Commentary

I read with cautious optimism the Diversity Pledge and No–All Male Panel Policy recently announced by the Lancet Group.¹ This initiative comes at a crucial time, on the heels of a renewed interest and attention to gender inequities in medicine.

Despite 50-year-old federal legislation mandating that men and women receive equal compensation for equal work, pay inequities persist in all aspects of the workforce and medicine is no exception. In 2018, the American College of Physicians published a position paper acknowledging that, despite an increase in women in the active physician workforce and training positions, our numbers remain disproportionately low in leadership positions, with a mediocre track record for career advancement.² Inadequate mentorship, discrimination, gender bias, imposter syndrome and a lack of work-life integration have all been cited as contributing to the problem.

Consensus and commitment statements are important first steps in legitimizing a problem, but they do not always engender change. They run the risk of creating an “illusion of fairness” that lulls us into a sense of complacency that change is coming and yet it never does. This is why the Lancet Group’s pledge is so remarkable in its scope. Less than a year after the timely ACP position paper, the Lancet Group published a theme issue addressing the systematic concerns surrounding gender bias in medicine.

Recognizing that publications are prime currency in medicine, the Lancet Group has declared its commitment to increase the representation of women, minorities, and underrepresented geographic areas in editorial boards, peer review, and authorship. Since their #LancetWomen issue, 8 of their 18 journals have refreshed their editorial boards to include at least 50% female membership, with a goal of all 18 journals achieving this landmark by year’s end. That this change is being catapulted by a major publishing group suggests that a necessary cultural transformation is underway.

Today, women are entering the medical field in equal numbers to men. While some may argue that we have achieved gender diversity in medicine, we must not confuse this with gender equity, which remains a distant goal. This is a ripe time in medicine. We have momentum and an opportunity for change.

In an editorial comment to the ACP position paper, Molly Carnes, MD, drew an analogy to the Surgeon General’s report in 1964, which announced that smoking was detrimental to health. The report legitimized the already overwhelming evidence that smoking negatively impacted clinical outcomes and it served as a trigger to propel change.³ Similarly, we hope the ACP position has legitimized the research highlighting gender disparities in medicine and that the Lancet Group’s initiative is among the first of many changes to come.

This change must be embraced and executed by leadership across medical schools, universities, and professional societies. We must collectively pursue interventions and solutions to the multifaceted problem of gender inequity. After all, women have become an integral part of the medical workforce and we all need to work together to ensure both genders have sustainable careers.

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

References

1. Lancet. 2019 Aug 10; 394(10197): 452-3.

2. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):721-3.

3. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):741-3.

I read with cautious optimism the Diversity Pledge and No–All Male Panel Policy recently announced by the Lancet Group.¹ This initiative comes at a crucial time, on the heels of a renewed interest and attention to gender inequities in medicine.

Despite 50-year-old federal legislation mandating that men and women receive equal compensation for equal work, pay inequities persist in all aspects of the workforce and medicine is no exception. In 2018, the American College of Physicians published a position paper acknowledging that, despite an increase in women in the active physician workforce and training positions, our numbers remain disproportionately low in leadership positions, with a mediocre track record for career advancement.² Inadequate mentorship, discrimination, gender bias, imposter syndrome and a lack of work-life integration have all been cited as contributing to the problem.

Consensus and commitment statements are important first steps in legitimizing a problem, but they do not always engender change. They run the risk of creating an “illusion of fairness” that lulls us into a sense of complacency that change is coming and yet it never does. This is why the Lancet Group’s pledge is so remarkable in its scope. Less than a year after the timely ACP position paper, the Lancet Group published a theme issue addressing the systematic concerns surrounding gender bias in medicine.

Recognizing that publications are prime currency in medicine, the Lancet Group has declared its commitment to increase the representation of women, minorities, and underrepresented geographic areas in editorial boards, peer review, and authorship. Since their #LancetWomen issue, 8 of their 18 journals have refreshed their editorial boards to include at least 50% female membership, with a goal of all 18 journals achieving this landmark by year’s end. That this change is being catapulted by a major publishing group suggests that a necessary cultural transformation is underway.

Today, women are entering the medical field in equal numbers to men. While some may argue that we have achieved gender diversity in medicine, we must not confuse this with gender equity, which remains a distant goal. This is a ripe time in medicine. We have momentum and an opportunity for change.

In an editorial comment to the ACP position paper, Molly Carnes, MD, drew an analogy to the Surgeon General’s report in 1964, which announced that smoking was detrimental to health. The report legitimized the already overwhelming evidence that smoking negatively impacted clinical outcomes and it served as a trigger to propel change.³ Similarly, we hope the ACP position has legitimized the research highlighting gender disparities in medicine and that the Lancet Group’s initiative is among the first of many changes to come.

This change must be embraced and executed by leadership across medical schools, universities, and professional societies. We must collectively pursue interventions and solutions to the multifaceted problem of gender inequity. After all, women have become an integral part of the medical workforce and we all need to work together to ensure both genders have sustainable careers.

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

References

1. Lancet. 2019 Aug 10; 394(10197): 452-3.

2. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):721-3.

3. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):741-3.

I read with cautious optimism the Diversity Pledge and No–All Male Panel Policy recently announced by the Lancet Group.¹ This initiative comes at a crucial time, on the heels of a renewed interest and attention to gender inequities in medicine.

Despite 50-year-old federal legislation mandating that men and women receive equal compensation for equal work, pay inequities persist in all aspects of the workforce and medicine is no exception. In 2018, the American College of Physicians published a position paper acknowledging that, despite an increase in women in the active physician workforce and training positions, our numbers remain disproportionately low in leadership positions, with a mediocre track record for career advancement.² Inadequate mentorship, discrimination, gender bias, imposter syndrome and a lack of work-life integration have all been cited as contributing to the problem.

Consensus and commitment statements are important first steps in legitimizing a problem, but they do not always engender change. They run the risk of creating an “illusion of fairness” that lulls us into a sense of complacency that change is coming and yet it never does. This is why the Lancet Group’s pledge is so remarkable in its scope. Less than a year after the timely ACP position paper, the Lancet Group published a theme issue addressing the systematic concerns surrounding gender bias in medicine.

Recognizing that publications are prime currency in medicine, the Lancet Group has declared its commitment to increase the representation of women, minorities, and underrepresented geographic areas in editorial boards, peer review, and authorship. Since their #LancetWomen issue, 8 of their 18 journals have refreshed their editorial boards to include at least 50% female membership, with a goal of all 18 journals achieving this landmark by year’s end. That this change is being catapulted by a major publishing group suggests that a necessary cultural transformation is underway.

Today, women are entering the medical field in equal numbers to men. While some may argue that we have achieved gender diversity in medicine, we must not confuse this with gender equity, which remains a distant goal. This is a ripe time in medicine. We have momentum and an opportunity for change.

In an editorial comment to the ACP position paper, Molly Carnes, MD, drew an analogy to the Surgeon General’s report in 1964, which announced that smoking was detrimental to health. The report legitimized the already overwhelming evidence that smoking negatively impacted clinical outcomes and it served as a trigger to propel change.³ Similarly, we hope the ACP position has legitimized the research highlighting gender disparities in medicine and that the Lancet Group’s initiative is among the first of many changes to come.

This change must be embraced and executed by leadership across medical schools, universities, and professional societies. We must collectively pursue interventions and solutions to the multifaceted problem of gender inequity. After all, women have become an integral part of the medical workforce and we all need to work together to ensure both genders have sustainable careers.

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

References

1. Lancet. 2019 Aug 10; 394(10197): 452-3.

2. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):721-3.

3. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):741-3.

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

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

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

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

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

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

The history of abuse and genocide has its precursors in antiquity. A brief sketch of this history will provide some insights into the impact of intergenerational trauma and a rationale for the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in the United States and Canada, or Turtle Island, as the Indigenous People call it.

Such a review also will provide a partial explanation of why the suicide rate among non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native women increased by 139%¹ during 1999-2017 – a time when more Indigenous women were gaining access to law and medical school, as well as positions of authority in their tribes.

Church-, state-sanctioned transgressions

The psychological impact of our past history haunts us today. Papal bulletins – decrees from the pope – gave permission to Christian explorers to take land, wealth, and slaves from any nonbeliever. This permission was labeled the Doctrine of Discovery. It was incorporated into U.S. law in 1823, and by the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M’intosh. It also provided rationale for the Indian Removal Act, which was passed on May 28, 1830, and signed into law by U.S. President Andrew Jackson. As a result of that law, Indigenous People were forced onto reservations, often removed from their traditional and sacred homelands. Many died during forced relocation.²

From the time of “discovery” by settlers until well into the 19th century, the U.S. governmental intent was genocide. It was manifest by the outright murder of Indigenous People, displacement from land, and the disruption of families when children were taken, put into boarding schools, and were forbidden to speak their language. Indigenous medicine people were killed or jailed for practicing their traditional ceremonies. Indigenous nations had their laws, languages, and agricultural practices denied them. Even today, they must practice U.S. law, adapt colonizing forms of land ownership, and engage in the economic practices of the dominant culture. The economic system currently in place rewards rape of the land and creates a trickle-up economy that keeps rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor. The economic system even gives corporations legal status as individuals, and, in some cases, is allowed to supersede the rights of Indigenous nations.

Today, the federal government still can appropriate land for minerals, pipelines,³ and even put indigenous land and water sovereignty at risk of contamination and pollution by mines established upstream.⁴ Most of those practices are repugnant to Indigenous nations. The Doctrine of Discovery established prior to 1492 is still alive and well on Turtle Island.

It is this background that denies the rights of Mother Earth, and this backdrop that, in turn, generalizes the denial of the rights of Indigenous women. There are women today, who, against their will and knowledge, have been sterilized.⁵ There are cases in which women have been raped and beaten, and their perpetrators were never been brought to justice.⁶ There are jurisdictional issues in the federal law that keep non-native perpetrators from being punished for their actions on tribal sovereign land.

