is higher with use of the copper IUD (2% at 1 month, 6% at 1 year) and with prior expulsion (14%, limited by small numbers).¹ Furthermore, risk of expulsion is higher with postplacental placement and second trimester abortion.^14,15 Despite this risk, the contraceptive failure rate of all types of IUDs remains consistently lower than all other reversible methods besides the contraceptive implant.¹⁶

Furthermore, while IUD expulsion is rare, unnoticed expulsion is even more rare. In one study with more than 58,000 person-years of use, 132 pregnancies were noted, and 7 of these occurred in the setting of an unnoticed expulsion.¹³ Notably, a higher risk threshold is held for other medications. For example, statins are associated with a 3% risk of irreversible hepatic injury, yet serial liver function tests are not performed in patients without baseline liver dysfunction.¹⁷ A less than 0.1% risk of a non–life-threatening complication—unnoticed expulsion—does not warrant routine follow-up. Instead, the patient gauges the tolerability of that risk in making a follow-up plan, particularly given the varied individual preferences in patients’ management of the associated outcome of unintended pregnancy.

Are women interested in and able to perform their own string checks?

Recommendations to perform IUD string self-checks should consider whether women are willing and able to do so. In a study of 126 IUD users, 59% of women had attempted to check their IUD strings at home, and one-third were unable to do so successfully; all participants had visible strings on subsequent speculum exam.¹⁸ The women also were given the opportunity to perform a string self-check at the study visit. Overall, only 46% of participants found the exercise acceptable and were able to palpate the IUD strings.¹⁸ The authors aptly stated, “A universal recommendation for practice that is meant to identify a rare complication has no clinical utility if at least half of the women are unable to follow it.”

In which scenarios might a string check have clear utility?

The most important reason for follow-up after IUD placement or for patients to perform string self-checks is patient preference. At least anecdotally, some patients take comfort, particularly in the absence of menses, in palpating IUD strings regularly; these individuals should know that there is no necessity for but also no harm in this practice. In addition, patients may desire a string check or follow-up visit to discuss their new contraceptive’s goodness-of-fit.

While limited data show that routinely scheduling such visits does not improve contraceptive continuation, it is difficult to extrapolate these data to the select individuals who independently desire follow-up. (In addition, contraceptive continuance is hardly a metric of success, as clinicians and patients can agree that discontinuation in the setting of patient dissatisfaction is always appropriate.)

Clinicians should share with patients differing risks of IUD expulsion, and this may prompt more nuanced decisions about string checks and/or follow-up. Patients with postplacental or postabortion (second trimester) IUD placement or placement following prior expulsion may opt to perform string checks given the relatively higher risk of expulsion despite the maintained, absolutely low risk that such an event is unnoticed.

If a patient does present for a string check and strings are not visualized on exam, reasonable attempts should be made to identify the strings at that time. A cytobrush can be used to liberate and identify strings within the cervical canal. If the clinician cannot identify the strings or the patient is unable to tolerate such attempts, ultrasonography should be performed to localize the IUD. The ultrasound scan can be done in the office, if available, which is more cost-effective for women than a referral to radiology. If ultrasonography does not identify an intrauterine IUD, an x-ray is the next step to determine if the IUD has expulsed or perforated.

Continue to: Is a string check worth the cost?...

Is a string check worth the cost?

Health care providers may not be aware of the cost of care from the patient perspective. While the Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandates contraceptive coverage for women with insurance, a string check often is coded as a problem-based visit and thus may require a significant copay or out-of-pocket cost for high-deductible plans—without a proven benefit.¹⁹ Women who lack insurance coverage may forgo even necessary care due to the cost.²⁰

The bottom line

The medical community and ObGyns specifically are familiar with a practice of patient self-examination falling by the wayside, as has been the case with breast self-examination.²¹ While counseling on string checks can complement conversations about risks and patients’ personal preferences regarding follow-up, no data support routine string checks in the clinic or at home. One of the great benefits of IUD use is its lack of barriers and resources for ongoing use. Physicians need not reintroduce burdens without benefits to those who desire this contraceptive method.