This history and those current practices affect Indigenous families. Historical trauma produces epigenetic changes⁷ that create more anxiety and depression. Families in which one or both parents were taken away have a harder time providing a loving, safe, addiction-free environment for their children. Children often have high scores on measurements of adverse childhood experiences and suffer PTSD. As psychiatrists, we have treated PTSD from residential and boarding school survivors, families with family members who were victims of being missing or murdered, and survivors of sexual abuse – both in the United States and Canada. According to the final Canadian report of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the murder rate for Indigenous women was 12 times that of non-Indigenous women.8

We assert that this combination of historical trauma and current social factors contributes to depression, PTSD, and anxiety disorders that currently feed the rise in attempted and completed suicide. Less-than-optimal educational opportunities and unemployment, often above 10% on reservations,⁹ along with food insecurity, accentuate the settings in which women and girls live.

Women achieving despite challenges

Yet, Indigenous women are making great strides within their cultures and communities. For example, Indigenous women are leading language revitalization, and within their culture, are healers and carriers of knowledge. Many Indigenous women are doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, poets, authors, and artists^.10 Voters in last year’s midterms elected two Native American women to the U.S. Congress. Often, however, those achievements within the Western culture come at a cost, and some might have difficulty balancing those roles with their traditional cultures.

Current societal pressures feed the rise of suicide. Santa Fe, N.M., is known for its affluence and reputation as a tricultural city of Anglos, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and yet, a recent health impact assessment survey of urban Indigenous families stated that food insecurity was the leading concern for those families. Unemployment on the Navajo Nation is above 50%.¹¹ The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the United States, which provides the majority of mental services to the Indigenous population, has identified mental health issues as the No. 1 health problem. However, only 7% of the IHS budget is allocated for mental health and substance abuse services. This represents an underfudging of services to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, there were only two psychiatrists per 100,000 people served by the IHS, which is one-seventh the number of psychiatrists available to the general population in the United States.¹²

Best practices for psychiatrists working with Indigenous women demands that we know the history, know how that history is still being manifest in subtle ways, and understand how such antiquated papal bulletins as the Doctrine of Discovery still operate to justify the taking and misuse of indigenous land. We must realize that the dominant economic systems, laws, and policing strategies are imposed on cultures that are sophisticated in their own right. This will then allow compassionate care with a level of understanding.

It also is critical to avoid stereotypes and misdiagnoses, and clinicians should realize that much of what is seen is not personality disorder but aspects of trauma and PTSD. ¹³

We can advocate at all levels, considering that the role of the federal government, the state, corporations, tribes, families, and provision of quality care to individuals can continue the positive collective advancement of women, and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with suicide attempts.

We need to be sensitive to our patients and their risks of suicide. Treat suicidal ideation as the serious threat that it is. Address the depression, anxiety, PTSD, historical trauma, substance abuse, emotional dysregulation, and loss of relationship in persons with attachment disorders as serious and valid life events than can lead to serious consequences – including completed suicide.

Indigenous women are resilient, and the approach should be to also balance knowledge of those potential barriers with validating the feminine, and supporting the traditional roles of women and men that value women and children, and revere the matriarchs. Encouraging and supporting Indigenous resurgence of cultural practices and values is significant for positive outcomes for healing and wellness. Doing so can carry a greater meaning within Indigenous and First Nations society.
 

References

1. Curtin SC and H Hedegaard. Suicide rates for females and males by race and ethnicity: United States, 1999 and 2017. NCHS Health E-Stat. 2019.

2. Anderson GC. Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: The crime that should haunt America. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

3. Rausch N. “Standing Rock, Morton County work to mend relationships post-DAPL protests.” Billingsgazette.com. Aug 10, 2019.

4. Roy A. “5 ways the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.” Forbes.com. Mar 13, 2014.

5. Blakemore E. “The little-known history of forced sterilization of Native American women.” JSTOR.org. Aug 25, 2016.

6. Bleir G and A Zoledziowski. “Murdered and missing Native American women challenge police and courts.” Publicintegrity.org. Aug 27, 2018.

7. Brockie TN et al. A framework to examine the role of epigenetics in health disparities among Native Americans. Nurs Res Prac. 2013;2013:410395.

8. “Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” Vancouver: Privy Office. Jun 3, 2019.

9. Hagan S. “Where U.S. unemployment is still sky-high: Indian reservations.” Bloomberg.com. Apr 5, 2018.

10. Morin B. “Meet 10 Indigenous women who are making the world a better place.” Indian Country Today. Jul 1, 2019.

11. Fact sheet. Discovernavajo.com.

12. Sarche M and P Spicer. Poverty and health disparities for American Indian and Alaska Native children: Current knowledge and future prospects. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008 Jul 25;1136:126-36.

13. Lewis-Fernández R et al. Culture and psychiatric evaluation: Operationalizing cultural formulation for DSM-5. Psychiatry. 2014 Summer;77(2):130-54.
 

Dr. Roessel is a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., working with the local Indigenous population. She has special expertise in cultural psychiatry; her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles. Dr. Roessel is a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Neidhardt is a board-certified psychiatrist who lives in Santa Fe and has an integrative, holistic psychiatric practice that also specializes in trauma-focused therapy. He has provided care for Indigenous People in the Southwest United States and in Canada, and has worked with Navajo medicine people to develop training for mental health professionals with his wife, Dr. Mary Hasbah Roessel. Dr. Reinhardt is a life fellow of the APA.

The history of abuse and genocide has its precursors in antiquity. A brief sketch of this history will provide some insights into the impact of intergenerational trauma and a rationale for the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in the United States and Canada, or Turtle Island, as the Indigenous People call it.

Such a review also will provide a partial explanation of why the suicide rate among non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native women increased by 139%¹ during 1999-2017 – a time when more Indigenous women were gaining access to law and medical school, as well as positions of authority in their tribes.

Church-, state-sanctioned transgressions

The psychological impact of our past history haunts us today. Papal bulletins – decrees from the pope – gave permission to Christian explorers to take land, wealth, and slaves from any nonbeliever. This permission was labeled the Doctrine of Discovery. It was incorporated into U.S. law in 1823, and by the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M’intosh. It also provided rationale for the Indian Removal Act, which was passed on May 28, 1830, and signed into law by U.S. President Andrew Jackson. As a result of that law, Indigenous People were forced onto reservations, often removed from their traditional and sacred homelands. Many died during forced relocation.²

From the time of “discovery” by settlers until well into the 19th century, the U.S. governmental intent was genocide. It was manifest by the outright murder of Indigenous People, displacement from land, and the disruption of families when children were taken, put into boarding schools, and were forbidden to speak their language. Indigenous medicine people were killed or jailed for practicing their traditional ceremonies. Indigenous nations had their laws, languages, and agricultural practices denied them. Even today, they must practice U.S. law, adapt colonizing forms of land ownership, and engage in the economic practices of the dominant culture. The economic system currently in place rewards rape of the land and creates a trickle-up economy that keeps rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor. The economic system even gives corporations legal status as individuals, and, in some cases, is allowed to supersede the rights of Indigenous nations.

Today, the federal government still can appropriate land for minerals, pipelines,³ and even put indigenous land and water sovereignty at risk of contamination and pollution by mines established upstream.⁴ Most of those practices are repugnant to Indigenous nations. The Doctrine of Discovery established prior to 1492 is still alive and well on Turtle Island.

It is this background that denies the rights of Mother Earth, and this backdrop that, in turn, generalizes the denial of the rights of Indigenous women. There are women today, who, against their will and knowledge, have been sterilized.⁵ There are cases in which women have been raped and beaten, and their perpetrators were never been brought to justice.⁶ There are jurisdictional issues in the federal law that keep non-native perpetrators from being punished for their actions on tribal sovereign land.

This history and those current practices affect Indigenous families. Historical trauma produces epigenetic changes⁷ that create more anxiety and depression. Families in which one or both parents were taken away have a harder time providing a loving, safe, addiction-free environment for their children. Children often have high scores on measurements of adverse childhood experiences and suffer PTSD. As psychiatrists, we have treated PTSD from residential and boarding school survivors, families with family members who were victims of being missing or murdered, and survivors of sexual abuse – both in the United States and Canada. According to the final Canadian report of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the murder rate for Indigenous women was 12 times that of non-Indigenous women.8

We assert that this combination of historical trauma and current social factors contributes to depression, PTSD, and anxiety disorders that currently feed the rise in attempted and completed suicide. Less-than-optimal educational opportunities and unemployment, often above 10% on reservations,⁹ along with food insecurity, accentuate the settings in which women and girls live.

Women achieving despite challenges

Yet, Indigenous women are making great strides within their cultures and communities. For example, Indigenous women are leading language revitalization, and within their culture, are healers and carriers of knowledge. Many Indigenous women are doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, poets, authors, and artists^.10 Voters in last year’s midterms elected two Native American women to the U.S. Congress. Often, however, those achievements within the Western culture come at a cost, and some might have difficulty balancing those roles with their traditional cultures.

Current societal pressures feed the rise of suicide. Santa Fe, N.M., is known for its affluence and reputation as a tricultural city of Anglos, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and yet, a recent health impact assessment survey of urban Indigenous families stated that food insecurity was the leading concern for those families. Unemployment on the Navajo Nation is above 50%.¹¹ The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the United States, which provides the majority of mental services to the Indigenous population, has identified mental health issues as the No. 1 health problem. However, only 7% of the IHS budget is allocated for mental health and substance abuse services. This represents an underfudging of services to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, there were only two psychiatrists per 100,000 people served by the IHS, which is one-seventh the number of psychiatrists available to the general population in the United States.¹²

Best practices for psychiatrists working with Indigenous women demands that we know the history, know how that history is still being manifest in subtle ways, and understand how such antiquated papal bulletins as the Doctrine of Discovery still operate to justify the taking and misuse of indigenous land. We must realize that the dominant economic systems, laws, and policing strategies are imposed on cultures that are sophisticated in their own right. This will then allow compassionate care with a level of understanding.

It also is critical to avoid stereotypes and misdiagnoses, and clinicians should realize that much of what is seen is not personality disorder but aspects of trauma and PTSD. ¹³

We can advocate at all levels, considering that the role of the federal government, the state, corporations, tribes, families, and provision of quality care to individuals can continue the positive collective advancement of women, and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with suicide attempts.

We need to be sensitive to our patients and their risks of suicide. Treat suicidal ideation as the serious threat that it is. Address the depression, anxiety, PTSD, historical trauma, substance abuse, emotional dysregulation, and loss of relationship in persons with attachment disorders as serious and valid life events than can lead to serious consequences – including completed suicide.

Indigenous women are resilient, and the approach should be to also balance knowledge of those potential barriers with validating the feminine, and supporting the traditional roles of women and men that value women and children, and revere the matriarchs. Encouraging and supporting Indigenous resurgence of cultural practices and values is significant for positive outcomes for healing and wellness. Doing so can carry a greater meaning within Indigenous and First Nations society.
 

References

1. Curtin SC and H Hedegaard. Suicide rates for females and males by race and ethnicity: United States, 1999 and 2017. NCHS Health E-Stat. 2019.

2. Anderson GC. Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: The crime that should haunt America. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

3. Rausch N. “Standing Rock, Morton County work to mend relationships post-DAPL protests.” Billingsgazette.com. Aug 10, 2019.

4. Roy A. “5 ways the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.” Forbes.com. Mar 13, 2014.

5. Blakemore E. “The little-known history of forced sterilization of Native American women.” JSTOR.org. Aug 25, 2016.

6. Bleir G and A Zoledziowski. “Murdered and missing Native American women challenge police and courts.” Publicintegrity.org. Aug 27, 2018.

7. Brockie TN et al. A framework to examine the role of epigenetics in health disparities among Native Americans. Nurs Res Prac. 2013;2013:410395.

8. “Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” Vancouver: Privy Office. Jun 3, 2019.

9. Hagan S. “Where U.S. unemployment is still sky-high: Indian reservations.” Bloomberg.com. Apr 5, 2018.

10. Morin B. “Meet 10 Indigenous women who are making the world a better place.” Indian Country Today. Jul 1, 2019.

11. Fact sheet. Discovernavajo.com.

12. Sarche M and P Spicer. Poverty and health disparities for American Indian and Alaska Native children: Current knowledge and future prospects. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008 Jul 25;1136:126-36.

13. Lewis-Fernández R et al. Culture and psychiatric evaluation: Operationalizing cultural formulation for DSM-5. Psychiatry. 2014 Summer;77(2):130-54.
 

Dr. Roessel is a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., working with the local Indigenous population. She has special expertise in cultural psychiatry; her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles. Dr. Roessel is a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Neidhardt is a board-certified psychiatrist who lives in Santa Fe and has an integrative, holistic psychiatric practice that also specializes in trauma-focused therapy. He has provided care for Indigenous People in the Southwest United States and in Canada, and has worked with Navajo medicine people to develop training for mental health professionals with his wife, Dr. Mary Hasbah Roessel. Dr. Reinhardt is a life fellow of the APA.

The history of abuse and genocide has its precursors in antiquity. A brief sketch of this history will provide some insights into the impact of intergenerational trauma and a rationale for the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in the United States and Canada, or Turtle Island, as the Indigenous People call it.

Such a review also will provide a partial explanation of why the suicide rate among non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native women increased by 139%¹ during 1999-2017 – a time when more Indigenous women were gaining access to law and medical school, as well as positions of authority in their tribes.

Church-, state-sanctioned transgressions

The psychological impact of our past history haunts us today. Papal bulletins – decrees from the pope – gave permission to Christian explorers to take land, wealth, and slaves from any nonbeliever. This permission was labeled the Doctrine of Discovery. It was incorporated into U.S. law in 1823, and by the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M’intosh. It also provided rationale for the Indian Removal Act, which was passed on May 28, 1830, and signed into law by U.S. President Andrew Jackson. As a result of that law, Indigenous People were forced onto reservations, often removed from their traditional and sacred homelands. Many died during forced relocation.²

From the time of “discovery” by settlers until well into the 19th century, the U.S. governmental intent was genocide. It was manifest by the outright murder of Indigenous People, displacement from land, and the disruption of families when children were taken, put into boarding schools, and were forbidden to speak their language. Indigenous medicine people were killed or jailed for practicing their traditional ceremonies. Indigenous nations had their laws, languages, and agricultural practices denied them. Even today, they must practice U.S. law, adapt colonizing forms of land ownership, and engage in the economic practices of the dominant culture. The economic system currently in place rewards rape of the land and creates a trickle-up economy that keeps rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor. The economic system even gives corporations legal status as individuals, and, in some cases, is allowed to supersede the rights of Indigenous nations.

Today, the federal government still can appropriate land for minerals, pipelines,³ and even put indigenous land and water sovereignty at risk of contamination and pollution by mines established upstream.⁴ Most of those practices are repugnant to Indigenous nations. The Doctrine of Discovery established prior to 1492 is still alive and well on Turtle Island.

It is this background that denies the rights of Mother Earth, and this backdrop that, in turn, generalizes the denial of the rights of Indigenous women. There are women today, who, against their will and knowledge, have been sterilized.⁵ There are cases in which women have been raped and beaten, and their perpetrators were never been brought to justice.⁶ There are jurisdictional issues in the federal law that keep non-native perpetrators from being punished for their actions on tribal sovereign land.

This history and those current practices affect Indigenous families. Historical trauma produces epigenetic changes⁷ that create more anxiety and depression. Families in which one or both parents were taken away have a harder time providing a loving, safe, addiction-free environment for their children. Children often have high scores on measurements of adverse childhood experiences and suffer PTSD. As psychiatrists, we have treated PTSD from residential and boarding school survivors, families with family members who were victims of being missing or murdered, and survivors of sexual abuse – both in the United States and Canada. According to the final Canadian report of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the murder rate for Indigenous women was 12 times that of non-Indigenous women.8

We assert that this combination of historical trauma and current social factors contributes to depression, PTSD, and anxiety disorders that currently feed the rise in attempted and completed suicide. Less-than-optimal educational opportunities and unemployment, often above 10% on reservations,⁹ along with food insecurity, accentuate the settings in which women and girls live.

Women achieving despite challenges

Yet, Indigenous women are making great strides within their cultures and communities. For example, Indigenous women are leading language revitalization, and within their culture, are healers and carriers of knowledge. Many Indigenous women are doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, poets, authors, and artists^.10 Voters in last year’s midterms elected two Native American women to the U.S. Congress. Often, however, those achievements within the Western culture come at a cost, and some might have difficulty balancing those roles with their traditional cultures.

Current societal pressures feed the rise of suicide. Santa Fe, N.M., is known for its affluence and reputation as a tricultural city of Anglos, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and yet, a recent health impact assessment survey of urban Indigenous families stated that food insecurity was the leading concern for those families. Unemployment on the Navajo Nation is above 50%.¹¹ The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the United States, which provides the majority of mental services to the Indigenous population, has identified mental health issues as the No. 1 health problem. However, only 7% of the IHS budget is allocated for mental health and substance abuse services. This represents an underfudging of services to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, there were only two psychiatrists per 100,000 people served by the IHS, which is one-seventh the number of psychiatrists available to the general population in the United States.¹²

Best practices for psychiatrists working with Indigenous women demands that we know the history, know how that history is still being manifest in subtle ways, and understand how such antiquated papal bulletins as the Doctrine of Discovery still operate to justify the taking and misuse of indigenous land. We must realize that the dominant economic systems, laws, and policing strategies are imposed on cultures that are sophisticated in their own right. This will then allow compassionate care with a level of understanding.

It also is critical to avoid stereotypes and misdiagnoses, and clinicians should realize that much of what is seen is not personality disorder but aspects of trauma and PTSD. ¹³

We can advocate at all levels, considering that the role of the federal government, the state, corporations, tribes, families, and provision of quality care to individuals can continue the positive collective advancement of women, and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with suicide attempts.

We need to be sensitive to our patients and their risks of suicide. Treat suicidal ideation as the serious threat that it is. Address the depression, anxiety, PTSD, historical trauma, substance abuse, emotional dysregulation, and loss of relationship in persons with attachment disorders as serious and valid life events than can lead to serious consequences – including completed suicide.

Indigenous women are resilient, and the approach should be to also balance knowledge of those potential barriers with validating the feminine, and supporting the traditional roles of women and men that value women and children, and revere the matriarchs. Encouraging and supporting Indigenous resurgence of cultural practices and values is significant for positive outcomes for healing and wellness. Doing so can carry a greater meaning within Indigenous and First Nations society.
 

References

1. Curtin SC and H Hedegaard. Suicide rates for females and males by race and ethnicity: United States, 1999 and 2017. NCHS Health E-Stat. 2019.

2. Anderson GC. Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: The crime that should haunt America. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

3. Rausch N. “Standing Rock, Morton County work to mend relationships post-DAPL protests.” Billingsgazette.com. Aug 10, 2019.

4. Roy A. “5 ways the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.” Forbes.com. Mar 13, 2014.

5. Blakemore E. “The little-known history of forced sterilization of Native American women.” JSTOR.org. Aug 25, 2016.

6. Bleir G and A Zoledziowski. “Murdered and missing Native American women challenge police and courts.” Publicintegrity.org. Aug 27, 2018.

7. Brockie TN et al. A framework to examine the role of epigenetics in health disparities among Native Americans. Nurs Res Prac. 2013;2013:410395.

8. “Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” Vancouver: Privy Office. Jun 3, 2019.

9. Hagan S. “Where U.S. unemployment is still sky-high: Indian reservations.” Bloomberg.com. Apr 5, 2018.

10. Morin B. “Meet 10 Indigenous women who are making the world a better place.” Indian Country Today. Jul 1, 2019.

11. Fact sheet. Discovernavajo.com.

12. Sarche M and P Spicer. Poverty and health disparities for American Indian and Alaska Native children: Current knowledge and future prospects. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008 Jul 25;1136:126-36.

13. Lewis-Fernández R et al. Culture and psychiatric evaluation: Operationalizing cultural formulation for DSM-5. Psychiatry. 2014 Summer;77(2):130-54.
 

Dr. Roessel is a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., working with the local Indigenous population. She has special expertise in cultural psychiatry; her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles. Dr. Roessel is a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Neidhardt is a board-certified psychiatrist who lives in Santa Fe and has an integrative, holistic psychiatric practice that also specializes in trauma-focused therapy. He has provided care for Indigenous People in the Southwest United States and in Canada, and has worked with Navajo medicine people to develop training for mental health professionals with his wife, Dr. Mary Hasbah Roessel. Dr. Reinhardt is a life fellow of the APA.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

The EHR system at the hospital occasionally argues with me about my orders.

kokouu/iStockphoto

I may order a brain MRI, or CT angiography, or pretty much anything, and when I click to submit it a box pops up, telling me I shouldn’t be ordering that.