CASE A patient experiences unnessary inconvenience, distress, and cost following IUD placement

Ms. J had a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD) placed at her postpartum visit. Her physician asked her to return for a string check in 4 to 6 weeks. She was dismayed at the prospect of re-presenting for care, as she is losing the Medicaid coverage that paid for her pregnancy care. One month later, she arranged for a babysitter so she could obtain the recommended string check. The physician told her the strings seemed longer than expected and ordered ultrasonography. Ms. J is distressed because of the mounting cost of care but is anxious to ensure that the IUD will prevent future pregnancy.

Should the routine IUD string check be reconsidered?

The string check dissension

Intrauterine devices offer reliable contraception with a high rate of satisfaction and a remarkably low rate of complications.^1-3 With the increased uptake of IUDs, the value of “string checks” is being debated, with myriad responses from professional groups, manufacturers, and individual clinicians. For many practicing ObGyns, the question remains: Should patients be counseled about presenting for or doing their own IUD string checks?

Indeed, all IUD manufacturers recommend monthly self-examination to evaluate string presence.^4-8 Manufacturers’ websites prominently display this information in material directed toward current or potential users, so many patients may be familiar already with this recommendation before their clinician visit. Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that no routine follow-up or monitoring is needed.⁹

In our case scenario, follow-up is clearly burdensome and ultimately costly. Instead, clinicians can advise patients to return with rare but important to recognize complications (such as perforation, expulsion, infection), adverse effects, or desire for change. While no data are available to support in-office or at-home string checks, data do show that women reliably present when intervention is needed.

Here, we explore 5 questions relevant to IUD string checks and discuss why it is time to rethink this practice habit.

What is the purpose of a string check?

String checks serve as a surrogate for assessing an IUD’s position and function. A string check can be performed by a clinician, who observes the IUD strings on speculum exam or palpates the strings on bimanual exam, or by the patient doing a self-exam. A positive string check purportedly assures both the IUD user and the health care provider that an IUD remains in a fundal, intrauterine position, thus providing an ongoing reliable contraceptive effect.

However, string check reliability in detecting contraceptive effectiveness is uncertain. Strings that subjectively feel or appear longer than anticipated can lead to unnecessary additional evaluation and emotional distress: These are harms. By contrast, when an expulsion occurs, it often is a partial expulsion or displacement, with unclear effect on patient or physician perception of the strings on examination. One retrospective review identified women with a history of IUD placement and a positive pregnancy test; those with an intrauterine pregnancy (74%) frequently also had a malpositioned IUD (55%) and rarely identifiable string issues (16%).¹⁰ Before asking patients and clinicians to use resources for performing string evaluations, the association between this action and outcomes of interest must be elucidated.

If not for assessing risk of expulsion, IUD follow-up allows the clinician to evaluate for other complications or adverse effects and to address patient concerns. This practice often is performed when the patient is starting a new medication or medical intervention. However, a systematic review involving 4 studies of IUD follow-up visits or phone calls after contraceptive initiation generated limited data, with no notable impact on contraceptive continuation or indicated use.¹¹

Most important, data show that patients present to their clinician when issues arise with IUD use. One prospective study of 280 women compared multiple follow-up visits with a single 6-week follow-up visit after IUD placement; 10 expulsions were identified, and 8 of these were noted at unscheduled visits when patients presented with symptoms.¹² This study suggests that there is little benefit in scheduled follow-up or set self-checks.

Furthermore, in a study in Finland of more than 17,000 IUD users, the rare participants who became pregnant during IUD use promptly presented for care because of a change in menses, pain, or symptoms of pregnancy.¹³ While IUDs are touted as user independent, this overlooks the reality: Data show that device failure, although rare, is rapidly and appropriately addressed by the user.

Continue to: Does the risk of IUD expulsion warrant string checks?...

Does the risk of IUD expulsion warrant string checks?