Sometimes it’s based on cost, saying that the MRI is more expensive than a CT, and according to some internal algorithm I should do that instead. Other times it says the test isn’t appropriate given the patient’s condition, age, zodiac sign, whatever. It might also say the test is redundant, because the patient just had a brain MRI during an admission last month.

I ignore them. There’s an override button to close the box and order the test, and that’s what I always click.

I have no objection to a reasonable review, but neither the computer nor its algorithms went through medical school, or residency, or read journals regularly, or have 20 years of experience in this field. I’d like to think (or hope) I know what I’m doing.

I don’t take this job lightly. When I order a test it’s because I’m trying to do the right thing for the patient. To find out what’s going on. To see what I can do to treat them. In short, to help as much as I can within the limitations of modern medical practice. Sometimes those things don’t always involve saving the insurance company money, or trying to get by with a previous study’s results.

Medicine is not a cookbook. While guidelines can be useful, every patient is different, and treatment plans have to be adjusted accordingly. It would be nice if this was the one-size-fits-all world the computer algorithms would like, but patient care is anything but.

I’d also rather “overcare” than “undercare.” To me, that’s just good practice. If I follow the computer’s advice and provide less care than needed and miss something, I’m pretty sure “because the computer told me not to” isn’t going to stand up as a defense in court.

I’m going to just keep on practicing medicine using, as one of my past attendings would say, “clinical correlation” and keeping what’s best for the patient in mind. Anything less may be fine for the computer, but not for me, and certainly not for those I’m trying to help.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The EHR system at the hospital occasionally argues with me about my orders.

kokouu/iStockphoto

I may order a brain MRI, or CT angiography, or pretty much anything, and when I click to submit it a box pops up, telling me I shouldn’t be ordering that.

Sometimes it’s based on cost, saying that the MRI is more expensive than a CT, and according to some internal algorithm I should do that instead. Other times it says the test isn’t appropriate given the patient’s condition, age, zodiac sign, whatever. It might also say the test is redundant, because the patient just had a brain MRI during an admission last month.

I ignore them. There’s an override button to close the box and order the test, and that’s what I always click.

I have no objection to a reasonable review, but neither the computer nor its algorithms went through medical school, or residency, or read journals regularly, or have 20 years of experience in this field. I’d like to think (or hope) I know what I’m doing.

I don’t take this job lightly. When I order a test it’s because I’m trying to do the right thing for the patient. To find out what’s going on. To see what I can do to treat them. In short, to help as much as I can within the limitations of modern medical practice. Sometimes those things don’t always involve saving the insurance company money, or trying to get by with a previous study’s results.

Medicine is not a cookbook. While guidelines can be useful, every patient is different, and treatment plans have to be adjusted accordingly. It would be nice if this was the one-size-fits-all world the computer algorithms would like, but patient care is anything but.

I’d also rather “overcare” than “undercare.” To me, that’s just good practice. If I follow the computer’s advice and provide less care than needed and miss something, I’m pretty sure “because the computer told me not to” isn’t going to stand up as a defense in court.

I’m going to just keep on practicing medicine using, as one of my past attendings would say, “clinical correlation” and keeping what’s best for the patient in mind. Anything less may be fine for the computer, but not for me, and certainly not for those I’m trying to help.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The EHR system at the hospital occasionally argues with me about my orders.

kokouu/iStockphoto

I may order a brain MRI, or CT angiography, or pretty much anything, and when I click to submit it a box pops up, telling me I shouldn’t be ordering that.

Sometimes it’s based on cost, saying that the MRI is more expensive than a CT, and according to some internal algorithm I should do that instead. Other times it says the test isn’t appropriate given the patient’s condition, age, zodiac sign, whatever. It might also say the test is redundant, because the patient just had a brain MRI during an admission last month.

I ignore them. There’s an override button to close the box and order the test, and that’s what I always click.

I have no objection to a reasonable review, but neither the computer nor its algorithms went through medical school, or residency, or read journals regularly, or have 20 years of experience in this field. I’d like to think (or hope) I know what I’m doing.

I don’t take this job lightly. When I order a test it’s because I’m trying to do the right thing for the patient. To find out what’s going on. To see what I can do to treat them. In short, to help as much as I can within the limitations of modern medical practice. Sometimes those things don’t always involve saving the insurance company money, or trying to get by with a previous study’s results.

Medicine is not a cookbook. While guidelines can be useful, every patient is different, and treatment plans have to be adjusted accordingly. It would be nice if this was the one-size-fits-all world the computer algorithms would like, but patient care is anything but.

I’d also rather “overcare” than “undercare.” To me, that’s just good practice. If I follow the computer’s advice and provide less care than needed and miss something, I’m pretty sure “because the computer told me not to” isn’t going to stand up as a defense in court.

I’m going to just keep on practicing medicine using, as one of my past attendings would say, “clinical correlation” and keeping what’s best for the patient in mind. Anything less may be fine for the computer, but not for me, and certainly not for those I’m trying to help.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

It’s a typically busy Friday and the doctor is running 20 minutes behind schedule. He enters the next exam room and the sight of the patient makes him forget the apology he had prepared.

C5Media/Getty Images

The 10 month old looks miserable. Red eyes. Snot dripping from his nose. A red rash that extends from his face and involves most of the chest, arms, and upper thighs.

“When did this start?” he asks the mother as he searches for a surgical mask in the cabinet next to the exam table.

“Two days after we returned from our vacation in France,” the worried young woman replies. “Do you think it could be measles?”

Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 8, 2019, 1,182 cases of measles had been confirmed in the United States. That’s more than three times the number of cases reported in all of 2018, and the highest number of cases reported in a single year in more than a quarter century. While 75% of the cases this year have been linked to outbreaks in New York, individuals from 30 states have been affected.

Given the widespread nature of the outbreak, it makes sense for every ambulatory office to have a plan for managing exposures to infectious diseases including measles. With measles in particular, time is limited to deliver effective postexposure prophylaxis and prevent the spread of measles in the community, making it difficult to develop a plan on the fly.

Schedule strategically. You don’t want a patient with measles hanging out in your waiting room. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, measures to prevent the transmission of contagious infectious agents in ambulatory facilities begin at the time the visit is scheduled. When there is measles transmission in the community, consider using a standardized script when scheduling patients that includes questions about fever, rash, other symptoms typical for measles, and possible exposures. Some offices will have procedures in place that can be adapted to care for patients with suspected measles. When a patient presents for suspected chicken pox, do you advise them to come at the end of the day to minimize exposures? Enter through a side door? Perform a car visit?

Triage promptly. Mask patients with fever and rash, move to a private room, and close the door.

Once measles is suspected, only health care personnel who are immune to measles should enter the exam room. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presumptive evidence of measles immunity in health care providers is written documentation of vaccination with two doses of live measles or MMR vaccine administered at least 28 days apart, laboratory evidence of immunity (that is, positive measles IgG), laboratory confirmation of disease, or birth before 1957.

Even though health care providers born before 1957 are presumed to have had the disease at some point and have traditionally been considered immune, the CDC suggests that health care facilities consider giving these individuals two doses of MMR vaccine unless they have prior laboratory confirmation of disease immunity. Do you know who in your office is immune or would you need to scramble if you had an exposure?

When measles is suspected, health care personnel should wear an N-95 if they have been fit tested and the appropriate mask is available. Practically, most ambulatory offices do not stock N-95 masks and the next best choice is a regular surgical mask.

Order the recommended tests to confirm the diagnosis, but do not wait for the results to confirm the diagnosis. The CDC recommends testing serum for IgM antibodies and sending a throat or nasopharyngeal swab to look for the virus by polymerase chain reaction testing. Measles virus also is shed in the urine so collecting a urine specimen for testing may increase the chances of finding the virus. Depending on where you practice, the tests may take 3 days or more to result. Contact your local health department as soon as you consider a measles diagnosis.

Discharge patients home or transferred to a higher level of care if this is necessary as quickly as possible. Fortunately, most patients with measles do not require hospitalization. Do not send patients to the hospital simply for the purpose of laboratory testing if this can be accomplished quickly in your office or for evaluation by other providers. This just creates the potential for more exposures. If a patient does require higher-level care, provider-to-provider communication about the suspected diagnosis and the need for airborne isolation should take place.

Keep the door closed. Once a patient with suspected measles is discharged from a regular exam room, the door should remain closed, and it should not be used for at least 1 hour. Remember that infectious virus can remain in the air for 1-2 hours after a patient leaves an area. The same is true for the waiting room.

Develop the exposure list. In general, patients and family members who were in the waiting room at the same time as the index patient and up to 1-2 hours after the index patient left are considered exposed. Measles is highly contagious and 9 out of 10 susceptible people who are exposed will develop disease. How many infants aged less than 1 year might be in your waiting room at any given time? How many immunocompromised patients or family members? Public health authorities can help determine who needs prophylaxis.

Don’t get anxious and start testing everyone for measles, especially patients who lack typical signs and symptoms or exposures. Ordering a test in a patient who has a low likelihood of measles is more likely to result in a false-positive test than a true-positive test. False-positive measles IgM tests can be seen with some viral infections, including parvovirus and Epstein-Barr. Some rheumatologic disorders also can contribute to false-positive tests.

Review your office procedure for vaccine counseling. The 10 month old with measles in the opening vignette should have been given an MMR vaccine before travel. The vaccine is recommended for infants aged 6-11 months who are traveling outside the United States, but it doesn’t count toward the vaccine series. Reimmunize young travelers at 12-15 months and again at 4-6 years. The CDC has developed a toolkit that contains resources for taking to parents about vaccines. It is available at https://www.cdc.gov/measles/toolkit/healthcare-providers.html.

It’s a typically busy Friday and the doctor is running 20 minutes behind schedule. He enters the next exam room and the sight of the patient makes him forget the apology he had prepared.

C5Media/Getty Images

The 10 month old looks miserable. Red eyes. Snot dripping from his nose. A red rash that extends from his face and involves most of the chest, arms, and upper thighs.