The risk of IUD expulsion is estimated to be 1% at 1 month and 4% at 1 year, with a contraceptive failure rate of 0.4% at 1 year. The risk of expulsion does not differ by age group, including adolescents, or parity, but it is higher with use of the copper IUD (2% at 1 month, 6% at 1 year) and with prior expulsion (14%, limited by small numbers).¹ Furthermore, risk of expulsion is higher with postplacental placement and second trimester abortion.^14,15 Despite this risk, the contraceptive failure rate of all types of IUDs remains consistently lower than all other reversible methods besides the contraceptive implant.¹⁶

Furthermore, while IUD expulsion is rare, unnoticed expulsion is even more rare. In one study with more than 58,000 person-years of use, 132 pregnancies were noted, and 7 of these occurred in the setting of an unnoticed expulsion.¹³ Notably, a higher risk threshold is held for other medications. For example, statins are associated with a 3% risk of irreversible hepatic injury, yet serial liver function tests are not performed in patients without baseline liver dysfunction.¹⁷ A less than 0.1% risk of a non–life-threatening complication—unnoticed expulsion—does not warrant routine follow-up. Instead, the patient gauges the tolerability of that risk in making a follow-up plan, particularly given the varied individual preferences in patients’ management of the associated outcome of unintended pregnancy.

Are women interested in and able to perform their own string checks?

Recommendations to perform IUD string self-checks should consider whether women are willing and able to do so. In a study of 126 IUD users, 59% of women had attempted to check their IUD strings at home, and one-third were unable to do so successfully; all participants had visible strings on subsequent speculum exam.¹⁸ The women also were given the opportunity to perform a string self-check at the study visit. Overall, only 46% of participants found the exercise acceptable and were able to palpate the IUD strings.¹⁸ The authors aptly stated, “A universal recommendation for practice that is meant to identify a rare complication has no clinical utility if at least half of the women are unable to follow it.”

In which scenarios might a string check have clear utility?

The most important reason for follow-up after IUD placement or for patients to perform string self-checks is patient preference. At least anecdotally, some patients take comfort, particularly in the absence of menses, in palpating IUD strings regularly; these individuals should know that there is no necessity for but also no harm in this practice. In addition, patients may desire a string check or follow-up visit to discuss their new contraceptive’s goodness-of-fit.

While limited data show that routinely scheduling such visits does not improve contraceptive continuation, it is difficult to extrapolate these data to the select individuals who independently desire follow-up. (In addition, contraceptive continuance is hardly a metric of success, as clinicians and patients can agree that discontinuation in the setting of patient dissatisfaction is always appropriate.)

Clinicians should share with patients differing risks of IUD expulsion, and this may prompt more nuanced decisions about string checks and/or follow-up. Patients with postplacental or postabortion (second trimester) IUD placement or placement following prior expulsion may opt to perform string checks given the relatively higher risk of expulsion despite the maintained, absolutely low risk that such an event is unnoticed.

If a patient does present for a string check and strings are not visualized on exam, reasonable attempts should be made to identify the strings at that time. A cytobrush can be used to liberate and identify strings within the cervical canal. If the clinician cannot identify the strings or the patient is unable to tolerate such attempts, ultrasonography should be performed to localize the IUD. The ultrasound scan can be done in the office, if available, which is more cost-effective for women than a referral to radiology. If ultrasonography does not identify an intrauterine IUD, an x-ray is the next step to determine if the IUD has expulsed or perforated.

Continue to: Is a string check worth the cost?...

Is a string check worth the cost?

Health care providers may not be aware of the cost of care from the patient perspective. While the Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandates contraceptive coverage for women with insurance, a string check often is coded as a problem-based visit and thus may require a significant copay or out-of-pocket cost for high-deductible plans—without a proven benefit.¹⁹ Women who lack insurance coverage may forgo even necessary care due to the cost.²⁰

The bottom line

The medical community and ObGyns specifically are familiar with a practice of patient self-examination falling by the wayside, as has been the case with breast self-examination.²¹ While counseling on string checks can complement conversations about risks and patients’ personal preferences regarding follow-up, no data support routine string checks in the clinic or at home. One of the great benefits of IUD use is its lack of barriers and resources for ongoing use. Physicians need not reintroduce burdens without benefits to those who desire this contraceptive method.