“When did this start?” he asks the mother as he searches for a surgical mask in the cabinet next to the exam table.

“Two days after we returned from our vacation in France,” the worried young woman replies. “Do you think it could be measles?”

Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 8, 2019, 1,182 cases of measles had been confirmed in the United States. That’s more than three times the number of cases reported in all of 2018, and the highest number of cases reported in a single year in more than a quarter century. While 75% of the cases this year have been linked to outbreaks in New York, individuals from 30 states have been affected.

Given the widespread nature of the outbreak, it makes sense for every ambulatory office to have a plan for managing exposures to infectious diseases including measles. With measles in particular, time is limited to deliver effective postexposure prophylaxis and prevent the spread of measles in the community, making it difficult to develop a plan on the fly.

Schedule strategically. You don’t want a patient with measles hanging out in your waiting room. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, measures to prevent the transmission of contagious infectious agents in ambulatory facilities begin at the time the visit is scheduled. When there is measles transmission in the community, consider using a standardized script when scheduling patients that includes questions about fever, rash, other symptoms typical for measles, and possible exposures. Some offices will have procedures in place that can be adapted to care for patients with suspected measles. When a patient presents for suspected chicken pox, do you advise them to come at the end of the day to minimize exposures? Enter through a side door? Perform a car visit?

Triage promptly. Mask patients with fever and rash, move to a private room, and close the door.

Once measles is suspected, only health care personnel who are immune to measles should enter the exam room. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presumptive evidence of measles immunity in health care providers is written documentation of vaccination with two doses of live measles or MMR vaccine administered at least 28 days apart, laboratory evidence of immunity (that is, positive measles IgG), laboratory confirmation of disease, or birth before 1957.

Even though health care providers born before 1957 are presumed to have had the disease at some point and have traditionally been considered immune, the CDC suggests that health care facilities consider giving these individuals two doses of MMR vaccine unless they have prior laboratory confirmation of disease immunity. Do you know who in your office is immune or would you need to scramble if you had an exposure?

When measles is suspected, health care personnel should wear an N-95 if they have been fit tested and the appropriate mask is available. Practically, most ambulatory offices do not stock N-95 masks and the next best choice is a regular surgical mask.

Order the recommended tests to confirm the diagnosis, but do not wait for the results to confirm the diagnosis. The CDC recommends testing serum for IgM antibodies and sending a throat or nasopharyngeal swab to look for the virus by polymerase chain reaction testing. Measles virus also is shed in the urine so collecting a urine specimen for testing may increase the chances of finding the virus. Depending on where you practice, the tests may take 3 days or more to result. Contact your local health department as soon as you consider a measles diagnosis.

Discharge patients home or transferred to a higher level of care if this is necessary as quickly as possible. Fortunately, most patients with measles do not require hospitalization. Do not send patients to the hospital simply for the purpose of laboratory testing if this can be accomplished quickly in your office or for evaluation by other providers. This just creates the potential for more exposures. If a patient does require higher-level care, provider-to-provider communication about the suspected diagnosis and the need for airborne isolation should take place.

Keep the door closed. Once a patient with suspected measles is discharged from a regular exam room, the door should remain closed, and it should not be used for at least 1 hour. Remember that infectious virus can remain in the air for 1-2 hours after a patient leaves an area. The same is true for the waiting room.

Develop the exposure list. In general, patients and family members who were in the waiting room at the same time as the index patient and up to 1-2 hours after the index patient left are considered exposed. Measles is highly contagious and 9 out of 10 susceptible people who are exposed will develop disease. How many infants aged less than 1 year might be in your waiting room at any given time? How many immunocompromised patients or family members? Public health authorities can help determine who needs prophylaxis.

Don’t get anxious and start testing everyone for measles, especially patients who lack typical signs and symptoms or exposures. Ordering a test in a patient who has a low likelihood of measles is more likely to result in a false-positive test than a true-positive test. False-positive measles IgM tests can be seen with some viral infections, including parvovirus and Epstein-Barr. Some rheumatologic disorders also can contribute to false-positive tests.

Review your office procedure for vaccine counseling. The 10 month old with measles in the opening vignette should have been given an MMR vaccine before travel. The vaccine is recommended for infants aged 6-11 months who are traveling outside the United States, but it doesn’t count toward the vaccine series. Reimmunize young travelers at 12-15 months and again at 4-6 years. The CDC has developed a toolkit that contains resources for taking to parents about vaccines. It is available at https://www.cdc.gov/measles/toolkit/healthcare-providers.html.

It’s a typically busy Friday and the doctor is running 20 minutes behind schedule. He enters the next exam room and the sight of the patient makes him forget the apology he had prepared.

C5Media/Getty Images

The 10 month old looks miserable. Red eyes. Snot dripping from his nose. A red rash that extends from his face and involves most of the chest, arms, and upper thighs.

“When did this start?” he asks the mother as he searches for a surgical mask in the cabinet next to the exam table.

“Two days after we returned from our vacation in France,” the worried young woman replies. “Do you think it could be measles?”

Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 8, 2019, 1,182 cases of measles had been confirmed in the United States. That’s more than three times the number of cases reported in all of 2018, and the highest number of cases reported in a single year in more than a quarter century. While 75% of the cases this year have been linked to outbreaks in New York, individuals from 30 states have been affected.

Given the widespread nature of the outbreak, it makes sense for every ambulatory office to have a plan for managing exposures to infectious diseases including measles. With measles in particular, time is limited to deliver effective postexposure prophylaxis and prevent the spread of measles in the community, making it difficult to develop a plan on the fly.

Schedule strategically. You don’t want a patient with measles hanging out in your waiting room. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, measures to prevent the transmission of contagious infectious agents in ambulatory facilities begin at the time the visit is scheduled. When there is measles transmission in the community, consider using a standardized script when scheduling patients that includes questions about fever, rash, other symptoms typical for measles, and possible exposures. Some offices will have procedures in place that can be adapted to care for patients with suspected measles. When a patient presents for suspected chicken pox, do you advise them to come at the end of the day to minimize exposures? Enter through a side door? Perform a car visit?

Triage promptly. Mask patients with fever and rash, move to a private room, and close the door.

Once measles is suspected, only health care personnel who are immune to measles should enter the exam room. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presumptive evidence of measles immunity in health care providers is written documentation of vaccination with two doses of live measles or MMR vaccine administered at least 28 days apart, laboratory evidence of immunity (that is, positive measles IgG), laboratory confirmation of disease, or birth before 1957.

Even though health care providers born before 1957 are presumed to have had the disease at some point and have traditionally been considered immune, the CDC suggests that health care facilities consider giving these individuals two doses of MMR vaccine unless they have prior laboratory confirmation of disease immunity. Do you know who in your office is immune or would you need to scramble if you had an exposure?

When measles is suspected, health care personnel should wear an N-95 if they have been fit tested and the appropriate mask is available. Practically, most ambulatory offices do not stock N-95 masks and the next best choice is a regular surgical mask.

Order the recommended tests to confirm the diagnosis, but do not wait for the results to confirm the diagnosis. The CDC recommends testing serum for IgM antibodies and sending a throat or nasopharyngeal swab to look for the virus by polymerase chain reaction testing. Measles virus also is shed in the urine so collecting a urine specimen for testing may increase the chances of finding the virus. Depending on where you practice, the tests may take 3 days or more to result. Contact your local health department as soon as you consider a measles diagnosis.

Discharge patients home or transferred to a higher level of care if this is necessary as quickly as possible. Fortunately, most patients with measles do not require hospitalization. Do not send patients to the hospital simply for the purpose of laboratory testing if this can be accomplished quickly in your office or for evaluation by other providers. This just creates the potential for more exposures. If a patient does require higher-level care, provider-to-provider communication about the suspected diagnosis and the need for airborne isolation should take place.

Keep the door closed. Once a patient with suspected measles is discharged from a regular exam room, the door should remain closed, and it should not be used for at least 1 hour. Remember that infectious virus can remain in the air for 1-2 hours after a patient leaves an area. The same is true for the waiting room.

Develop the exposure list. In general, patients and family members who were in the waiting room at the same time as the index patient and up to 1-2 hours after the index patient left are considered exposed. Measles is highly contagious and 9 out of 10 susceptible people who are exposed will develop disease. How many infants aged less than 1 year might be in your waiting room at any given time? How many immunocompromised patients or family members? Public health authorities can help determine who needs prophylaxis.

Don’t get anxious and start testing everyone for measles, especially patients who lack typical signs and symptoms or exposures. Ordering a test in a patient who has a low likelihood of measles is more likely to result in a false-positive test than a true-positive test. False-positive measles IgM tests can be seen with some viral infections, including parvovirus and Epstein-Barr. Some rheumatologic disorders also can contribute to false-positive tests.

Review your office procedure for vaccine counseling. The 10 month old with measles in the opening vignette should have been given an MMR vaccine before travel. The vaccine is recommended for infants aged 6-11 months who are traveling outside the United States, but it doesn’t count toward the vaccine series. Reimmunize young travelers at 12-15 months and again at 4-6 years. The CDC has developed a toolkit that contains resources for taking to parents about vaccines. It is available at https://www.cdc.gov/measles/toolkit/healthcare-providers.html.

Question: Driver D strikes a pedestrian after losing control of his vehicle from insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Both Driver D and pedestrian were seriously injured. Driver D was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and his physician had started him on insulin, but did not warn of driving risks associated with hypoglycemia. The injured pedestrian is a total stranger to both Driver D and his doctor. Given these facts, which one of the following choices is correct?

A. Driver D can sue his doctor for failure to disclose hypoglycemic risk of insulin therapy under the doctrine of informed consent.

B. The pedestrian can sue Driver D for negligent driving.

C. The pedestrian may succeed in suing Driver D’s doctor for failure to warn of hypoglycemia.

D. The pedestrian’s lawsuit against Driver D’s doctor may fail in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a doctor’s legal duty to an unidentifiable, nonpatient third party.

E. All statements above are correct.
 

Answer: E. A doctor owes a duty of care only to his/her own patients. This legal duty grows out of the doctor-patient relationship, and is normally owed to the patient and to no one else. However, in limited circumstances, it may be extended to other individuals, so-called third parties, who may be total strangers. Injured nonpatient third parties from driving accidents have successfully sued doctors for failing to warn their patients that their medical conditions and/or medications can adversely affect driving ability.

Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera is a New Jersey malpractice case that is currently before the state’s appellate court. The issue is whether Dr. Lerner, a psychiatrist, can be found negligent for the death of a bicyclist caused by the psychiatrist’s patient, Ms. Mulford-Dera, whose car struck and killed the cyclist. The decedent’s estate alleged that the physician should have warned the patient of the risks of driving while taking psychotropic medications. Dr. Lerner had been treating Ms. Mulford-Dera for psychological conditions, including major depression, panic disorder, and attention deficit disorder. As part of her treatment, Dr. Lerner prescribed several medications, allegedly without disclosing their potential adverse impact on driving. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case, ruling that the doctor owed no direct or indirect duty to the victim.

The case is currently on appeal. The AMA has filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Lerner,¹ pointing out that third-party claims had previously been rejected in New Jersey, where the injured victim is not readily identifiable. The brief emphasizes the folly of placing the physician or therapist in the untenable position of serving two potentially competing interests when a physician’s priority should be providing care to the patient. It referenced a similar case in Kansas, where a motorist who had fallen asleep at the wheel struck a bicyclist. The motorist was being treated by a neurologist for a sleep disorder.² The Kansas Supreme Court held that there was no special relationship between the doctor and the cyclist that would impose a duty to warn the motorist about harming a third party.

Other jurisdictions have likewise rejected attempts at “derivative duties” in automobile accident cases. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled³ that doctors are immune from third party traffic accident lawsuits, as such litigation would detract from what’s best for the patient (“a physician’s desire to avoid lawsuits may result in far more restrictive advice than necessary for the patient’s well-being”). In that case, the defendant-gastroenterologist, Dr. Troncale, was treating a patient with hepatic encephalopathy and had not warned of the associated risk of driving. And an Illinois court dismissed a third party’s case against a hospital when one of its physicians fell asleep at the wheel after working excessive hours.⁴

In contrast, other jurisdictions have found a legal duty for physicians toward nonpatient victims. For example, in McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group,⁵ a car suddenly veered across five lanes of traffic, striking an 11-year-old girl and crushing her against a cement planter. The driver alleged that the prescription medication, Prazosin, caused him to lose control of the car, and that the treating physician was negligent, first in prescribing an inappropriate type and dose of medication, and second in failing to warn of potential side effects that could affect driving ability. The Hawaii Supreme Court emphasized that the risk of tort liability to an individual physician already discourages negligent prescribing; therefore, a physician does not have a duty to third parties where the alleged negligence involves prescribing decisions, i.e., whether to prescribe medication at all, which medication to prescribe, and what dosage to use. On the other hand, physicians have a duty to their patients to warn of potential adverse effects and this responsibility should therefore extend to third parties. Thus, liability would attach to injuries of innocent third parties as a result of failing to warn of a medication’s effects on driving—unless a reasonable person could be expected to be aware of this risk without the warning.

A foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm is an important but not the only decisive factor in construing the existence of legal duty. Under some circumstances, the term “special relationship” has been employed based on a consideration of existing social values, customs, and policy considerations. In a Massachusetts case,⁶ a family physician had failed to warn his patient of the risk of diabetes drugs when operating a vehicle. Some 45 minutes after the patient’s discharge from the hospital, he developed hypoglycemia, losing consciousness and injuring a motorcyclist who then sued the doctor. The court invoked the “special relationship” rationale in ruling that the doctor owed a duty to the motorcyclist for public policy reasons.
 

Dr. Tan is professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera, In the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Docket No. A-001255-18T3.

2. Calwell v. Hassan, 925 P.2d 422, 430 (Kan. 1996).

3. Jarmie v. Troncale, 50 A.3d 802 (Conn. 2012).

4. Brewster v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 836 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005).

5. McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 47 P.3d 1209 (Haw. 2002).

6. Arsenault v. McConarty, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 500 (2006).

Question: Driver D strikes a pedestrian after losing control of his vehicle from insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Both Driver D and pedestrian were seriously injured. Driver D was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and his physician had started him on insulin, but did not warn of driving risks associated with hypoglycemia. The injured pedestrian is a total stranger to both Driver D and his doctor. Given these facts, which one of the following choices is correct?

A. Driver D can sue his doctor for failure to disclose hypoglycemic risk of insulin therapy under the doctrine of informed consent.

B. The pedestrian can sue Driver D for negligent driving.

C. The pedestrian may succeed in suing Driver D’s doctor for failure to warn of hypoglycemia.

D. The pedestrian’s lawsuit against Driver D’s doctor may fail in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a doctor’s legal duty to an unidentifiable, nonpatient third party.

E. All statements above are correct.
 

Answer: E. A doctor owes a duty of care only to his/her own patients. This legal duty grows out of the doctor-patient relationship, and is normally owed to the patient and to no one else. However, in limited circumstances, it may be extended to other individuals, so-called third parties, who may be total strangers. Injured nonpatient third parties from driving accidents have successfully sued doctors for failing to warn their patients that their medical conditions and/or medications can adversely affect driving ability.

Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera is a New Jersey malpractice case that is currently before the state’s appellate court. The issue is whether Dr. Lerner, a psychiatrist, can be found negligent for the death of a bicyclist caused by the psychiatrist’s patient, Ms. Mulford-Dera, whose car struck and killed the cyclist. The decedent’s estate alleged that the physician should have warned the patient of the risks of driving while taking psychotropic medications. Dr. Lerner had been treating Ms. Mulford-Dera for psychological conditions, including major depression, panic disorder, and attention deficit disorder. As part of her treatment, Dr. Lerner prescribed several medications, allegedly without disclosing their potential adverse impact on driving. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case, ruling that the doctor owed no direct or indirect duty to the victim.

The case is currently on appeal. The AMA has filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Lerner,¹ pointing out that third-party claims had previously been rejected in New Jersey, where the injured victim is not readily identifiable. The brief emphasizes the folly of placing the physician or therapist in the untenable position of serving two potentially competing interests when a physician’s priority should be providing care to the patient. It referenced a similar case in Kansas, where a motorist who had fallen asleep at the wheel struck a bicyclist. The motorist was being treated by a neurologist for a sleep disorder.² The Kansas Supreme Court held that there was no special relationship between the doctor and the cyclist that would impose a duty to warn the motorist about harming a third party.

Other jurisdictions have likewise rejected attempts at “derivative duties” in automobile accident cases. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled³ that doctors are immune from third party traffic accident lawsuits, as such litigation would detract from what’s best for the patient (“a physician’s desire to avoid lawsuits may result in far more restrictive advice than necessary for the patient’s well-being”). In that case, the defendant-gastroenterologist, Dr. Troncale, was treating a patient with hepatic encephalopathy and had not warned of the associated risk of driving. And an Illinois court dismissed a third party’s case against a hospital when one of its physicians fell asleep at the wheel after working excessive hours.⁴

In contrast, other jurisdictions have found a legal duty for physicians toward nonpatient victims. For example, in McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group,⁵ a car suddenly veered across five lanes of traffic, striking an 11-year-old girl and crushing her against a cement planter. The driver alleged that the prescription medication, Prazosin, caused him to lose control of the car, and that the treating physician was negligent, first in prescribing an inappropriate type and dose of medication, and second in failing to warn of potential side effects that could affect driving ability. The Hawaii Supreme Court emphasized that the risk of tort liability to an individual physician already discourages negligent prescribing; therefore, a physician does not have a duty to third parties where the alleged negligence involves prescribing decisions, i.e., whether to prescribe medication at all, which medication to prescribe, and what dosage to use. On the other hand, physicians have a duty to their patients to warn of potential adverse effects and this responsibility should therefore extend to third parties. Thus, liability would attach to injuries of innocent third parties as a result of failing to warn of a medication’s effects on driving—unless a reasonable person could be expected to be aware of this risk without the warning.

A foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm is an important but not the only decisive factor in construing the existence of legal duty. Under some circumstances, the term “special relationship” has been employed based on a consideration of existing social values, customs, and policy considerations. In a Massachusetts case,⁶ a family physician had failed to warn his patient of the risk of diabetes drugs when operating a vehicle. Some 45 minutes after the patient’s discharge from the hospital, he developed hypoglycemia, losing consciousness and injuring a motorcyclist who then sued the doctor. The court invoked the “special relationship” rationale in ruling that the doctor owed a duty to the motorcyclist for public policy reasons.
 

Dr. Tan is professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera, In the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Docket No. A-001255-18T3.

2. Calwell v. Hassan, 925 P.2d 422, 430 (Kan. 1996).

3. Jarmie v. Troncale, 50 A.3d 802 (Conn. 2012).

4. Brewster v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 836 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005).

5. McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 47 P.3d 1209 (Haw. 2002).

6. Arsenault v. McConarty, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 500 (2006).

Question: Driver D strikes a pedestrian after losing control of his vehicle from insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Both Driver D and pedestrian were seriously injured. Driver D was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and his physician had started him on insulin, but did not warn of driving risks associated with hypoglycemia. The injured pedestrian is a total stranger to both Driver D and his doctor. Given these facts, which one of the following choices is correct?

A. Driver D can sue his doctor for failure to disclose hypoglycemic risk of insulin therapy under the doctrine of informed consent.

B. The pedestrian can sue Driver D for negligent driving.

C. The pedestrian may succeed in suing Driver D’s doctor for failure to warn of hypoglycemia.

D. The pedestrian’s lawsuit against Driver D’s doctor may fail in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a doctor’s legal duty to an unidentifiable, nonpatient third party.

E. All statements above are correct.
 

Answer: E. A doctor owes a duty of care only to his/her own patients. This legal duty grows out of the doctor-patient relationship, and is normally owed to the patient and to no one else. However, in limited circumstances, it may be extended to other individuals, so-called third parties, who may be total strangers. Injured nonpatient third parties from driving accidents have successfully sued doctors for failing to warn their patients that their medical conditions and/or medications can adversely affect driving ability.

Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera is a New Jersey malpractice case that is currently before the state’s appellate court. The issue is whether Dr. Lerner, a psychiatrist, can be found negligent for the death of a bicyclist caused by the psychiatrist’s patient, Ms. Mulford-Dera, whose car struck and killed the cyclist. The decedent’s estate alleged that the physician should have warned the patient of the risks of driving while taking psychotropic medications. Dr. Lerner had been treating Ms. Mulford-Dera for psychological conditions, including major depression, panic disorder, and attention deficit disorder. As part of her treatment, Dr. Lerner prescribed several medications, allegedly without disclosing their potential adverse impact on driving. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case, ruling that the doctor owed no direct or indirect duty to the victim.

The case is currently on appeal. The AMA has filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Lerner,¹ pointing out that third-party claims had previously been rejected in New Jersey, where the injured victim is not readily identifiable. The brief emphasizes the folly of placing the physician or therapist in the untenable position of serving two potentially competing interests when a physician’s priority should be providing care to the patient. It referenced a similar case in Kansas, where a motorist who had fallen asleep at the wheel struck a bicyclist. The motorist was being treated by a neurologist for a sleep disorder.² The Kansas Supreme Court held that there was no special relationship between the doctor and the cyclist that would impose a duty to warn the motorist about harming a third party.

Other jurisdictions have likewise rejected attempts at “derivative duties” in automobile accident cases. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled³ that doctors are immune from third party traffic accident lawsuits, as such litigation would detract from what’s best for the patient (“a physician’s desire to avoid lawsuits may result in far more restrictive advice than necessary for the patient’s well-being”). In that case, the defendant-gastroenterologist, Dr. Troncale, was treating a patient with hepatic encephalopathy and had not warned of the associated risk of driving. And an Illinois court dismissed a third party’s case against a hospital when one of its physicians fell asleep at the wheel after working excessive hours.⁴

In contrast, other jurisdictions have found a legal duty for physicians toward nonpatient victims. For example, in McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group,⁵ a car suddenly veered across five lanes of traffic, striking an 11-year-old girl and crushing her against a cement planter. The driver alleged that the prescription medication, Prazosin, caused him to lose control of the car, and that the treating physician was negligent, first in prescribing an inappropriate type and dose of medication, and second in failing to warn of potential side effects that could affect driving ability. The Hawaii Supreme Court emphasized that the risk of tort liability to an individual physician already discourages negligent prescribing; therefore, a physician does not have a duty to third parties where the alleged negligence involves prescribing decisions, i.e., whether to prescribe medication at all, which medication to prescribe, and what dosage to use. On the other hand, physicians have a duty to their patients to warn of potential adverse effects and this responsibility should therefore extend to third parties. Thus, liability would attach to injuries of innocent third parties as a result of failing to warn of a medication’s effects on driving—unless a reasonable person could be expected to be aware of this risk without the warning.

A foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm is an important but not the only decisive factor in construing the existence of legal duty. Under some circumstances, the term “special relationship” has been employed based on a consideration of existing social values, customs, and policy considerations. In a Massachusetts case,⁶ a family physician had failed to warn his patient of the risk of diabetes drugs when operating a vehicle. Some 45 minutes after the patient’s discharge from the hospital, he developed hypoglycemia, losing consciousness and injuring a motorcyclist who then sued the doctor. The court invoked the “special relationship” rationale in ruling that the doctor owed a duty to the motorcyclist for public policy reasons.
 

Dr. Tan is professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera, In the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Docket No. A-001255-18T3.

2. Calwell v. Hassan, 925 P.2d 422, 430 (Kan. 1996).

3. Jarmie v. Troncale, 50 A.3d 802 (Conn. 2012).

4. Brewster v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 836 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005).

5. McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 47 P.3d 1209 (Haw. 2002).

6. Arsenault v. McConarty, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 500 (2006).

With the perinatal history of prolonged labor and prolonged rupture of membranes, the diagnosis of halo scalp ring was made. This occurs secondary to prolonged pressure of the baby’s scalp with the mother’s pelvic bones, uterus, or cervical area, which causes decreased blood flow to the area, secondary ischemic damage, and in some cases scarring and hair loss.¹

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(7):673.

2. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009 Nov-Dec;26(6):706-8.

3. Dermatol Online J. 2016 Nov 15;22(11).pii:13030/qt7rt592tz.

With the perinatal history of prolonged labor and prolonged rupture of membranes, the diagnosis of halo scalp ring was made. This occurs secondary to prolonged pressure of the baby’s scalp with the mother’s pelvic bones, uterus, or cervical area, which causes decreased blood flow to the area, secondary ischemic damage, and in some cases scarring and hair loss.¹

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(7):673.

2. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009 Nov-Dec;26(6):706-8.

3. Dermatol Online J. 2016 Nov 15;22(11).pii:13030/qt7rt592tz.

With the perinatal history of prolonged labor and prolonged rupture of membranes, the diagnosis of halo scalp ring was made. This occurs secondary to prolonged pressure of the baby’s scalp with the mother’s pelvic bones, uterus, or cervical area, which causes decreased blood flow to the area, secondary ischemic damage, and in some cases scarring and hair loss.¹

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(7):673.

2. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009 Nov-Dec;26(6):706-8.

3. Dermatol Online J. 2016 Nov 15;22(11).pii:13030/qt7rt592tz.

As I look back, there have been many changes during my 25 years of clinical practice. I always assumed there would be advancements in medical research during my career. I expected those advancements to produce progress rather than a random walk.

One area of positive change has been the recommendations for safe sleep practices for young infants. The Back to Sleep program of the mid 1990s reversed prior advice. It recommended that babies should sleep on their backs to avoid accidental suffocation. Prior advice had been that they should sleep on their stomachs to avoid aspiration. The new advice cut infant deaths by 50%.

Over the years, treatment of gastroesophageal reflux has significantly changed. Polysomnograms are ordered much less frequently. Medications to reduce stomach acid have been associated with side effects and now are discouraged. Raising the head of the crib was common advice in 2000s that was contradicted in the 2010s. For 2 decades I wrote orders in the hospital to elevate the head of the crib. More frequently, the nurses did it without my orders whenever they found a spitty baby.

In May 2019, there was a product recall of inclined infant sleepers. The Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play was one product recalled; 4.7 million of these were sold in the United States in the past 10 years. Because they are used only by infants, and because there are about 4 million births per year in the United States, there are enough of these items stored in basements and garages for every infant to have one.

Investigative reporting by the Washington Post yielded an article highly critical of the product and the way it was originally created and designed. There is outrage in the author’s description of events. Because I have degrees in both engineering and pediatric medicine, I reviewed his assertions and tried to compare his ideal of the medical research world with my reality.

There are 3,600 infant deaths per year in the United States attributed to SUID/SIDS (sudden unexplained infant death/sudden infant death syndrome). From that perspective, I don’t know what 30 deaths in a decade associated with the sleeper really means. There is a high potential for recall bias and confirmation bias. It doesn’t surprise me that there was a delay in assigning blame to an ubiquitous consumer product. The article assumes that medical opinion is monolithic and synchronized rather than undergoing a diffusion of innovation, as described by Everett M. Rogers. Sorting out who knew what and when they knew it will take the courts many years.

Some of my columns earlier this year have appraised medical information in social media, and particularly on Facebook, as being harmfully unreliable. I find when I appraise the quality of medical information in peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, its reliability isn’t good either.

An example of the unreliability of modern medical research was documented in an article in Hospital Pediatrics in July 2019.

The authors were performing a meta-analysis to determine whether the use of respiratory viral (RV) detection tests are helpful in reducing length of stay or reducing unnecessary antibiotic use. To me, that is a much simpler issue, scientifically, than safe sleep practices. The authors found 23 relevant studies that met their criteria for inclusion. Their overall conclusion was that the quality of the studies, the heterogeneity of the studies, and the statistically significant but contradictory results between the studies made it impossible to prove RV testing is beneficial. However, as I read the article, they cannot – for a litany of reasons – rule out such a benefit. Twenty three published articles in total yielded no reliable medical knowledge.

RV testing already has been widely adopted, particularly in emergency rooms. It is expensive. Clinical guidelines discourage RV testing but those guidelines are based on RV testing in the 2003-2006 time frame, which is obsolete technology. The author of the article on the infant sleepers expressed shock at what he considered to be inadequate medical research supporting the development of the inclined infant sleeper. RV testing is a product in widespread use, with lots of research, and has no better proof of efficacy or safety.

I expected, when I first started practice, that when I was older and grayer I would look back and recall many advances. I anticipated my recall would be of fond memories and of many patients helped. What I didn’t expect was so much of the advice that I provided to be wrong. Perhaps my medical education and parts of the academic research system should be subject to a product recall.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

As I look back, there have been many changes during my 25 years of clinical practice. I always assumed there would be advancements in medical research during my career. I expected those advancements to produce progress rather than a random walk.

One area of positive change has been the recommendations for safe sleep practices for young infants. The Back to Sleep program of the mid 1990s reversed prior advice. It recommended that babies should sleep on their backs to avoid accidental suffocation. Prior advice had been that they should sleep on their stomachs to avoid aspiration. The new advice cut infant deaths by 50%.

Over the years, treatment of gastroesophageal reflux has significantly changed. Polysomnograms are ordered much less frequently. Medications to reduce stomach acid have been associated with side effects and now are discouraged. Raising the head of the crib was common advice in 2000s that was contradicted in the 2010s. For 2 decades I wrote orders in the hospital to elevate the head of the crib. More frequently, the nurses did it without my orders whenever they found a spitty baby.

In May 2019, there was a product recall of inclined infant sleepers. The Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play was one product recalled; 4.7 million of these were sold in the United States in the past 10 years. Because they are used only by infants, and because there are about 4 million births per year in the United States, there are enough of these items stored in basements and garages for every infant to have one.

Investigative reporting by the Washington Post yielded an article highly critical of the product and the way it was originally created and designed. There is outrage in the author’s description of events. Because I have degrees in both engineering and pediatric medicine, I reviewed his assertions and tried to compare his ideal of the medical research world with my reality.