CASE A patient experiences unnessary inconvenience, distress, and cost following IUD placement

Ms. J had a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD) placed at her postpartum visit. Her physician asked her to return for a string check in 4 to 6 weeks. She was dismayed at the prospect of re-presenting for care, as she is losing the Medicaid coverage that paid for her pregnancy care. One month later, she arranged for a babysitter so she could obtain the recommended string check. The physician told her the strings seemed longer than expected and ordered ultrasonography. Ms. J is distressed because of the mounting cost of care but is anxious to ensure that the IUD will prevent future pregnancy.

Should the routine IUD string check be reconsidered?

The string check dissension

Intrauterine devices offer reliable contraception with a high rate of satisfaction and a remarkably low rate of complications.^1-3 With the increased uptake of IUDs, the value of “string checks” is being debated, with myriad responses from professional groups, manufacturers, and individual clinicians. For many practicing ObGyns, the question remains: Should patients be counseled about presenting for or doing their own IUD string checks?

Indeed, all IUD manufacturers recommend monthly self-examination to evaluate string presence.^4-8 Manufacturers’ websites prominently display this information in material directed toward current or potential users, so many patients may be familiar already with this recommendation before their clinician visit. Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that no routine follow-up or monitoring is needed.⁹

In our case scenario, follow-up is clearly burdensome and ultimately costly. Instead, clinicians can advise patients to return with rare but important to recognize complications (such as perforation, expulsion, infection), adverse effects, or desire for change. While no data are available to support in-office or at-home string checks, data do show that women reliably present when intervention is needed.

Here, we explore 5 questions relevant to IUD string checks and discuss why it is time to rethink this practice habit.

What is the purpose of a string check?

String checks serve as a surrogate for assessing an IUD’s position and function. A string check can be performed by a clinician, who observes the IUD strings on speculum exam or palpates the strings on bimanual exam, or by the patient doing a self-exam. A positive string check purportedly assures both the IUD user and the health care provider that an IUD remains in a fundal, intrauterine position, thus providing an ongoing reliable contraceptive effect.

However, string check reliability in detecting contraceptive effectiveness is uncertain. Strings that subjectively feel or appear longer than anticipated can lead to unnecessary additional evaluation and emotional distress: These are harms. By contrast, when an expulsion occurs, it often is a partial expulsion or displacement, with unclear effect on patient or physician perception of the strings on examination. One retrospective review identified women with a history of IUD placement and a positive pregnancy test; those with an intrauterine pregnancy (74%) frequently also had a malpositioned IUD (55%) and rarely identifiable string issues (16%).¹⁰ Before asking patients and clinicians to use resources for performing string evaluations, the association between this action and outcomes of interest must be elucidated.

If not for assessing risk of expulsion, IUD follow-up allows the clinician to evaluate for other complications or adverse effects and to address patient concerns. This practice often is performed when the patient is starting a new medication or medical intervention. However, a systematic review involving 4 studies of IUD follow-up visits or phone calls after contraceptive initiation generated limited data, with no notable impact on contraceptive continuation or indicated use.¹¹

Most important, data show that patients present to their clinician when issues arise with IUD use. One prospective study of 280 women compared multiple follow-up visits with a single 6-week follow-up visit after IUD placement; 10 expulsions were identified, and 8 of these were noted at unscheduled visits when patients presented with symptoms.¹² This study suggests that there is little benefit in scheduled follow-up or set self-checks.

Furthermore, in a study in Finland of more than 17,000 IUD users, the rare participants who became pregnant during IUD use promptly presented for care because of a change in menses, pain, or symptoms of pregnancy.¹³ While IUDs are touted as user independent, this overlooks the reality: Data show that device failure, although rare, is rapidly and appropriately addressed by the user.

Continue to: Does the risk of IUD expulsion warrant string checks?...

Does the risk of IUD expulsion warrant string checks?

The risk of IUD expulsion is estimated to be 1% at 1 month and 4% at 1 year, with a contraceptive failure rate of 0.4% at 1 year. The risk of expulsion does not differ by age group, including adolescents, or parity, but it is higher with use of the copper IUD (2% at 1 month, 6% at 1 year) and with prior expulsion (14%, limited by small numbers).¹ Furthermore, risk of expulsion is higher with postplacental placement and second trimester abortion.^14,15 Despite this risk, the contraceptive failure rate of all types of IUDs remains consistently lower than all other reversible methods besides the contraceptive implant.¹⁶

Furthermore, while IUD expulsion is rare, unnoticed expulsion is even more rare. In one study with more than 58,000 person-years of use, 132 pregnancies were noted, and 7 of these occurred in the setting of an unnoticed expulsion.¹³ Notably, a higher risk threshold is held for other medications. For example, statins are associated with a 3% risk of irreversible hepatic injury, yet serial liver function tests are not performed in patients without baseline liver dysfunction.¹⁷ A less than 0.1% risk of a non–life-threatening complication—unnoticed expulsion—does not warrant routine follow-up. Instead, the patient gauges the tolerability of that risk in making a follow-up plan, particularly given the varied individual preferences in patients’ management of the associated outcome of unintended pregnancy.

Are women interested in and able to perform their own string checks?

Recommendations to perform IUD string self-checks should consider whether women are willing and able to do so. In a study of 126 IUD users, 59% of women had attempted to check their IUD strings at home, and one-third were unable to do so successfully; all participants had visible strings on subsequent speculum exam.¹⁸ The women also were given the opportunity to perform a string self-check at the study visit. Overall, only 46% of participants found the exercise acceptable and were able to palpate the IUD strings.¹⁸ The authors aptly stated, “A universal recommendation for practice that is meant to identify a rare complication has no clinical utility if at least half of the women are unable to follow it.”

In which scenarios might a string check have clear utility?

The most important reason for follow-up after IUD placement or for patients to perform string self-checks is patient preference. At least anecdotally, some patients take comfort, particularly in the absence of menses, in palpating IUD strings regularly; these individuals should know that there is no necessity for but also no harm in this practice. In addition, patients may desire a string check or follow-up visit to discuss their new contraceptive’s goodness-of-fit.

While limited data show that routinely scheduling such visits does not improve contraceptive continuation, it is difficult to extrapolate these data to the select individuals who independently desire follow-up. (In addition, contraceptive continuance is hardly a metric of success, as clinicians and patients can agree that discontinuation in the setting of patient dissatisfaction is always appropriate.)

Clinicians should share with patients differing risks of IUD expulsion, and this may prompt more nuanced decisions about string checks and/or follow-up. Patients with postplacental or postabortion (second trimester) IUD placement or placement following prior expulsion may opt to perform string checks given the relatively higher risk of expulsion despite the maintained, absolutely low risk that such an event is unnoticed.

If a patient does present for a string check and strings are not visualized on exam, reasonable attempts should be made to identify the strings at that time. A cytobrush can be used to liberate and identify strings within the cervical canal. If the clinician cannot identify the strings or the patient is unable to tolerate such attempts, ultrasonography should be performed to localize the IUD. The ultrasound scan can be done in the office, if available, which is more cost-effective for women than a referral to radiology. If ultrasonography does not identify an intrauterine IUD, an x-ray is the next step to determine if the IUD has expulsed or perforated.

Continue to: Is a string check worth the cost?...

Is a string check worth the cost?

Health care providers may not be aware of the cost of care from the patient perspective. While the Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandates contraceptive coverage for women with insurance, a string check often is coded as a problem-based visit and thus may require a significant copay or out-of-pocket cost for high-deductible plans—without a proven benefit.¹⁹ Women who lack insurance coverage may forgo even necessary care due to the cost.²⁰

The bottom line

The medical community and ObGyns specifically are familiar with a practice of patient self-examination falling by the wayside, as has been the case with breast self-examination.²¹ While counseling on string checks can complement conversations about risks and patients’ personal preferences regarding follow-up, no data support routine string checks in the clinic or at home. One of the great benefits of IUD use is its lack of barriers and resources for ongoing use. Physicians need not reintroduce burdens without benefits to those who desire this contraceptive method.