There are 3,600 infant deaths per year in the United States attributed to SUID/SIDS (sudden unexplained infant death/sudden infant death syndrome). From that perspective, I don’t know what 30 deaths in a decade associated with the sleeper really means. There is a high potential for recall bias and confirmation bias. It doesn’t surprise me that there was a delay in assigning blame to an ubiquitous consumer product. The article assumes that medical opinion is monolithic and synchronized rather than undergoing a diffusion of innovation, as described by Everett M. Rogers. Sorting out who knew what and when they knew it will take the courts many years.

Some of my columns earlier this year have appraised medical information in social media, and particularly on Facebook, as being harmfully unreliable. I find when I appraise the quality of medical information in peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, its reliability isn’t good either.

An example of the unreliability of modern medical research was documented in an article in Hospital Pediatrics in July 2019.

The authors were performing a meta-analysis to determine whether the use of respiratory viral (RV) detection tests are helpful in reducing length of stay or reducing unnecessary antibiotic use. To me, that is a much simpler issue, scientifically, than safe sleep practices. The authors found 23 relevant studies that met their criteria for inclusion. Their overall conclusion was that the quality of the studies, the heterogeneity of the studies, and the statistically significant but contradictory results between the studies made it impossible to prove RV testing is beneficial. However, as I read the article, they cannot – for a litany of reasons – rule out such a benefit. Twenty three published articles in total yielded no reliable medical knowledge.

RV testing already has been widely adopted, particularly in emergency rooms. It is expensive. Clinical guidelines discourage RV testing but those guidelines are based on RV testing in the 2003-2006 time frame, which is obsolete technology. The author of the article on the infant sleepers expressed shock at what he considered to be inadequate medical research supporting the development of the inclined infant sleeper. RV testing is a product in widespread use, with lots of research, and has no better proof of efficacy or safety.

I expected, when I first started practice, that when I was older and grayer I would look back and recall many advances. I anticipated my recall would be of fond memories and of many patients helped. What I didn’t expect was so much of the advice that I provided to be wrong. Perhaps my medical education and parts of the academic research system should be subject to a product recall.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

As I look back, there have been many changes during my 25 years of clinical practice. I always assumed there would be advancements in medical research during my career. I expected those advancements to produce progress rather than a random walk.

One area of positive change has been the recommendations for safe sleep practices for young infants. The Back to Sleep program of the mid 1990s reversed prior advice. It recommended that babies should sleep on their backs to avoid accidental suffocation. Prior advice had been that they should sleep on their stomachs to avoid aspiration. The new advice cut infant deaths by 50%.

Over the years, treatment of gastroesophageal reflux has significantly changed. Polysomnograms are ordered much less frequently. Medications to reduce stomach acid have been associated with side effects and now are discouraged. Raising the head of the crib was common advice in 2000s that was contradicted in the 2010s. For 2 decades I wrote orders in the hospital to elevate the head of the crib. More frequently, the nurses did it without my orders whenever they found a spitty baby.

In May 2019, there was a product recall of inclined infant sleepers. The Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play was one product recalled; 4.7 million of these were sold in the United States in the past 10 years. Because they are used only by infants, and because there are about 4 million births per year in the United States, there are enough of these items stored in basements and garages for every infant to have one.

Investigative reporting by the Washington Post yielded an article highly critical of the product and the way it was originally created and designed. There is outrage in the author’s description of events. Because I have degrees in both engineering and pediatric medicine, I reviewed his assertions and tried to compare his ideal of the medical research world with my reality.

There are 3,600 infant deaths per year in the United States attributed to SUID/SIDS (sudden unexplained infant death/sudden infant death syndrome). From that perspective, I don’t know what 30 deaths in a decade associated with the sleeper really means. There is a high potential for recall bias and confirmation bias. It doesn’t surprise me that there was a delay in assigning blame to an ubiquitous consumer product. The article assumes that medical opinion is monolithic and synchronized rather than undergoing a diffusion of innovation, as described by Everett M. Rogers. Sorting out who knew what and when they knew it will take the courts many years.

Some of my columns earlier this year have appraised medical information in social media, and particularly on Facebook, as being harmfully unreliable. I find when I appraise the quality of medical information in peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, its reliability isn’t good either.

An example of the unreliability of modern medical research was documented in an article in Hospital Pediatrics in July 2019.

The authors were performing a meta-analysis to determine whether the use of respiratory viral (RV) detection tests are helpful in reducing length of stay or reducing unnecessary antibiotic use. To me, that is a much simpler issue, scientifically, than safe sleep practices. The authors found 23 relevant studies that met their criteria for inclusion. Their overall conclusion was that the quality of the studies, the heterogeneity of the studies, and the statistically significant but contradictory results between the studies made it impossible to prove RV testing is beneficial. However, as I read the article, they cannot – for a litany of reasons – rule out such a benefit. Twenty three published articles in total yielded no reliable medical knowledge.

RV testing already has been widely adopted, particularly in emergency rooms. It is expensive. Clinical guidelines discourage RV testing but those guidelines are based on RV testing in the 2003-2006 time frame, which is obsolete technology. The author of the article on the infant sleepers expressed shock at what he considered to be inadequate medical research supporting the development of the inclined infant sleeper. RV testing is a product in widespread use, with lots of research, and has no better proof of efficacy or safety.

I expected, when I first started practice, that when I was older and grayer I would look back and recall many advances. I anticipated my recall would be of fond memories and of many patients helped. What I didn’t expect was so much of the advice that I provided to be wrong. Perhaps my medical education and parts of the academic research system should be subject to a product recall.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

During the last year, the field of psoriasis has continued to expand, with new therapies, new guidelines, and further understanding of the impact of treatment on associated comorbidities. 

One of the most exciting prospects of the treatment of psoriasis with biologics is the potential for the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). It has been well established that psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk.^1,2 Ahlehoff et al¹ conducted a cohort study of the entire Danish population 18 years and older followed from 1997 to 2006 by individual-level linkage of nationwide registers. They concluded that psoriasis is associated with increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Young age, severe skin affection, and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) carry the most risk. They suggested that patients with psoriasis may be candidates for early cardiovascular risk factor modification.¹  

Ogdie et al² endeavored to quantify the risk for MACE among patients with PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis without known PsA compared to the general population after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with PsA (N=8706), RA (N=41,752), psoriasis (N=138,424), and unexposed controls (N=81,573) were identified. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, the risk for MACE was higher in patients with PsA not prescribed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)(hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.49), patients with RA (no DMARD: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50; DMARD: HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70), patients with psoriasis not prescribed a DMARD (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and patients with severe psoriasis (DMARD: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73).² These data are one aspect of our increasing insight into the management of psoriasis. 

To expand on the new guidelines and new therapies presented in 2019, this issue includes review articles looking at these facets. Wu and Weinberg3 review the impact of diet on psoriasis. Pithadia et al⁴ explain the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with biologics for the prescribing dermatologist, with an emphasis on the most clinically significant considerations during each step of treatment with biologic therapies (ie, choosing a biologic, initiating therapy, assessing treatment response, switching biologics). Havnaer et al⁵ provide an update on the newly approved and pipeline systemic agents for psoriasis.  

We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative. 

During the last year, the field of psoriasis has continued to expand, with new therapies, new guidelines, and further understanding of the impact of treatment on associated comorbidities. 

One of the most exciting prospects of the treatment of psoriasis with biologics is the potential for the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). It has been well established that psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk.^1,2 Ahlehoff et al¹ conducted a cohort study of the entire Danish population 18 years and older followed from 1997 to 2006 by individual-level linkage of nationwide registers. They concluded that psoriasis is associated with increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Young age, severe skin affection, and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) carry the most risk. They suggested that patients with psoriasis may be candidates for early cardiovascular risk factor modification.¹  

Ogdie et al² endeavored to quantify the risk for MACE among patients with PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis without known PsA compared to the general population after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with PsA (N=8706), RA (N=41,752), psoriasis (N=138,424), and unexposed controls (N=81,573) were identified. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, the risk for MACE was higher in patients with PsA not prescribed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)(hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.49), patients with RA (no DMARD: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50; DMARD: HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70), patients with psoriasis not prescribed a DMARD (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and patients with severe psoriasis (DMARD: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73).² These data are one aspect of our increasing insight into the management of psoriasis. 

To expand on the new guidelines and new therapies presented in 2019, this issue includes review articles looking at these facets. Wu and Weinberg3 review the impact of diet on psoriasis. Pithadia et al⁴ explain the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with biologics for the prescribing dermatologist, with an emphasis on the most clinically significant considerations during each step of treatment with biologic therapies (ie, choosing a biologic, initiating therapy, assessing treatment response, switching biologics). Havnaer et al⁵ provide an update on the newly approved and pipeline systemic agents for psoriasis.  

We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative. 

During the last year, the field of psoriasis has continued to expand, with new therapies, new guidelines, and further understanding of the impact of treatment on associated comorbidities. 

One of the most exciting prospects of the treatment of psoriasis with biologics is the potential for the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). It has been well established that psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk.^1,2 Ahlehoff et al¹ conducted a cohort study of the entire Danish population 18 years and older followed from 1997 to 2006 by individual-level linkage of nationwide registers. They concluded that psoriasis is associated with increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Young age, severe skin affection, and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) carry the most risk. They suggested that patients with psoriasis may be candidates for early cardiovascular risk factor modification.¹  

Ogdie et al² endeavored to quantify the risk for MACE among patients with PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis without known PsA compared to the general population after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with PsA (N=8706), RA (N=41,752), psoriasis (N=138,424), and unexposed controls (N=81,573) were identified. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, the risk for MACE was higher in patients with PsA not prescribed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)(hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.49), patients with RA (no DMARD: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50; DMARD: HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70), patients with psoriasis not prescribed a DMARD (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and patients with severe psoriasis (DMARD: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73).² These data are one aspect of our increasing insight into the management of psoriasis. 

To expand on the new guidelines and new therapies presented in 2019, this issue includes review articles looking at these facets. Wu and Weinberg3 review the impact of diet on psoriasis. Pithadia et al⁴ explain the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with biologics for the prescribing dermatologist, with an emphasis on the most clinically significant considerations during each step of treatment with biologic therapies (ie, choosing a biologic, initiating therapy, assessing treatment response, switching biologics). Havnaer et al⁵ provide an update on the newly approved and pipeline systemic agents for psoriasis.  

We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative.