User login
The 21st Century Cures Act: Tearing down fortresses to put patients first
"A fortress not only protects those inside of it, but it also enslaves them to work.”
– Anthony T. Hincks
As physicians, we spend a great deal of time intending to do our best for the people we serve. We believe fundamentally in the idea that our patients come first, and we toil daily to exercise that belief. We also want our patients to feel they are driving their care as active participants along the journey. Yet time and time again, despite our greatest attempts, those efforts are stymied by the state of modern medicine;
Over the past 10 years, we have done a tremendous job of constructing expensive fortresses around patient information known as electronic health records (EHRs). Billions of dollars have been spent implementing, upgrading, and optimizing. In spite of this, physicians are increasingly frustrated by EHRs (and in many cases, long to return to the days of paper). It isn’t surprising, then, that patients are frustrated as well. We use terms such as “patient-centered care,” but patients feel like they are not in the center at all. Instead, they can find themselves feeling like complete outsiders, at the mercy of the medical juggernaut to make sure they have the appropriate information when they need it. There are several issues that contribute to the frustrations of physicians and patients, but two in particular warrant attention. The first is the diversity of Health IT systems and ongoing issues with EHR interoperability. The second is a provincial attitude surrounding transparency and medical record ownership. We will discuss both of these here, as well as recent legislation designed to advance both concerns.
We have written in previous columns about the many challenges of interoperability. Electronic health records, sold by different vendors, typically won’t “talk” to each other. In spite of years of maturation, issues of compatibility remain. Patient data locked inside of one EHR is not easily accessible by a physician using a different EHR. While efforts have been made to streamline information sharing, there are still many fortresses that cannot be breached.
Bridging the moat
The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted by Congress in December of 2016, seeks to define and require interoperability while addressing many other significant problems in health care. According to the legislation, true interoperability means that health IT should enable the secure exchange of electronic health information with other electronic record systems without special effort on the part of the user; the process should be seamless and shouldn’t be cumbersome for physicians or patients. It also must be fully supported by EHR vendors, but those vendors have been expressing significant concerns with the ways in which the act is being interpreted.
In a recent blog post, the HIMSS Electronic Health Record Association – a consortium of vendors including Epic, Allscripts, eClinicalWorks, as well as several others – expressed “significant concerns regarding timelines, ambiguous language, disincentives for innovation, and definitions related to information blocking.”1 This is not surprising, as the onus for improving interoperability falls squarely on their shoulders, and the work to get there is arduous. Regardless of one’s interpretation, the goal of the Cures act is clear: Arrive at true interoperability in the shortest period of time, while eliminating barriers that prevent patients from accessing their health records. In other words, it asks for the avoidance of “information blocking.”
Breaching the gate
Information blocking, as defined by the Cures Act, is “a practice by a health care provider, health IT developer, health information exchange, or health information network that … is likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information.”2 This practice is explicitly prohibited by the legislation – and is ethically wrong – yet it continues to occur implicitly every day as it has for many years. Even if unintentional and solely because of the growing complexity of our information systems, it makes accessing health information incredibly cumbersome for patients. Even worse, attempts to improve patients’ ability to access their health records have only created additional obstacles.
HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) was designed to protect patient confidentiality and create security around protected health information. While noble in purpose, many have found it burdensome to work within the parameters set forth in the law. Physicians and patients needing legitimate access to clinical data discover endless release forms and convoluted processes standing in their way. Access to the information eventually comes in the form of reams of printed paper or faxed notes that cannot be easily consumed by or integrated into other systems.
The Meaningful Use initiative, while envisioned to improve data exchange and enhance population health, did little to help. Instead of enabling documentation efficiency and improving patient access, it promoted the proliferation of incompatible EHRs and poorly conceived patient portals. It also created heavy costs for both the federal government and physicians and was largely ineffective at producing systems whose use could be considered meaningful. The federal government paid out as much as $44,000 per physician to incentivize them to purchase medical records, while physicians often spent more than the $44,000 and, in many cases, wound up with EHRs that didn’t work well and had to be replaced.
Authors and supporters of the 21st Century Cures Act are hoping to avoid the shortcomings of prior legislation by attaching financial penalties to health care providers or IT vendors who engage in information blocking. While allowing for exceptions in appropriate cases, the law is clear: Patients deserve complete access to their medical records. While this goes against tradition, it has been proven to result in better outcomes.
Initiatives such as the OpenNotes movement have been pushing the value of full transparency for some time, and their website includes a long list of numerous examples to prove it. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated increased physician and patient satisfaction when both parties have ready access to health information. We believe that we, as physicians, should fully support the idea and lobby our EHR vendors to do the same.
It is time to tear down the impenetrable fortresses of traditional medicine, then work diligently to rebuild them with our patients safely inside.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
References
1. The Electronic Health Record Association blog
"A fortress not only protects those inside of it, but it also enslaves them to work.”
– Anthony T. Hincks
As physicians, we spend a great deal of time intending to do our best for the people we serve. We believe fundamentally in the idea that our patients come first, and we toil daily to exercise that belief. We also want our patients to feel they are driving their care as active participants along the journey. Yet time and time again, despite our greatest attempts, those efforts are stymied by the state of modern medicine;
Over the past 10 years, we have done a tremendous job of constructing expensive fortresses around patient information known as electronic health records (EHRs). Billions of dollars have been spent implementing, upgrading, and optimizing. In spite of this, physicians are increasingly frustrated by EHRs (and in many cases, long to return to the days of paper). It isn’t surprising, then, that patients are frustrated as well. We use terms such as “patient-centered care,” but patients feel like they are not in the center at all. Instead, they can find themselves feeling like complete outsiders, at the mercy of the medical juggernaut to make sure they have the appropriate information when they need it. There are several issues that contribute to the frustrations of physicians and patients, but two in particular warrant attention. The first is the diversity of Health IT systems and ongoing issues with EHR interoperability. The second is a provincial attitude surrounding transparency and medical record ownership. We will discuss both of these here, as well as recent legislation designed to advance both concerns.
We have written in previous columns about the many challenges of interoperability. Electronic health records, sold by different vendors, typically won’t “talk” to each other. In spite of years of maturation, issues of compatibility remain. Patient data locked inside of one EHR is not easily accessible by a physician using a different EHR. While efforts have been made to streamline information sharing, there are still many fortresses that cannot be breached.
Bridging the moat
The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted by Congress in December of 2016, seeks to define and require interoperability while addressing many other significant problems in health care. According to the legislation, true interoperability means that health IT should enable the secure exchange of electronic health information with other electronic record systems without special effort on the part of the user; the process should be seamless and shouldn’t be cumbersome for physicians or patients. It also must be fully supported by EHR vendors, but those vendors have been expressing significant concerns with the ways in which the act is being interpreted.
In a recent blog post, the HIMSS Electronic Health Record Association – a consortium of vendors including Epic, Allscripts, eClinicalWorks, as well as several others – expressed “significant concerns regarding timelines, ambiguous language, disincentives for innovation, and definitions related to information blocking.”1 This is not surprising, as the onus for improving interoperability falls squarely on their shoulders, and the work to get there is arduous. Regardless of one’s interpretation, the goal of the Cures act is clear: Arrive at true interoperability in the shortest period of time, while eliminating barriers that prevent patients from accessing their health records. In other words, it asks for the avoidance of “information blocking.”
Breaching the gate
Information blocking, as defined by the Cures Act, is “a practice by a health care provider, health IT developer, health information exchange, or health information network that … is likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information.”2 This practice is explicitly prohibited by the legislation – and is ethically wrong – yet it continues to occur implicitly every day as it has for many years. Even if unintentional and solely because of the growing complexity of our information systems, it makes accessing health information incredibly cumbersome for patients. Even worse, attempts to improve patients’ ability to access their health records have only created additional obstacles.
HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) was designed to protect patient confidentiality and create security around protected health information. While noble in purpose, many have found it burdensome to work within the parameters set forth in the law. Physicians and patients needing legitimate access to clinical data discover endless release forms and convoluted processes standing in their way. Access to the information eventually comes in the form of reams of printed paper or faxed notes that cannot be easily consumed by or integrated into other systems.
The Meaningful Use initiative, while envisioned to improve data exchange and enhance population health, did little to help. Instead of enabling documentation efficiency and improving patient access, it promoted the proliferation of incompatible EHRs and poorly conceived patient portals. It also created heavy costs for both the federal government and physicians and was largely ineffective at producing systems whose use could be considered meaningful. The federal government paid out as much as $44,000 per physician to incentivize them to purchase medical records, while physicians often spent more than the $44,000 and, in many cases, wound up with EHRs that didn’t work well and had to be replaced.
Authors and supporters of the 21st Century Cures Act are hoping to avoid the shortcomings of prior legislation by attaching financial penalties to health care providers or IT vendors who engage in information blocking. While allowing for exceptions in appropriate cases, the law is clear: Patients deserve complete access to their medical records. While this goes against tradition, it has been proven to result in better outcomes.
Initiatives such as the OpenNotes movement have been pushing the value of full transparency for some time, and their website includes a long list of numerous examples to prove it. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated increased physician and patient satisfaction when both parties have ready access to health information. We believe that we, as physicians, should fully support the idea and lobby our EHR vendors to do the same.
It is time to tear down the impenetrable fortresses of traditional medicine, then work diligently to rebuild them with our patients safely inside.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
References
1. The Electronic Health Record Association blog
"A fortress not only protects those inside of it, but it also enslaves them to work.”
– Anthony T. Hincks
As physicians, we spend a great deal of time intending to do our best for the people we serve. We believe fundamentally in the idea that our patients come first, and we toil daily to exercise that belief. We also want our patients to feel they are driving their care as active participants along the journey. Yet time and time again, despite our greatest attempts, those efforts are stymied by the state of modern medicine;
Over the past 10 years, we have done a tremendous job of constructing expensive fortresses around patient information known as electronic health records (EHRs). Billions of dollars have been spent implementing, upgrading, and optimizing. In spite of this, physicians are increasingly frustrated by EHRs (and in many cases, long to return to the days of paper). It isn’t surprising, then, that patients are frustrated as well. We use terms such as “patient-centered care,” but patients feel like they are not in the center at all. Instead, they can find themselves feeling like complete outsiders, at the mercy of the medical juggernaut to make sure they have the appropriate information when they need it. There are several issues that contribute to the frustrations of physicians and patients, but two in particular warrant attention. The first is the diversity of Health IT systems and ongoing issues with EHR interoperability. The second is a provincial attitude surrounding transparency and medical record ownership. We will discuss both of these here, as well as recent legislation designed to advance both concerns.
We have written in previous columns about the many challenges of interoperability. Electronic health records, sold by different vendors, typically won’t “talk” to each other. In spite of years of maturation, issues of compatibility remain. Patient data locked inside of one EHR is not easily accessible by a physician using a different EHR. While efforts have been made to streamline information sharing, there are still many fortresses that cannot be breached.
Bridging the moat
The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted by Congress in December of 2016, seeks to define and require interoperability while addressing many other significant problems in health care. According to the legislation, true interoperability means that health IT should enable the secure exchange of electronic health information with other electronic record systems without special effort on the part of the user; the process should be seamless and shouldn’t be cumbersome for physicians or patients. It also must be fully supported by EHR vendors, but those vendors have been expressing significant concerns with the ways in which the act is being interpreted.
In a recent blog post, the HIMSS Electronic Health Record Association – a consortium of vendors including Epic, Allscripts, eClinicalWorks, as well as several others – expressed “significant concerns regarding timelines, ambiguous language, disincentives for innovation, and definitions related to information blocking.”1 This is not surprising, as the onus for improving interoperability falls squarely on their shoulders, and the work to get there is arduous. Regardless of one’s interpretation, the goal of the Cures act is clear: Arrive at true interoperability in the shortest period of time, while eliminating barriers that prevent patients from accessing their health records. In other words, it asks for the avoidance of “information blocking.”
Breaching the gate
Information blocking, as defined by the Cures Act, is “a practice by a health care provider, health IT developer, health information exchange, or health information network that … is likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information.”2 This practice is explicitly prohibited by the legislation – and is ethically wrong – yet it continues to occur implicitly every day as it has for many years. Even if unintentional and solely because of the growing complexity of our information systems, it makes accessing health information incredibly cumbersome for patients. Even worse, attempts to improve patients’ ability to access their health records have only created additional obstacles.
HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) was designed to protect patient confidentiality and create security around protected health information. While noble in purpose, many have found it burdensome to work within the parameters set forth in the law. Physicians and patients needing legitimate access to clinical data discover endless release forms and convoluted processes standing in their way. Access to the information eventually comes in the form of reams of printed paper or faxed notes that cannot be easily consumed by or integrated into other systems.
The Meaningful Use initiative, while envisioned to improve data exchange and enhance population health, did little to help. Instead of enabling documentation efficiency and improving patient access, it promoted the proliferation of incompatible EHRs and poorly conceived patient portals. It also created heavy costs for both the federal government and physicians and was largely ineffective at producing systems whose use could be considered meaningful. The federal government paid out as much as $44,000 per physician to incentivize them to purchase medical records, while physicians often spent more than the $44,000 and, in many cases, wound up with EHRs that didn’t work well and had to be replaced.
Authors and supporters of the 21st Century Cures Act are hoping to avoid the shortcomings of prior legislation by attaching financial penalties to health care providers or IT vendors who engage in information blocking. While allowing for exceptions in appropriate cases, the law is clear: Patients deserve complete access to their medical records. While this goes against tradition, it has been proven to result in better outcomes.
Initiatives such as the OpenNotes movement have been pushing the value of full transparency for some time, and their website includes a long list of numerous examples to prove it. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated increased physician and patient satisfaction when both parties have ready access to health information. We believe that we, as physicians, should fully support the idea and lobby our EHR vendors to do the same.
It is time to tear down the impenetrable fortresses of traditional medicine, then work diligently to rebuild them with our patients safely inside.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
References
1. The Electronic Health Record Association blog
Why we need another article on suicide contracts
Every guideline and lecture on suicide risk assessment includes the message: “Do not use suicide contracts.” Yet, as forensic psychiatrists, we continue to see medical records that rely solely on the patient verbalizing, agreeing, or signing that they will be safe, in order to justify medical decision-making. A recent case we reviewed involving a grossly psychotic male spotlighted the meaninglessness of suicide contracts. In an attempt to understand the impulse by clinicians to use suicide contracts, we decided to review the topic.
Suicide risk assessment is a confusing and poorly explained skill in our field. Suicide risk assessment tools are well-intended. They are meant to identify and stratify risk, and help guide medical decision-making. Popular tools are startlingly different. How can two scales represent adequate psychiatric knowledge yet be completely different? SADPERSONS1 is widely used and still considered standard of care yet has nothing in common with the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS).2
For those of us working in forensic settings, we are aghast that neither assessment is modified for use in correctional settings or accounts for essential risk factors of suicide in jails and prisons (placement in solitary, significant charges, homeless, etc.) Yet, they are widely used in jails and prisons across the country. This can be extrapolated to all of us who work with specific populations yet are asked to follow generic scales by administrators.
In reviewing the literature, we are surprised to see the lack of acknowledgment that many tools used in suicide risk assessment have little to no evidence. Despite their numerous appearances in medical records that we review, we are not aware of existing evidence for asking patients whether patients are suicidal on an hourly basis, for psychotropic treatment other than lithium and clozapine (Clozaril), and for safety plans that involve telling the patient to call 911. Of even greater concern, suicide risk assessments themselves may have limited value because of a lack of evidence as suggested by large study findings. It may surprise some to learn that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom includes the following statement in its guidelines: “Do not use risk assessment tools and scales to predict future suicide or repetition of self-harm.”3
In 2017, Carter et al.4 reviewed 70 studies using suicide risk scales to stratify patients in higher-risk groups for self-harm or suicide, during a follow-up period. The study reviewed biological tests such as the dexamethasone suppression test and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid; as well as psychological scales, including Buglass & Horton, SADPERSONS, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Beck’s Depression Inventory, Manchester Self Harm Rule, and the Edinburgh Risk Rating Scale. Their conclusion was clear: “No individual predictive instrument or pooled subgroups of instruments were able to classify patients as being at high risk of suicidal behavior with a level of accuracy suitable to be used to allocate treatment.”
Despite the bad reputation, one must admit that suicide contracts intuitively feel right. Just as we ask patients whether they believe they will stay sober in the future, or ask patients if they will be compliant with their psychotropics, asking them if they feel that they can maintain safety seems relevant. Reading through the literature, one can even find articles promoting this approach. In 2011, researchers simply asked 147 patients in psychiatric hospitals considered to be high risk for suicide whether they would engage in self-harm in the following weeks. They followed those patients for 15 weeks after their discharge for acts of self-harm. They concluded that “self-perceptions of risk seem to perform as well as the best [standardized assessment tools] the field has to offer” for the prediction of self-harm.5 We are unconvinced that juries would find suicide contracts irrelevant despite the lack of evidence. American society values individual autonomy and self-decision making. Patients telling their clinicians, “I will be OK” is relevant to suicide risk assessment. One can argue that the problem is not with the suicide contract itself, but with its blind use as a marker of safety.
The standard of care dictates that we try to assess suicide risk using evidence-based techniques. To the providers who see merit in asking patients whether they will be able to maintain their safety, we empathize with this impulse despite the lack of evidence. This will contribute in our shared effort to minimize suicide.
We acknowledge that the evidence of any assessment is limited and might miss a greater point in this entire discussion: Why are new iterations of suicide risk assessments not an improvement on the prior ones but a competing theory? New assessments emphasizing different facets of suicidal thinking do not include key demographic factors, while older tools do not include more recent understanding, such as the importance of hopelessness. From a provider’s perspective, the debate appears to be a battle of trends, theories, and acronyms rather than comprehensive analysis of the latest evidence. We, therefore, are concerned by “suicide experts” who advocate for any one assessment as the only gold standard and give false hopes about its efficacy.
As suicide rates continue to climb across the country, one wonders what we, as psychiatrists, are trying to achieve. Promises of zero suicides by hospitals,6 academic institutions,7 and even governments8 are well-meaning but possibly misleading to families and patients. Psychiatry should advocate within the standard of care for reasonable attempts at suicide risk assessment, including demographic factors (see SADPERSONS), as well as examination of the actual suicidality (see the CSSRS). Our professional organizations should clarify expectations for clinicians while also clarifying the limitations of our current knowledge base.
References
1. Patterson WM et al. Evaluation of suicidal patients: the SADPERSONS scale. Psychosomatics. 1983 Apr;24[4]:343-5, 348-9.
2. Posner K et al. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Dec;168(12):1266-77.
3. Kendall T et al. Longer term management of self harm: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;343. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7073.
4. Carter G et al. Predicting suicidal behaviors using clinical instruments: systematic review and meta-analysis of positive predictive values for risk scales. Br J Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;210(6):387-95.
5. Peterson J et al. If you want to know, consider asking: How likely is it that patients will hurt themselves in the future? Psychol Assess. 2011 Sep;23(3):626-34.
5. Byrne JM et al. Implementation and impact of the central district of California’s suicide prevention program for crime defendants. Federal Probation. 2012 Jun;76(1):3-13.
6. “R.I.’s Butler Hospital sets ‘zero suicide’ goal for patients”/audio. Providence Journal. May 15, 2018.
7. “NIMH funds 3 ‘zero suicide’ grants.” National Institute of Mental Health. Sep 16, 2016.
8. Rothschild N. “Is it possible to eliminate suicide?” Atlantic. Jun 5, 2015.
Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Dr. Rao is a San Diego–based board-certified psychiatrist with expertise in forensic psychiatry, correctional psychiatry, telepsychiatry, and inpatient psychiatry.
Every guideline and lecture on suicide risk assessment includes the message: “Do not use suicide contracts.” Yet, as forensic psychiatrists, we continue to see medical records that rely solely on the patient verbalizing, agreeing, or signing that they will be safe, in order to justify medical decision-making. A recent case we reviewed involving a grossly psychotic male spotlighted the meaninglessness of suicide contracts. In an attempt to understand the impulse by clinicians to use suicide contracts, we decided to review the topic.
Suicide risk assessment is a confusing and poorly explained skill in our field. Suicide risk assessment tools are well-intended. They are meant to identify and stratify risk, and help guide medical decision-making. Popular tools are startlingly different. How can two scales represent adequate psychiatric knowledge yet be completely different? SADPERSONS1 is widely used and still considered standard of care yet has nothing in common with the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS).2
For those of us working in forensic settings, we are aghast that neither assessment is modified for use in correctional settings or accounts for essential risk factors of suicide in jails and prisons (placement in solitary, significant charges, homeless, etc.) Yet, they are widely used in jails and prisons across the country. This can be extrapolated to all of us who work with specific populations yet are asked to follow generic scales by administrators.
In reviewing the literature, we are surprised to see the lack of acknowledgment that many tools used in suicide risk assessment have little to no evidence. Despite their numerous appearances in medical records that we review, we are not aware of existing evidence for asking patients whether patients are suicidal on an hourly basis, for psychotropic treatment other than lithium and clozapine (Clozaril), and for safety plans that involve telling the patient to call 911. Of even greater concern, suicide risk assessments themselves may have limited value because of a lack of evidence as suggested by large study findings. It may surprise some to learn that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom includes the following statement in its guidelines: “Do not use risk assessment tools and scales to predict future suicide or repetition of self-harm.”3
In 2017, Carter et al.4 reviewed 70 studies using suicide risk scales to stratify patients in higher-risk groups for self-harm or suicide, during a follow-up period. The study reviewed biological tests such as the dexamethasone suppression test and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid; as well as psychological scales, including Buglass & Horton, SADPERSONS, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Beck’s Depression Inventory, Manchester Self Harm Rule, and the Edinburgh Risk Rating Scale. Their conclusion was clear: “No individual predictive instrument or pooled subgroups of instruments were able to classify patients as being at high risk of suicidal behavior with a level of accuracy suitable to be used to allocate treatment.”
Despite the bad reputation, one must admit that suicide contracts intuitively feel right. Just as we ask patients whether they believe they will stay sober in the future, or ask patients if they will be compliant with their psychotropics, asking them if they feel that they can maintain safety seems relevant. Reading through the literature, one can even find articles promoting this approach. In 2011, researchers simply asked 147 patients in psychiatric hospitals considered to be high risk for suicide whether they would engage in self-harm in the following weeks. They followed those patients for 15 weeks after their discharge for acts of self-harm. They concluded that “self-perceptions of risk seem to perform as well as the best [standardized assessment tools] the field has to offer” for the prediction of self-harm.5 We are unconvinced that juries would find suicide contracts irrelevant despite the lack of evidence. American society values individual autonomy and self-decision making. Patients telling their clinicians, “I will be OK” is relevant to suicide risk assessment. One can argue that the problem is not with the suicide contract itself, but with its blind use as a marker of safety.
The standard of care dictates that we try to assess suicide risk using evidence-based techniques. To the providers who see merit in asking patients whether they will be able to maintain their safety, we empathize with this impulse despite the lack of evidence. This will contribute in our shared effort to minimize suicide.
We acknowledge that the evidence of any assessment is limited and might miss a greater point in this entire discussion: Why are new iterations of suicide risk assessments not an improvement on the prior ones but a competing theory? New assessments emphasizing different facets of suicidal thinking do not include key demographic factors, while older tools do not include more recent understanding, such as the importance of hopelessness. From a provider’s perspective, the debate appears to be a battle of trends, theories, and acronyms rather than comprehensive analysis of the latest evidence. We, therefore, are concerned by “suicide experts” who advocate for any one assessment as the only gold standard and give false hopes about its efficacy.
As suicide rates continue to climb across the country, one wonders what we, as psychiatrists, are trying to achieve. Promises of zero suicides by hospitals,6 academic institutions,7 and even governments8 are well-meaning but possibly misleading to families and patients. Psychiatry should advocate within the standard of care for reasonable attempts at suicide risk assessment, including demographic factors (see SADPERSONS), as well as examination of the actual suicidality (see the CSSRS). Our professional organizations should clarify expectations for clinicians while also clarifying the limitations of our current knowledge base.
References
1. Patterson WM et al. Evaluation of suicidal patients: the SADPERSONS scale. Psychosomatics. 1983 Apr;24[4]:343-5, 348-9.
2. Posner K et al. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Dec;168(12):1266-77.
3. Kendall T et al. Longer term management of self harm: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;343. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7073.
4. Carter G et al. Predicting suicidal behaviors using clinical instruments: systematic review and meta-analysis of positive predictive values for risk scales. Br J Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;210(6):387-95.
5. Peterson J et al. If you want to know, consider asking: How likely is it that patients will hurt themselves in the future? Psychol Assess. 2011 Sep;23(3):626-34.
5. Byrne JM et al. Implementation and impact of the central district of California’s suicide prevention program for crime defendants. Federal Probation. 2012 Jun;76(1):3-13.
6. “R.I.’s Butler Hospital sets ‘zero suicide’ goal for patients”/audio. Providence Journal. May 15, 2018.
7. “NIMH funds 3 ‘zero suicide’ grants.” National Institute of Mental Health. Sep 16, 2016.
8. Rothschild N. “Is it possible to eliminate suicide?” Atlantic. Jun 5, 2015.
Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Dr. Rao is a San Diego–based board-certified psychiatrist with expertise in forensic psychiatry, correctional psychiatry, telepsychiatry, and inpatient psychiatry.
Every guideline and lecture on suicide risk assessment includes the message: “Do not use suicide contracts.” Yet, as forensic psychiatrists, we continue to see medical records that rely solely on the patient verbalizing, agreeing, or signing that they will be safe, in order to justify medical decision-making. A recent case we reviewed involving a grossly psychotic male spotlighted the meaninglessness of suicide contracts. In an attempt to understand the impulse by clinicians to use suicide contracts, we decided to review the topic.
Suicide risk assessment is a confusing and poorly explained skill in our field. Suicide risk assessment tools are well-intended. They are meant to identify and stratify risk, and help guide medical decision-making. Popular tools are startlingly different. How can two scales represent adequate psychiatric knowledge yet be completely different? SADPERSONS1 is widely used and still considered standard of care yet has nothing in common with the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS).2
For those of us working in forensic settings, we are aghast that neither assessment is modified for use in correctional settings or accounts for essential risk factors of suicide in jails and prisons (placement in solitary, significant charges, homeless, etc.) Yet, they are widely used in jails and prisons across the country. This can be extrapolated to all of us who work with specific populations yet are asked to follow generic scales by administrators.
In reviewing the literature, we are surprised to see the lack of acknowledgment that many tools used in suicide risk assessment have little to no evidence. Despite their numerous appearances in medical records that we review, we are not aware of existing evidence for asking patients whether patients are suicidal on an hourly basis, for psychotropic treatment other than lithium and clozapine (Clozaril), and for safety plans that involve telling the patient to call 911. Of even greater concern, suicide risk assessments themselves may have limited value because of a lack of evidence as suggested by large study findings. It may surprise some to learn that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom includes the following statement in its guidelines: “Do not use risk assessment tools and scales to predict future suicide or repetition of self-harm.”3
In 2017, Carter et al.4 reviewed 70 studies using suicide risk scales to stratify patients in higher-risk groups for self-harm or suicide, during a follow-up period. The study reviewed biological tests such as the dexamethasone suppression test and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid; as well as psychological scales, including Buglass & Horton, SADPERSONS, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Beck’s Depression Inventory, Manchester Self Harm Rule, and the Edinburgh Risk Rating Scale. Their conclusion was clear: “No individual predictive instrument or pooled subgroups of instruments were able to classify patients as being at high risk of suicidal behavior with a level of accuracy suitable to be used to allocate treatment.”
Despite the bad reputation, one must admit that suicide contracts intuitively feel right. Just as we ask patients whether they believe they will stay sober in the future, or ask patients if they will be compliant with their psychotropics, asking them if they feel that they can maintain safety seems relevant. Reading through the literature, one can even find articles promoting this approach. In 2011, researchers simply asked 147 patients in psychiatric hospitals considered to be high risk for suicide whether they would engage in self-harm in the following weeks. They followed those patients for 15 weeks after their discharge for acts of self-harm. They concluded that “self-perceptions of risk seem to perform as well as the best [standardized assessment tools] the field has to offer” for the prediction of self-harm.5 We are unconvinced that juries would find suicide contracts irrelevant despite the lack of evidence. American society values individual autonomy and self-decision making. Patients telling their clinicians, “I will be OK” is relevant to suicide risk assessment. One can argue that the problem is not with the suicide contract itself, but with its blind use as a marker of safety.
The standard of care dictates that we try to assess suicide risk using evidence-based techniques. To the providers who see merit in asking patients whether they will be able to maintain their safety, we empathize with this impulse despite the lack of evidence. This will contribute in our shared effort to minimize suicide.
We acknowledge that the evidence of any assessment is limited and might miss a greater point in this entire discussion: Why are new iterations of suicide risk assessments not an improvement on the prior ones but a competing theory? New assessments emphasizing different facets of suicidal thinking do not include key demographic factors, while older tools do not include more recent understanding, such as the importance of hopelessness. From a provider’s perspective, the debate appears to be a battle of trends, theories, and acronyms rather than comprehensive analysis of the latest evidence. We, therefore, are concerned by “suicide experts” who advocate for any one assessment as the only gold standard and give false hopes about its efficacy.
As suicide rates continue to climb across the country, one wonders what we, as psychiatrists, are trying to achieve. Promises of zero suicides by hospitals,6 academic institutions,7 and even governments8 are well-meaning but possibly misleading to families and patients. Psychiatry should advocate within the standard of care for reasonable attempts at suicide risk assessment, including demographic factors (see SADPERSONS), as well as examination of the actual suicidality (see the CSSRS). Our professional organizations should clarify expectations for clinicians while also clarifying the limitations of our current knowledge base.
References
1. Patterson WM et al. Evaluation of suicidal patients: the SADPERSONS scale. Psychosomatics. 1983 Apr;24[4]:343-5, 348-9.
2. Posner K et al. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Dec;168(12):1266-77.
3. Kendall T et al. Longer term management of self harm: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;343. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7073.
4. Carter G et al. Predicting suicidal behaviors using clinical instruments: systematic review and meta-analysis of positive predictive values for risk scales. Br J Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;210(6):387-95.
5. Peterson J et al. If you want to know, consider asking: How likely is it that patients will hurt themselves in the future? Psychol Assess. 2011 Sep;23(3):626-34.
5. Byrne JM et al. Implementation and impact of the central district of California’s suicide prevention program for crime defendants. Federal Probation. 2012 Jun;76(1):3-13.
6. “R.I.’s Butler Hospital sets ‘zero suicide’ goal for patients”/audio. Providence Journal. May 15, 2018.
7. “NIMH funds 3 ‘zero suicide’ grants.” National Institute of Mental Health. Sep 16, 2016.
8. Rothschild N. “Is it possible to eliminate suicide?” Atlantic. Jun 5, 2015.
Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Dr. Rao is a San Diego–based board-certified psychiatrist with expertise in forensic psychiatry, correctional psychiatry, telepsychiatry, and inpatient psychiatry.
Scoring below the cut but still depressed: What to do?
Depression is one of the most common mental health conditions in childhood, especially during socially turbulent adolescence when the brain is rapidly changing and parent-child relationships are strained by the teen’s striving for independence and identity. Often parents of teens call me worrying about possible depression, but in the next breath say “but maybe it is just puberty.” Because suicide is one of the most common causes of death among teens and is often associated with depression, we pediatricians have the scary job of sorting out symptoms and making a plan.
The Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC)1,2 were revised in 2018 to help. This expert consensus document contains specific and practical guidance for all levels of depression. But for mild depression, GLAD-PC now advises pediatricians in Recommendation II to go beyond “watchful waiting.” It states, “After initial diagnosis,
Although a little vague, mild depression is diagnosed when there are “closer to 5” significant symptoms of depression, with “distressing but manageable” severity and only “mildly impaired” functioning. The most commonly used self-report adolescent depression screen, the Patient Health Questionnaire–Modified–9 (PHQ-9), has a recommended cut score of greater than 10, but 5-9 is considered mild depression symptoms. A clinical interview also is always required.
So what is this “active support” being recommended? After making an assessment of symptoms, severity, and impact – and ruling out significant suicide risk – the task is rather familiar to us from other medical conditions. We need to talk clearly and empathetically with the teen (and parents with consent) about depression and its neurological etiology, ask about contributing stress and genetic factors, and describe the typical course with optimism. This discussion is critical to pushing guilt or blame aside to rally family support. Substance use – (including alcohol) both a cause and attempted coping strategy for depression – must be addressed because it adds to risk for suicide or crashes and because it interacts with medicines.
Perhaps the biggest difference between active support for depression versus that for other conditions is that teens are likely reluctant, hopeless, and/or lacking energy to participate in the plan. The plan, therefore, needs to be approached in smaller steps and build on prior teen strengths, goals, or talents to motivate them and create reward to counteract general lethargy. You may know this teen used to play basketball, or sing at church, or love playing with a baby sister – all activities to try to reawaken. Parents can help recall these and are key to setting up opportunities.
GLAD-PC provides a “Self-Care Success!” worksheet of categories for goal setting for active support. These goals include:
- Stay physically active. Specified days/month, minutes/session, and dates and times.
- Engage spirituality and fun activities. Specify times/week, when, and with whom).
- Eat balanced meals. Specify number/day and names of foods.
- Spend time with people who can support you. Specify number/month, minutes/time, with whom, and doing what.
- Spend time relaxing. Specify days/week, minutes/time, and doing what.
- Determine small goals and simple steps. Establish these for a specified problem.
There is now evidence for these you can share with your teen patients and families.
Exercise
Exercise has a moderate effect size of 0.56 on depression, comparable to medications for mild to moderate depression and a useful adjunct to medications. The national Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion recommends that 6- to 17-year-olds get 60 minutes/day of moderate exercise or undertake vigorous “out of breath” exercise three times a week to maintain health. A meta-analysis of studies of yoga for people with depressive symptoms (not necessarily diagnosed depression) found reduced symptoms in 14 of 23 studies.
Pleasure
Advising fun has to include acknowledgment that a depressed teen is not motivated to do formerly fun things and may not get as much/any pleasure from it. You need to explain that “doing precedes feeling.” While what is fun is personal, new findings indicate that 2 hours/week “in nature” lowers stress, boosts mental health, and increases sense of well-being.
Nutrition
The MIND diet (Mediterranean-type diet high in leafy vegetables and berries but low in red meat) has evidence for lower odds of depression and psychological distress. Fatty acid supplements, specifically eicosapentaenoic acid at greater than 800 mg/day (930 mg), is better than placebo (P less than .001) for reducing mild depression within as little as 4 weeks. Natural S-Adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) has many studies showing benefit, according to National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a government-run website. NCCAM notes that St. John’s Wort has evidence for effectiveness equal to prescribed antidepressants for mild depression but with dangerous potential side effects, such as worsening of psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, plus potentially life threatening drug interactions. While safe, valerian and probiotics have no evidence for reducing depression.
Social support
Family is usually the most important support for depressed teens even though they may be pushing family away, may refuse to come on outings, or may even refuse to come out of the bedroom. We should encourage parents and siblings to “hang out,” sitting quietly, available to listen rather than probing, cajoling, or nagging as they may have been doing. Parents also provide support by assuring adherence to visits, goals, and medications. Peer support helps a teen feel less alone and may increase social skills, but it can be difficult to sustain because friends may find depression threatening or give up when the teen avoids them and refuses activities. The National Association for Mental Illness has an online support group (www.strengthofus.org), as well as many excellent family resources. Sometimes medical efforts to be nonsectarian result in failure to recognize and remind teens and families of the value of religion, which is free and universally available, as a source of social support.
Relaxation
An evaluation of 15 studies concluded that relaxation techniques reduced depressive symptoms better than no treatment but not as much cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). Yoga is another source of relaxation training. Mindfulness includes relaxation and specifies working to stay nonjudgmental about thoughts passing through one’s mind, recognizing and “arguing” with negative thinking, which is also part of CBT. Guided relaxation with a person, audiotape, or app (Calm or Headspace, among others) may be better for depressed teens because it inserts a voice to guide thoughts, which could potentially fend off ruminating on sad things.
Setting goals to address problems
In mild depression, compared with more endogenous moderate to severe major depressive disorder, a specific life stressor or relationship issue may be the precipitant. Identifying such factors (never forgetting possible trauma or abuse, which are harder to reveal), empathizing with the pain, and addressing them such as using Problem Solving Treatment for Primary Care (PST-PC) are within primary care skills. PST-PC involves four to six 30-minute sessions over 6-10 weeks during which you can provide perspective, help your patient set realistic goals and solutions to try out for situations that can be changed or coping strategies for emotion-focused unchangeable issues, iteratively check on progress via calls or televisits (the monitoring component), and renew problem-solving efforts as needed.
If mild depression fails to improve over several months or worsens, GLAD-PC describes evidence-based treatments. Even if it remits, your active support and monitoring should continue because depression tends to recur. You may not realize how valuable these seemingly simple active supports are to keeping mild depression in your teen patients at bay.
Dr. Howard is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
References
1. Pediatrics. 2018 Mar 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-4081.
2. Pediatrics. 2018 Mar 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-4082.
Depression is one of the most common mental health conditions in childhood, especially during socially turbulent adolescence when the brain is rapidly changing and parent-child relationships are strained by the teen’s striving for independence and identity. Often parents of teens call me worrying about possible depression, but in the next breath say “but maybe it is just puberty.” Because suicide is one of the most common causes of death among teens and is often associated with depression, we pediatricians have the scary job of sorting out symptoms and making a plan.
The Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC)1,2 were revised in 2018 to help. This expert consensus document contains specific and practical guidance for all levels of depression. But for mild depression, GLAD-PC now advises pediatricians in Recommendation II to go beyond “watchful waiting.” It states, “After initial diagnosis,
Although a little vague, mild depression is diagnosed when there are “closer to 5” significant symptoms of depression, with “distressing but manageable” severity and only “mildly impaired” functioning. The most commonly used self-report adolescent depression screen, the Patient Health Questionnaire–Modified–9 (PHQ-9), has a recommended cut score of greater than 10, but 5-9 is considered mild depression symptoms. A clinical interview also is always required.
So what is this “active support” being recommended? After making an assessment of symptoms, severity, and impact – and ruling out significant suicide risk – the task is rather familiar to us from other medical conditions. We need to talk clearly and empathetically with the teen (and parents with consent) about depression and its neurological etiology, ask about contributing stress and genetic factors, and describe the typical course with optimism. This discussion is critical to pushing guilt or blame aside to rally family support. Substance use – (including alcohol) both a cause and attempted coping strategy for depression – must be addressed because it adds to risk for suicide or crashes and because it interacts with medicines.
Perhaps the biggest difference between active support for depression versus that for other conditions is that teens are likely reluctant, hopeless, and/or lacking energy to participate in the plan. The plan, therefore, needs to be approached in smaller steps and build on prior teen strengths, goals, or talents to motivate them and create reward to counteract general lethargy. You may know this teen used to play basketball, or sing at church, or love playing with a baby sister – all activities to try to reawaken. Parents can help recall these and are key to setting up opportunities.
GLAD-PC provides a “Self-Care Success!” worksheet of categories for goal setting for active support. These goals include:
- Stay physically active. Specified days/month, minutes/session, and dates and times.
- Engage spirituality and fun activities. Specify times/week, when, and with whom).
- Eat balanced meals. Specify number/day and names of foods.
- Spend time with people who can support you. Specify number/month, minutes/time, with whom, and doing what.
- Spend time relaxing. Specify days/week, minutes/time, and doing what.
- Determine small goals and simple steps. Establish these for a specified problem.
There is now evidence for these you can share with your teen patients and families.
Exercise
Exercise has a moderate effect size of 0.56 on depression, comparable to medications for mild to moderate depression and a useful adjunct to medications. The national Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion recommends that 6- to 17-year-olds get 60 minutes/day of moderate exercise or undertake vigorous “out of breath” exercise three times a week to maintain health. A meta-analysis of studies of yoga for people with depressive symptoms (not necessarily diagnosed depression) found reduced symptoms in 14 of 23 studies.
Pleasure
Advising fun has to include acknowledgment that a depressed teen is not motivated to do formerly fun things and may not get as much/any pleasure from it. You need to explain that “doing precedes feeling.” While what is fun is personal, new findings indicate that 2 hours/week “in nature” lowers stress, boosts mental health, and increases sense of well-being.
Nutrition
The MIND diet (Mediterranean-type diet high in leafy vegetables and berries but low in red meat) has evidence for lower odds of depression and psychological distress. Fatty acid supplements, specifically eicosapentaenoic acid at greater than 800 mg/day (930 mg), is better than placebo (P less than .001) for reducing mild depression within as little as 4 weeks. Natural S-Adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) has many studies showing benefit, according to National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a government-run website. NCCAM notes that St. John’s Wort has evidence for effectiveness equal to prescribed antidepressants for mild depression but with dangerous potential side effects, such as worsening of psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, plus potentially life threatening drug interactions. While safe, valerian and probiotics have no evidence for reducing depression.
Social support
Family is usually the most important support for depressed teens even though they may be pushing family away, may refuse to come on outings, or may even refuse to come out of the bedroom. We should encourage parents and siblings to “hang out,” sitting quietly, available to listen rather than probing, cajoling, or nagging as they may have been doing. Parents also provide support by assuring adherence to visits, goals, and medications. Peer support helps a teen feel less alone and may increase social skills, but it can be difficult to sustain because friends may find depression threatening or give up when the teen avoids them and refuses activities. The National Association for Mental Illness has an online support group (www.strengthofus.org), as well as many excellent family resources. Sometimes medical efforts to be nonsectarian result in failure to recognize and remind teens and families of the value of religion, which is free and universally available, as a source of social support.
Relaxation
An evaluation of 15 studies concluded that relaxation techniques reduced depressive symptoms better than no treatment but not as much cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). Yoga is another source of relaxation training. Mindfulness includes relaxation and specifies working to stay nonjudgmental about thoughts passing through one’s mind, recognizing and “arguing” with negative thinking, which is also part of CBT. Guided relaxation with a person, audiotape, or app (Calm or Headspace, among others) may be better for depressed teens because it inserts a voice to guide thoughts, which could potentially fend off ruminating on sad things.
Setting goals to address problems
In mild depression, compared with more endogenous moderate to severe major depressive disorder, a specific life stressor or relationship issue may be the precipitant. Identifying such factors (never forgetting possible trauma or abuse, which are harder to reveal), empathizing with the pain, and addressing them such as using Problem Solving Treatment for Primary Care (PST-PC) are within primary care skills. PST-PC involves four to six 30-minute sessions over 6-10 weeks during which you can provide perspective, help your patient set realistic goals and solutions to try out for situations that can be changed or coping strategies for emotion-focused unchangeable issues, iteratively check on progress via calls or televisits (the monitoring component), and renew problem-solving efforts as needed.
If mild depression fails to improve over several months or worsens, GLAD-PC describes evidence-based treatments. Even if it remits, your active support and monitoring should continue because depression tends to recur. You may not realize how valuable these seemingly simple active supports are to keeping mild depression in your teen patients at bay.
Dr. Howard is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
References
1. Pediatrics. 2018 Mar 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-4081.
2. Pediatrics. 2018 Mar 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-4082.
Depression is one of the most common mental health conditions in childhood, especially during socially turbulent adolescence when the brain is rapidly changing and parent-child relationships are strained by the teen’s striving for independence and identity. Often parents of teens call me worrying about possible depression, but in the next breath say “but maybe it is just puberty.” Because suicide is one of the most common causes of death among teens and is often associated with depression, we pediatricians have the scary job of sorting out symptoms and making a plan.
The Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC)1,2 were revised in 2018 to help. This expert consensus document contains specific and practical guidance for all levels of depression. But for mild depression, GLAD-PC now advises pediatricians in Recommendation II to go beyond “watchful waiting.” It states, “After initial diagnosis,
Although a little vague, mild depression is diagnosed when there are “closer to 5” significant symptoms of depression, with “distressing but manageable” severity and only “mildly impaired” functioning. The most commonly used self-report adolescent depression screen, the Patient Health Questionnaire–Modified–9 (PHQ-9), has a recommended cut score of greater than 10, but 5-9 is considered mild depression symptoms. A clinical interview also is always required.
So what is this “active support” being recommended? After making an assessment of symptoms, severity, and impact – and ruling out significant suicide risk – the task is rather familiar to us from other medical conditions. We need to talk clearly and empathetically with the teen (and parents with consent) about depression and its neurological etiology, ask about contributing stress and genetic factors, and describe the typical course with optimism. This discussion is critical to pushing guilt or blame aside to rally family support. Substance use – (including alcohol) both a cause and attempted coping strategy for depression – must be addressed because it adds to risk for suicide or crashes and because it interacts with medicines.
Perhaps the biggest difference between active support for depression versus that for other conditions is that teens are likely reluctant, hopeless, and/or lacking energy to participate in the plan. The plan, therefore, needs to be approached in smaller steps and build on prior teen strengths, goals, or talents to motivate them and create reward to counteract general lethargy. You may know this teen used to play basketball, or sing at church, or love playing with a baby sister – all activities to try to reawaken. Parents can help recall these and are key to setting up opportunities.
GLAD-PC provides a “Self-Care Success!” worksheet of categories for goal setting for active support. These goals include:
- Stay physically active. Specified days/month, minutes/session, and dates and times.
- Engage spirituality and fun activities. Specify times/week, when, and with whom).
- Eat balanced meals. Specify number/day and names of foods.
- Spend time with people who can support you. Specify number/month, minutes/time, with whom, and doing what.
- Spend time relaxing. Specify days/week, minutes/time, and doing what.
- Determine small goals and simple steps. Establish these for a specified problem.
There is now evidence for these you can share with your teen patients and families.
Exercise
Exercise has a moderate effect size of 0.56 on depression, comparable to medications for mild to moderate depression and a useful adjunct to medications. The national Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion recommends that 6- to 17-year-olds get 60 minutes/day of moderate exercise or undertake vigorous “out of breath” exercise three times a week to maintain health. A meta-analysis of studies of yoga for people with depressive symptoms (not necessarily diagnosed depression) found reduced symptoms in 14 of 23 studies.
Pleasure
Advising fun has to include acknowledgment that a depressed teen is not motivated to do formerly fun things and may not get as much/any pleasure from it. You need to explain that “doing precedes feeling.” While what is fun is personal, new findings indicate that 2 hours/week “in nature” lowers stress, boosts mental health, and increases sense of well-being.
Nutrition
The MIND diet (Mediterranean-type diet high in leafy vegetables and berries but low in red meat) has evidence for lower odds of depression and psychological distress. Fatty acid supplements, specifically eicosapentaenoic acid at greater than 800 mg/day (930 mg), is better than placebo (P less than .001) for reducing mild depression within as little as 4 weeks. Natural S-Adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) has many studies showing benefit, according to National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a government-run website. NCCAM notes that St. John’s Wort has evidence for effectiveness equal to prescribed antidepressants for mild depression but with dangerous potential side effects, such as worsening of psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, plus potentially life threatening drug interactions. While safe, valerian and probiotics have no evidence for reducing depression.
Social support
Family is usually the most important support for depressed teens even though they may be pushing family away, may refuse to come on outings, or may even refuse to come out of the bedroom. We should encourage parents and siblings to “hang out,” sitting quietly, available to listen rather than probing, cajoling, or nagging as they may have been doing. Parents also provide support by assuring adherence to visits, goals, and medications. Peer support helps a teen feel less alone and may increase social skills, but it can be difficult to sustain because friends may find depression threatening or give up when the teen avoids them and refuses activities. The National Association for Mental Illness has an online support group (www.strengthofus.org), as well as many excellent family resources. Sometimes medical efforts to be nonsectarian result in failure to recognize and remind teens and families of the value of religion, which is free and universally available, as a source of social support.
Relaxation
An evaluation of 15 studies concluded that relaxation techniques reduced depressive symptoms better than no treatment but not as much cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). Yoga is another source of relaxation training. Mindfulness includes relaxation and specifies working to stay nonjudgmental about thoughts passing through one’s mind, recognizing and “arguing” with negative thinking, which is also part of CBT. Guided relaxation with a person, audiotape, or app (Calm or Headspace, among others) may be better for depressed teens because it inserts a voice to guide thoughts, which could potentially fend off ruminating on sad things.
Setting goals to address problems
In mild depression, compared with more endogenous moderate to severe major depressive disorder, a specific life stressor or relationship issue may be the precipitant. Identifying such factors (never forgetting possible trauma or abuse, which are harder to reveal), empathizing with the pain, and addressing them such as using Problem Solving Treatment for Primary Care (PST-PC) are within primary care skills. PST-PC involves four to six 30-minute sessions over 6-10 weeks during which you can provide perspective, help your patient set realistic goals and solutions to try out for situations that can be changed or coping strategies for emotion-focused unchangeable issues, iteratively check on progress via calls or televisits (the monitoring component), and renew problem-solving efforts as needed.
If mild depression fails to improve over several months or worsens, GLAD-PC describes evidence-based treatments. Even if it remits, your active support and monitoring should continue because depression tends to recur. You may not realize how valuable these seemingly simple active supports are to keeping mild depression in your teen patients at bay.
Dr. Howard is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
References
1. Pediatrics. 2018 Mar 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-4081.
2. Pediatrics. 2018 Mar 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-4082.
Improving self-confidence
The best way to ensure that I’ll run late in clinic is to start late. I avoid such delayed starts as scabies, yet, sometimes it’s unavoidable. I walked into my 1:30 appointment at 1:35. “Can I ask you a question?” my bony, patient with the long gray beard asked. “Sure.” I replied. “Is your time important to you?” he snapped.
Oh, boy. Here we go.
“I’m sorry I’m running late and kept you waiting,” I offered, “but I had a sick patient this morning.” When he retorted that his time was important, too, I interrupted him.
“Please sit on the exam table and tell me how I can help you so we don’t waste any more of your time.” He went on to complain that the treatments for his facial seborrheic dermatitis did not resolve the problem. When he stops treatment, it flares. I explained that this was a chronic condition and that he could manage it with my help. He resisted, but with each parry, his aggressiveness weakened. We reviewed behavior, product, and medication options for him. By the end of the visit, he was (mostly) pleased and left with a plan and prescription to help.
Early in my career, this appointment might have been disastrous: It would have ruined my afternoon and possibly led to a formal patient complaint. His antagonistic comments and boorish behavior would have unsettled me. But it didn’t now.
I had the confidence to know his diagnosis and how to help him, despite his dissatisfaction. Those with strong self-confidence not only have better patient satisfaction and higher quality but also are more efficient and have high level of satisfaction with their career. When your confidence is low, medical decision making and managing patient expectations become difficult. This is particularly true when a patient comes “informed.” Often their knowledge is helpful but, as we know, sometimes it’s bogus, even detrimental. Although we ought to have come a long way from the brash doctor-knows-best days of our past, we also ought not capitulate to patients. Sometimes, you have to be the doctor. Balancing confidence with compassion is tricky yet essential to success.
When I meet with our young doctors, I try to provide feedback not only on their medical acumen but also on their confidence to deploy that expertise. Like a skill, self-confidence can be improved. The best way is to recognize difficult conversations and do not avoid them. When you feel your face flush and heart race, take a good belly breath and step into it. You don’t have to confront or argue with your patient, you do have to assert and negotiate. Helping a difficult patient can feel like you’ve done something wrong, but chances are, you haven’t. Reframe the situation, think of it as you doing the hard work to help them. Being confident is as important as getting the diagnosis right. Even when you don’t know the diagnosis, you can be most helpful when you are direct and say so. “I’m not sure what you have, but here is how I’m going to help you.”
To improve self-confidence you’ll have to practice. When you have a difficult visit that ultimately ended well, make a note of it. Reflect on it. The next time you have a challenging patient, remember your previous success and how you felt. Then breathe and do it again. After all, you are the doctor.
Dr. Benabio is director of health care 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 best way to ensure that I’ll run late in clinic is to start late. I avoid such delayed starts as scabies, yet, sometimes it’s unavoidable. I walked into my 1:30 appointment at 1:35. “Can I ask you a question?” my bony, patient with the long gray beard asked. “Sure.” I replied. “Is your time important to you?” he snapped.
Oh, boy. Here we go.
“I’m sorry I’m running late and kept you waiting,” I offered, “but I had a sick patient this morning.” When he retorted that his time was important, too, I interrupted him.
“Please sit on the exam table and tell me how I can help you so we don’t waste any more of your time.” He went on to complain that the treatments for his facial seborrheic dermatitis did not resolve the problem. When he stops treatment, it flares. I explained that this was a chronic condition and that he could manage it with my help. He resisted, but with each parry, his aggressiveness weakened. We reviewed behavior, product, and medication options for him. By the end of the visit, he was (mostly) pleased and left with a plan and prescription to help.
Early in my career, this appointment might have been disastrous: It would have ruined my afternoon and possibly led to a formal patient complaint. His antagonistic comments and boorish behavior would have unsettled me. But it didn’t now.
I had the confidence to know his diagnosis and how to help him, despite his dissatisfaction. Those with strong self-confidence not only have better patient satisfaction and higher quality but also are more efficient and have high level of satisfaction with their career. When your confidence is low, medical decision making and managing patient expectations become difficult. This is particularly true when a patient comes “informed.” Often their knowledge is helpful but, as we know, sometimes it’s bogus, even detrimental. Although we ought to have come a long way from the brash doctor-knows-best days of our past, we also ought not capitulate to patients. Sometimes, you have to be the doctor. Balancing confidence with compassion is tricky yet essential to success.
When I meet with our young doctors, I try to provide feedback not only on their medical acumen but also on their confidence to deploy that expertise. Like a skill, self-confidence can be improved. The best way is to recognize difficult conversations and do not avoid them. When you feel your face flush and heart race, take a good belly breath and step into it. You don’t have to confront or argue with your patient, you do have to assert and negotiate. Helping a difficult patient can feel like you’ve done something wrong, but chances are, you haven’t. Reframe the situation, think of it as you doing the hard work to help them. Being confident is as important as getting the diagnosis right. Even when you don’t know the diagnosis, you can be most helpful when you are direct and say so. “I’m not sure what you have, but here is how I’m going to help you.”
To improve self-confidence you’ll have to practice. When you have a difficult visit that ultimately ended well, make a note of it. Reflect on it. The next time you have a challenging patient, remember your previous success and how you felt. Then breathe and do it again. After all, you are the doctor.
Dr. Benabio is director of health care 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 best way to ensure that I’ll run late in clinic is to start late. I avoid such delayed starts as scabies, yet, sometimes it’s unavoidable. I walked into my 1:30 appointment at 1:35. “Can I ask you a question?” my bony, patient with the long gray beard asked. “Sure.” I replied. “Is your time important to you?” he snapped.
Oh, boy. Here we go.
“I’m sorry I’m running late and kept you waiting,” I offered, “but I had a sick patient this morning.” When he retorted that his time was important, too, I interrupted him.
“Please sit on the exam table and tell me how I can help you so we don’t waste any more of your time.” He went on to complain that the treatments for his facial seborrheic dermatitis did not resolve the problem. When he stops treatment, it flares. I explained that this was a chronic condition and that he could manage it with my help. He resisted, but with each parry, his aggressiveness weakened. We reviewed behavior, product, and medication options for him. By the end of the visit, he was (mostly) pleased and left with a plan and prescription to help.
Early in my career, this appointment might have been disastrous: It would have ruined my afternoon and possibly led to a formal patient complaint. His antagonistic comments and boorish behavior would have unsettled me. But it didn’t now.
I had the confidence to know his diagnosis and how to help him, despite his dissatisfaction. Those with strong self-confidence not only have better patient satisfaction and higher quality but also are more efficient and have high level of satisfaction with their career. When your confidence is low, medical decision making and managing patient expectations become difficult. This is particularly true when a patient comes “informed.” Often their knowledge is helpful but, as we know, sometimes it’s bogus, even detrimental. Although we ought to have come a long way from the brash doctor-knows-best days of our past, we also ought not capitulate to patients. Sometimes, you have to be the doctor. Balancing confidence with compassion is tricky yet essential to success.
When I meet with our young doctors, I try to provide feedback not only on their medical acumen but also on their confidence to deploy that expertise. Like a skill, self-confidence can be improved. The best way is to recognize difficult conversations and do not avoid them. When you feel your face flush and heart race, take a good belly breath and step into it. You don’t have to confront or argue with your patient, you do have to assert and negotiate. Helping a difficult patient can feel like you’ve done something wrong, but chances are, you haven’t. Reframe the situation, think of it as you doing the hard work to help them. Being confident is as important as getting the diagnosis right. Even when you don’t know the diagnosis, you can be most helpful when you are direct and say so. “I’m not sure what you have, but here is how I’m going to help you.”
To improve self-confidence you’ll have to practice. When you have a difficult visit that ultimately ended well, make a note of it. Reflect on it. The next time you have a challenging patient, remember your previous success and how you felt. Then breathe and do it again. After all, you are the doctor.
Dr. Benabio is director of health care 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].
An 89-year-old woman presented with an ulceration overlying a cardiac pacemaker
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) – cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators –are an established treatment for the management of cardiac dysrhythmias in millions of patients. Complications occur in up to 15%, some of which may present first to the dermatologist.
The differential (caused by local venous obstruction and pressure dermatitis), and impending skin erosion/device extrusion.
Erosion and extrusion is a major complication with significant morbidity and mortality. The two main causes are pressure necrosis and infection. Pressure necrosis is influenced by the size of the device, complexity of the connections, and technical skill with which the pacemaker chest wall pocket is created.
After extrusion, the pacemaker should be considered contaminated and removed, and the necrotic tissue debrided. If infected, a prolonged course of appropriate antibiotic therapy is indicated. A bacterial culture in the patient presented here was negative.
Pocket infection of CIEDs is rare and may manifest as erythema, tenderness, drainage, erosion, or pruritus above the site of the pacemaker, along with systemic symptoms and signs, including fever, chills, or malaise. Some may have just the systemic symptoms. Fewer than half of patients with CIED infection present within 1 year of their last procedure.
Ruptured epidermal cysts usually manifest as acute swelling, inflammation, and tenderness of previously long-standing asymptomatic epidermal cysts. There may be drainage of malodorous keratinous and purulent debris. They are typically not infected. Treatment includes incision and drainage for fluctuant lesions or intralesional corticosteroid injection for early, nonfluctuant cases.
Allergic contact dermatitis to metal may be seen with implantable devices. Patch testing to various metal allergens can be helpful in determining if any allergy is present.
This case and photo were submitted by Michael Stierstorfer, MD, East Penn Dermatology, North Wales, Pa.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) – cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators –are an established treatment for the management of cardiac dysrhythmias in millions of patients. Complications occur in up to 15%, some of which may present first to the dermatologist.
The differential (caused by local venous obstruction and pressure dermatitis), and impending skin erosion/device extrusion.
Erosion and extrusion is a major complication with significant morbidity and mortality. The two main causes are pressure necrosis and infection. Pressure necrosis is influenced by the size of the device, complexity of the connections, and technical skill with which the pacemaker chest wall pocket is created.
After extrusion, the pacemaker should be considered contaminated and removed, and the necrotic tissue debrided. If infected, a prolonged course of appropriate antibiotic therapy is indicated. A bacterial culture in the patient presented here was negative.
Pocket infection of CIEDs is rare and may manifest as erythema, tenderness, drainage, erosion, or pruritus above the site of the pacemaker, along with systemic symptoms and signs, including fever, chills, or malaise. Some may have just the systemic symptoms. Fewer than half of patients with CIED infection present within 1 year of their last procedure.
Ruptured epidermal cysts usually manifest as acute swelling, inflammation, and tenderness of previously long-standing asymptomatic epidermal cysts. There may be drainage of malodorous keratinous and purulent debris. They are typically not infected. Treatment includes incision and drainage for fluctuant lesions or intralesional corticosteroid injection for early, nonfluctuant cases.
Allergic contact dermatitis to metal may be seen with implantable devices. Patch testing to various metal allergens can be helpful in determining if any allergy is present.
This case and photo were submitted by Michael Stierstorfer, MD, East Penn Dermatology, North Wales, Pa.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) – cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators –are an established treatment for the management of cardiac dysrhythmias in millions of patients. Complications occur in up to 15%, some of which may present first to the dermatologist.
The differential (caused by local venous obstruction and pressure dermatitis), and impending skin erosion/device extrusion.
Erosion and extrusion is a major complication with significant morbidity and mortality. The two main causes are pressure necrosis and infection. Pressure necrosis is influenced by the size of the device, complexity of the connections, and technical skill with which the pacemaker chest wall pocket is created.
After extrusion, the pacemaker should be considered contaminated and removed, and the necrotic tissue debrided. If infected, a prolonged course of appropriate antibiotic therapy is indicated. A bacterial culture in the patient presented here was negative.
Pocket infection of CIEDs is rare and may manifest as erythema, tenderness, drainage, erosion, or pruritus above the site of the pacemaker, along with systemic symptoms and signs, including fever, chills, or malaise. Some may have just the systemic symptoms. Fewer than half of patients with CIED infection present within 1 year of their last procedure.
Ruptured epidermal cysts usually manifest as acute swelling, inflammation, and tenderness of previously long-standing asymptomatic epidermal cysts. There may be drainage of malodorous keratinous and purulent debris. They are typically not infected. Treatment includes incision and drainage for fluctuant lesions or intralesional corticosteroid injection for early, nonfluctuant cases.
Allergic contact dermatitis to metal may be seen with implantable devices. Patch testing to various metal allergens can be helpful in determining if any allergy is present.
This case and photo were submitted by Michael Stierstorfer, MD, East Penn Dermatology, North Wales, Pa.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
Sexual harassment: Prevention and defense
Unless you have been vacationing on some distant astral plane, you are well aware that sexual misconduct and harassment have dominated news coverage and social media forums over the past year or more. It has ended the careers of a number of formerly respectable celebrities, and the #MeToo movement has empowered many additional harassment victims to come forward with their stories.
Medical offices are far from immune from harassment, of course, and the problem is not limited to staff interactions. According to a Medscape poll, 27% of physicians have been targets of inappropriate behavior in a professional setting. In another poll, 47% of physicians and 71% of nurses reported being harassed (by stalking, persistent attempts at communication, or inappropriate social media contact) by a patient.
The reality is that , have an ethical and legal responsibility to provide a safe and respectful work environment for everyone involved.
The first step in meeting that responsibility is to develop a written policy, if you don’t already have one, starting with a clear definition of sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has a good summary on its website of what does and does not constitute harassment, and under what conditions employers may be liable. Once the problem has been defined, a good written policy will provide specific methods for reporting transgressions, along with outlines of investigative and corrective measures to be taken in response. Templates for such documents are available on many websites, if you don’t want to start from scratch.
The next step, once a written policy is in place (and vetted by your attorney), is training for your staff. In particular, you should ensure that those in supervisory roles understand their specific responsibilities, and that everyone knows how to report an incident.
Harassment prevention training is already mandated by law in some states, including New York, California (if you have five or more employees), Maine, Delaware, and Connecticut. Other states, such as Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont, have laws that “encourage” employers to provide such training. Other legislation is pending; check for new laws in your state on a regular basis.
Federal EEOC guidelines suggest that all employers “conduct and reinforce” harassment prevention training, whether laws in your particular state require it or not. On a practical level, recent court decisions suggest that offices that do not train their employees may find it difficult to mount an effective defense of a harassment lawsuit, even when they have a written policy in place. They may also be more vulnerable to punitive damage awards.
OSHA and various private companies offer a variety of downloadable training videos at reasonable cost. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)
Misconduct among office staff is a straightforward, zero-tolerance issue. Harassment by patients is more complex, and dealing with it often requires some creativity. No one in your office, however, should think it is something they must accept because it comes from a patient. Any physician or staffer should be empowered to speak up if anyone else’s behavior, including a patient’s, makes them uncomfortable. Even when there is a medical explanation – such as psychiatric or cognitive impairment – it is important (and in some states, mandatory) to call out the behavior and report the incident.
Once reported, it should be documented, so that colleagues and other providers will be aware of the problem, and to protect yourself should the patient ever make false accusations against your practice. At subsequent appointments, take common-sense precautions. Chaperones are always a good idea, but especially so in these situations.
With repeat offenders, everyone has their own barometer of what they can and cannot tolerate. My personal threshold is low; I give one polite warning, explaining that we must provide a respectful and welcoming environment for everyone in the office, and any unacceptable behavior in the future will be grounds for dismissal from my practice. Most get the message; those who don’t are dismissed, politely.
The central point is to prevent harassment whenever possible, and to take every complaint seriously and address it promptly. An effective misconduct policy goes beyond simply avoiding legal liability. Patients and staffers alike should be secure in the knowledge that inappropriate verbal or physical interactions are not acceptable in your office under any circumstances, and will not be ignored or tolerated.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected] .
Unless you have been vacationing on some distant astral plane, you are well aware that sexual misconduct and harassment have dominated news coverage and social media forums over the past year or more. It has ended the careers of a number of formerly respectable celebrities, and the #MeToo movement has empowered many additional harassment victims to come forward with their stories.
Medical offices are far from immune from harassment, of course, and the problem is not limited to staff interactions. According to a Medscape poll, 27% of physicians have been targets of inappropriate behavior in a professional setting. In another poll, 47% of physicians and 71% of nurses reported being harassed (by stalking, persistent attempts at communication, or inappropriate social media contact) by a patient.
The reality is that , have an ethical and legal responsibility to provide a safe and respectful work environment for everyone involved.
The first step in meeting that responsibility is to develop a written policy, if you don’t already have one, starting with a clear definition of sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has a good summary on its website of what does and does not constitute harassment, and under what conditions employers may be liable. Once the problem has been defined, a good written policy will provide specific methods for reporting transgressions, along with outlines of investigative and corrective measures to be taken in response. Templates for such documents are available on many websites, if you don’t want to start from scratch.
The next step, once a written policy is in place (and vetted by your attorney), is training for your staff. In particular, you should ensure that those in supervisory roles understand their specific responsibilities, and that everyone knows how to report an incident.
Harassment prevention training is already mandated by law in some states, including New York, California (if you have five or more employees), Maine, Delaware, and Connecticut. Other states, such as Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont, have laws that “encourage” employers to provide such training. Other legislation is pending; check for new laws in your state on a regular basis.
Federal EEOC guidelines suggest that all employers “conduct and reinforce” harassment prevention training, whether laws in your particular state require it or not. On a practical level, recent court decisions suggest that offices that do not train their employees may find it difficult to mount an effective defense of a harassment lawsuit, even when they have a written policy in place. They may also be more vulnerable to punitive damage awards.
OSHA and various private companies offer a variety of downloadable training videos at reasonable cost. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)
Misconduct among office staff is a straightforward, zero-tolerance issue. Harassment by patients is more complex, and dealing with it often requires some creativity. No one in your office, however, should think it is something they must accept because it comes from a patient. Any physician or staffer should be empowered to speak up if anyone else’s behavior, including a patient’s, makes them uncomfortable. Even when there is a medical explanation – such as psychiatric or cognitive impairment – it is important (and in some states, mandatory) to call out the behavior and report the incident.
Once reported, it should be documented, so that colleagues and other providers will be aware of the problem, and to protect yourself should the patient ever make false accusations against your practice. At subsequent appointments, take common-sense precautions. Chaperones are always a good idea, but especially so in these situations.
With repeat offenders, everyone has their own barometer of what they can and cannot tolerate. My personal threshold is low; I give one polite warning, explaining that we must provide a respectful and welcoming environment for everyone in the office, and any unacceptable behavior in the future will be grounds for dismissal from my practice. Most get the message; those who don’t are dismissed, politely.
The central point is to prevent harassment whenever possible, and to take every complaint seriously and address it promptly. An effective misconduct policy goes beyond simply avoiding legal liability. Patients and staffers alike should be secure in the knowledge that inappropriate verbal or physical interactions are not acceptable in your office under any circumstances, and will not be ignored or tolerated.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected] .
Unless you have been vacationing on some distant astral plane, you are well aware that sexual misconduct and harassment have dominated news coverage and social media forums over the past year or more. It has ended the careers of a number of formerly respectable celebrities, and the #MeToo movement has empowered many additional harassment victims to come forward with their stories.
Medical offices are far from immune from harassment, of course, and the problem is not limited to staff interactions. According to a Medscape poll, 27% of physicians have been targets of inappropriate behavior in a professional setting. In another poll, 47% of physicians and 71% of nurses reported being harassed (by stalking, persistent attempts at communication, or inappropriate social media contact) by a patient.
The reality is that , have an ethical and legal responsibility to provide a safe and respectful work environment for everyone involved.
The first step in meeting that responsibility is to develop a written policy, if you don’t already have one, starting with a clear definition of sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has a good summary on its website of what does and does not constitute harassment, and under what conditions employers may be liable. Once the problem has been defined, a good written policy will provide specific methods for reporting transgressions, along with outlines of investigative and corrective measures to be taken in response. Templates for such documents are available on many websites, if you don’t want to start from scratch.
The next step, once a written policy is in place (and vetted by your attorney), is training for your staff. In particular, you should ensure that those in supervisory roles understand their specific responsibilities, and that everyone knows how to report an incident.
Harassment prevention training is already mandated by law in some states, including New York, California (if you have five or more employees), Maine, Delaware, and Connecticut. Other states, such as Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont, have laws that “encourage” employers to provide such training. Other legislation is pending; check for new laws in your state on a regular basis.
Federal EEOC guidelines suggest that all employers “conduct and reinforce” harassment prevention training, whether laws in your particular state require it or not. On a practical level, recent court decisions suggest that offices that do not train their employees may find it difficult to mount an effective defense of a harassment lawsuit, even when they have a written policy in place. They may also be more vulnerable to punitive damage awards.
OSHA and various private companies offer a variety of downloadable training videos at reasonable cost. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)
Misconduct among office staff is a straightforward, zero-tolerance issue. Harassment by patients is more complex, and dealing with it often requires some creativity. No one in your office, however, should think it is something they must accept because it comes from a patient. Any physician or staffer should be empowered to speak up if anyone else’s behavior, including a patient’s, makes them uncomfortable. Even when there is a medical explanation – such as psychiatric or cognitive impairment – it is important (and in some states, mandatory) to call out the behavior and report the incident.
Once reported, it should be documented, so that colleagues and other providers will be aware of the problem, and to protect yourself should the patient ever make false accusations against your practice. At subsequent appointments, take common-sense precautions. Chaperones are always a good idea, but especially so in these situations.
With repeat offenders, everyone has their own barometer of what they can and cannot tolerate. My personal threshold is low; I give one polite warning, explaining that we must provide a respectful and welcoming environment for everyone in the office, and any unacceptable behavior in the future will be grounds for dismissal from my practice. Most get the message; those who don’t are dismissed, politely.
The central point is to prevent harassment whenever possible, and to take every complaint seriously and address it promptly. An effective misconduct policy goes beyond simply avoiding legal liability. Patients and staffers alike should be secure in the knowledge that inappropriate verbal or physical interactions are not acceptable in your office under any circumstances, and will not be ignored or tolerated.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected] .
Get patients vaccinated: Avoid unwelcome international travel souvenirs
Summer officially began June 21, 2019, but many of your patients already may have departed or will soon be headed to international destinations. Reasons for travel are as variable as their destinations and include but are not limited to family vacations, mission trips, study abroad, parental job relocation, and visiting friends and relatives. The majority of the trips are planned at least 3 months in advance; however, for many travelers and their parents, they suddenly get an aha moment and realize there is/are specific vaccines required to obtain a visa or entry to their final destination. Unfortunately, too much emphasis is focused on required vaccines. The well-informed traveler knows that they may be exposed to multiple diseases and many are vaccine preventable.
The accompanying table lists vaccines traditionally considered to be travel vaccines. Several require multiple doses administered over 21-28 days to provide protection. Others such as cholera and yellow fever must be completed at least 10 days prior to departure to be effective. Typhoid has two formulations: The oral and injectable typhoid vaccines should be completed 1 and 2 weeks, respectively, prior to travel. Several vaccines have age limitations. Routine immunization of all infants against hepatitis A was recommended in 2006. Depending on your region, there may be adolescents who have not been immunized. Fortunately, hepatitis A vaccine works immediately.
One of the challenges you face is identifying someone in your area that provides travel medicine advice and immunizations to children and adolescents. Most children and teens travel with their parents, but today many adolescents travel independently with organized groups. Most of the vaccines listed are not routinely administered at your office, yet you most likely will be the first call a parent makes seeking travel advice.
Let me tell you about a few vaccines in particular.
Japanese encephalitis
This is most common cause of encephalitis in Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Risk generally is limited to rural agricultural areas where the causative virus is transmitted by a mosquito. Fatality rates are 20%-30%. Among survivors, 30%-50% have significant neurologic, cognitive, and psychiatric sequelae. Candidates for this vaccine are long-term travelers and short-term travelers with extensive outdoor rural activities.
Meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MCV4)
All travelers to the Hajj Pilgrimage (Aug. 9-14, 2019) and/or Umrah must show proof of immunization. Vaccine must be received at least 10 days prior to and no greater than 5 years prior to arrival to Saudi Arabia. Conjugate vaccine must clearly be documented for validity of 5 years. For all health entry requirements, go to www.moh.gov.sa/en/hajj/pages/healthregulations.aspx.
Measles
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends all infants 6-11 months old receive one dose of MMR prior to international travel regardless of the destination. This should be followed by two additional countable doses. All persons at least 12 months of age and born after 1956 should receive two doses of MMR at least 28 days apart prior to international travel.
Rabies
Rabies is a viral disease endemic in more than 150 countries with approximately 60,000 fatal cases worldwide each year. Asia and Africa are the areas with the highest risk of exposure, and dogs are the principal hosts. Human rabies is almost always fatal once symptoms develop. Preexposure vaccine is recommended for persons with prolonged and/or remote travel to countries where rabies immunoglobulin is unavailable and the occurrence of animal rabies is high. Post exposure vaccination on days 0 and 3 still would be required.*
Typhoid
A bacterial infection caused by Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi and Paratyphi manifests with fever, headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation. When bacteremia occurs, it usually is referred to as enteric fever. It is acquired by consumption of food/water contaminated with human feces. Highest risk areas include Africa, Southern Asia, and Southeast Asia
Yellow fever
Risk is limited to sub-Saharan Africa and the tropical areas of South America. It is transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. The vaccine is required for entry into at least 16 countries. In a country where yellow fever is present, persons transiting through for more than 12 hours to reach their final destination may actually cause a change in the entry requirements for the destination country. For example, travel from the United States to Tanzania requires no yellow fever vaccine while travel from the United States to Nairobi (more than 12 hours) to Tanzania requires yellow fever vaccine for entry into Tanzania. Travel sequence and duration is extremely important. Check the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention yellow fever site and/or the consulate for the most up-to-date yellow fever vaccine requirements.
YF-Vax (yellow fever vaccine) produced by Sanofi Pasteur in the United States currently is unavailable. The company is building a new facility, and vaccine will not be available for the remainder of 2019. To assure vaccine for U.S. travelers, Stamaril, a yellow fever vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur in France has been made available at more than 250 sites nationwide. Because Stamaril is offered at a limited number of locations, persons in need of vaccine should not delay seeking it. Because of increased demand related to summer travel, travelers in some areas have reported delays of several weeks in scheduling an appointment. To locate a Stamaril site in your area, go to wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/search-for-stamaril-clinics.
There are several other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks including malaria, dengue, Zika and rickettsial diseases. Vigilant use of mosquito repellents is a must. Prophylactic medication is available for only malaria and should be initiated prior to exposure. Frequency and duration depends on the medication selected.
So how do you assist your patients?
Once you’ve identified a travel medicine facility in your area, encourage them to seek pretravel advice 4-6 weeks prior to international travel and make sure their routine immunizations are up to date. Generally, this is not an issue. One challenge is the early administration of MMR. While most practitioners know that early administration for international travel has been recommended for years, many office staff are accustomed to administration at only the 12 month and 4 year visit. When parents call requesting immunization, they often are informed that is it unnecessary and the appointment denied. This is a challenge, especially when coordination of administration of another live vaccine, such as yellow fever, is planned. Familiarizing all members of the health care team with current vaccine recommendations is critical.
For country-specific information, up-to-date travel alerts, and to locate a travel medicine clinic, visit www.cdc.gov/travel.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
*This article was updated 6/18/2019.
Summer officially began June 21, 2019, but many of your patients already may have departed or will soon be headed to international destinations. Reasons for travel are as variable as their destinations and include but are not limited to family vacations, mission trips, study abroad, parental job relocation, and visiting friends and relatives. The majority of the trips are planned at least 3 months in advance; however, for many travelers and their parents, they suddenly get an aha moment and realize there is/are specific vaccines required to obtain a visa or entry to their final destination. Unfortunately, too much emphasis is focused on required vaccines. The well-informed traveler knows that they may be exposed to multiple diseases and many are vaccine preventable.
The accompanying table lists vaccines traditionally considered to be travel vaccines. Several require multiple doses administered over 21-28 days to provide protection. Others such as cholera and yellow fever must be completed at least 10 days prior to departure to be effective. Typhoid has two formulations: The oral and injectable typhoid vaccines should be completed 1 and 2 weeks, respectively, prior to travel. Several vaccines have age limitations. Routine immunization of all infants against hepatitis A was recommended in 2006. Depending on your region, there may be adolescents who have not been immunized. Fortunately, hepatitis A vaccine works immediately.
One of the challenges you face is identifying someone in your area that provides travel medicine advice and immunizations to children and adolescents. Most children and teens travel with their parents, but today many adolescents travel independently with organized groups. Most of the vaccines listed are not routinely administered at your office, yet you most likely will be the first call a parent makes seeking travel advice.
Let me tell you about a few vaccines in particular.
Japanese encephalitis
This is most common cause of encephalitis in Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Risk generally is limited to rural agricultural areas where the causative virus is transmitted by a mosquito. Fatality rates are 20%-30%. Among survivors, 30%-50% have significant neurologic, cognitive, and psychiatric sequelae. Candidates for this vaccine are long-term travelers and short-term travelers with extensive outdoor rural activities.
Meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MCV4)
All travelers to the Hajj Pilgrimage (Aug. 9-14, 2019) and/or Umrah must show proof of immunization. Vaccine must be received at least 10 days prior to and no greater than 5 years prior to arrival to Saudi Arabia. Conjugate vaccine must clearly be documented for validity of 5 years. For all health entry requirements, go to www.moh.gov.sa/en/hajj/pages/healthregulations.aspx.
Measles
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends all infants 6-11 months old receive one dose of MMR prior to international travel regardless of the destination. This should be followed by two additional countable doses. All persons at least 12 months of age and born after 1956 should receive two doses of MMR at least 28 days apart prior to international travel.
Rabies
Rabies is a viral disease endemic in more than 150 countries with approximately 60,000 fatal cases worldwide each year. Asia and Africa are the areas with the highest risk of exposure, and dogs are the principal hosts. Human rabies is almost always fatal once symptoms develop. Preexposure vaccine is recommended for persons with prolonged and/or remote travel to countries where rabies immunoglobulin is unavailable and the occurrence of animal rabies is high. Post exposure vaccination on days 0 and 3 still would be required.*
Typhoid
A bacterial infection caused by Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi and Paratyphi manifests with fever, headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation. When bacteremia occurs, it usually is referred to as enteric fever. It is acquired by consumption of food/water contaminated with human feces. Highest risk areas include Africa, Southern Asia, and Southeast Asia
Yellow fever
Risk is limited to sub-Saharan Africa and the tropical areas of South America. It is transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. The vaccine is required for entry into at least 16 countries. In a country where yellow fever is present, persons transiting through for more than 12 hours to reach their final destination may actually cause a change in the entry requirements for the destination country. For example, travel from the United States to Tanzania requires no yellow fever vaccine while travel from the United States to Nairobi (more than 12 hours) to Tanzania requires yellow fever vaccine for entry into Tanzania. Travel sequence and duration is extremely important. Check the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention yellow fever site and/or the consulate for the most up-to-date yellow fever vaccine requirements.
YF-Vax (yellow fever vaccine) produced by Sanofi Pasteur in the United States currently is unavailable. The company is building a new facility, and vaccine will not be available for the remainder of 2019. To assure vaccine for U.S. travelers, Stamaril, a yellow fever vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur in France has been made available at more than 250 sites nationwide. Because Stamaril is offered at a limited number of locations, persons in need of vaccine should not delay seeking it. Because of increased demand related to summer travel, travelers in some areas have reported delays of several weeks in scheduling an appointment. To locate a Stamaril site in your area, go to wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/search-for-stamaril-clinics.
There are several other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks including malaria, dengue, Zika and rickettsial diseases. Vigilant use of mosquito repellents is a must. Prophylactic medication is available for only malaria and should be initiated prior to exposure. Frequency and duration depends on the medication selected.
So how do you assist your patients?
Once you’ve identified a travel medicine facility in your area, encourage them to seek pretravel advice 4-6 weeks prior to international travel and make sure their routine immunizations are up to date. Generally, this is not an issue. One challenge is the early administration of MMR. While most practitioners know that early administration for international travel has been recommended for years, many office staff are accustomed to administration at only the 12 month and 4 year visit. When parents call requesting immunization, they often are informed that is it unnecessary and the appointment denied. This is a challenge, especially when coordination of administration of another live vaccine, such as yellow fever, is planned. Familiarizing all members of the health care team with current vaccine recommendations is critical.
For country-specific information, up-to-date travel alerts, and to locate a travel medicine clinic, visit www.cdc.gov/travel.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
*This article was updated 6/18/2019.
Summer officially began June 21, 2019, but many of your patients already may have departed or will soon be headed to international destinations. Reasons for travel are as variable as their destinations and include but are not limited to family vacations, mission trips, study abroad, parental job relocation, and visiting friends and relatives. The majority of the trips are planned at least 3 months in advance; however, for many travelers and their parents, they suddenly get an aha moment and realize there is/are specific vaccines required to obtain a visa or entry to their final destination. Unfortunately, too much emphasis is focused on required vaccines. The well-informed traveler knows that they may be exposed to multiple diseases and many are vaccine preventable.
The accompanying table lists vaccines traditionally considered to be travel vaccines. Several require multiple doses administered over 21-28 days to provide protection. Others such as cholera and yellow fever must be completed at least 10 days prior to departure to be effective. Typhoid has two formulations: The oral and injectable typhoid vaccines should be completed 1 and 2 weeks, respectively, prior to travel. Several vaccines have age limitations. Routine immunization of all infants against hepatitis A was recommended in 2006. Depending on your region, there may be adolescents who have not been immunized. Fortunately, hepatitis A vaccine works immediately.
One of the challenges you face is identifying someone in your area that provides travel medicine advice and immunizations to children and adolescents. Most children and teens travel with their parents, but today many adolescents travel independently with organized groups. Most of the vaccines listed are not routinely administered at your office, yet you most likely will be the first call a parent makes seeking travel advice.
Let me tell you about a few vaccines in particular.
Japanese encephalitis
This is most common cause of encephalitis in Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Risk generally is limited to rural agricultural areas where the causative virus is transmitted by a mosquito. Fatality rates are 20%-30%. Among survivors, 30%-50% have significant neurologic, cognitive, and psychiatric sequelae. Candidates for this vaccine are long-term travelers and short-term travelers with extensive outdoor rural activities.
Meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MCV4)
All travelers to the Hajj Pilgrimage (Aug. 9-14, 2019) and/or Umrah must show proof of immunization. Vaccine must be received at least 10 days prior to and no greater than 5 years prior to arrival to Saudi Arabia. Conjugate vaccine must clearly be documented for validity of 5 years. For all health entry requirements, go to www.moh.gov.sa/en/hajj/pages/healthregulations.aspx.
Measles
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends all infants 6-11 months old receive one dose of MMR prior to international travel regardless of the destination. This should be followed by two additional countable doses. All persons at least 12 months of age and born after 1956 should receive two doses of MMR at least 28 days apart prior to international travel.
Rabies
Rabies is a viral disease endemic in more than 150 countries with approximately 60,000 fatal cases worldwide each year. Asia and Africa are the areas with the highest risk of exposure, and dogs are the principal hosts. Human rabies is almost always fatal once symptoms develop. Preexposure vaccine is recommended for persons with prolonged and/or remote travel to countries where rabies immunoglobulin is unavailable and the occurrence of animal rabies is high. Post exposure vaccination on days 0 and 3 still would be required.*
Typhoid
A bacterial infection caused by Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi and Paratyphi manifests with fever, headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation. When bacteremia occurs, it usually is referred to as enteric fever. It is acquired by consumption of food/water contaminated with human feces. Highest risk areas include Africa, Southern Asia, and Southeast Asia
Yellow fever
Risk is limited to sub-Saharan Africa and the tropical areas of South America. It is transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. The vaccine is required for entry into at least 16 countries. In a country where yellow fever is present, persons transiting through for more than 12 hours to reach their final destination may actually cause a change in the entry requirements for the destination country. For example, travel from the United States to Tanzania requires no yellow fever vaccine while travel from the United States to Nairobi (more than 12 hours) to Tanzania requires yellow fever vaccine for entry into Tanzania. Travel sequence and duration is extremely important. Check the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention yellow fever site and/or the consulate for the most up-to-date yellow fever vaccine requirements.
YF-Vax (yellow fever vaccine) produced by Sanofi Pasteur in the United States currently is unavailable. The company is building a new facility, and vaccine will not be available for the remainder of 2019. To assure vaccine for U.S. travelers, Stamaril, a yellow fever vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur in France has been made available at more than 250 sites nationwide. Because Stamaril is offered at a limited number of locations, persons in need of vaccine should not delay seeking it. Because of increased demand related to summer travel, travelers in some areas have reported delays of several weeks in scheduling an appointment. To locate a Stamaril site in your area, go to wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/search-for-stamaril-clinics.
There are several other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks including malaria, dengue, Zika and rickettsial diseases. Vigilant use of mosquito repellents is a must. Prophylactic medication is available for only malaria and should be initiated prior to exposure. Frequency and duration depends on the medication selected.
So how do you assist your patients?
Once you’ve identified a travel medicine facility in your area, encourage them to seek pretravel advice 4-6 weeks prior to international travel and make sure their routine immunizations are up to date. Generally, this is not an issue. One challenge is the early administration of MMR. While most practitioners know that early administration for international travel has been recommended for years, many office staff are accustomed to administration at only the 12 month and 4 year visit. When parents call requesting immunization, they often are informed that is it unnecessary and the appointment denied. This is a challenge, especially when coordination of administration of another live vaccine, such as yellow fever, is planned. Familiarizing all members of the health care team with current vaccine recommendations is critical.
For country-specific information, up-to-date travel alerts, and to locate a travel medicine clinic, visit www.cdc.gov/travel.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
*This article was updated 6/18/2019.
Were the voices really tied to voodoo?
Culture can affect patients’ understanding of symptoms
The other day, I saw a patient who really brought home the importance of considering culture in psychiatry. The patient’s chief complaint was that he had been hearing the voice of an “invisible man.” I noticed he had an accent I was familiar with, and it sounded like he was from Haiti. Indeed, he was born there.
Accordingly, I asked him about voodoo. He said he is not a voodoo worshiper but he believes in voodoo – and he thought that that was what was happening to him. He reported this was the second time he heard the voices – the last time was less than a year ago. He said he came to the hospital because he was trying to wash dishes when he felt some invisible force holding him down. The patient got upset, and he broke the dishes he was washing. Of course, a big melee ensued, and the police were called. They brought the patient to my hospital.
When I spoke with him, he said he was doing pretty well with his Parkinson’s disease but he was a little stiff. The patient was on carbidopa-levodopa 25-100 mg 1.5 t.i.d. for his Parkinson’s, quetiapine 50 mg b.i.d. for his psychotic symptoms, amantadine 100 mg b.i.d. to stimulate his dopamine, ropinirole 1 mg t.i.d. for restless legs, and baclofen 10 mg t.i.d. for muscle spasms.
This is a 66-year-old male who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview. He was not hyperactive or lethargic. His mood was euthymic, and he had a wide range of affect as he was able to smile, get serious, and be sad (about his problems). His speech was relevant, linear, and goal directed. His thought processes did not show any signs of loose associations, tangentiality or circumstantiality, but he did have delusions, and current auditory and visual hallucinations. His thought content was surrounding his problems, which because of the culture he is from, were attributed by him to voodoo. He was attentive, and his recent and remote memory were intact. Clinical estimate of his intelligence was average. Despite my explaining to him that his psychotic symptoms were caused by the medication he was taking, his judgment and insight were fair as he explained to me the things that were happening to him were so tangible they had to be real. He had no suicidal or homicidal ideation.
I decided to leave his meds as is, and I gave him 25 mg loxapine at h.s.
When I saw him a few days later, I asked him how he was doing, and he reported that the invisible man and all of his shenanigans were gone. I again explained that the medication he was taking for his Parkinson’s was causing his psychotic symptoms, and now I had proof. He looked skeptical.
This struck me as a perfect example of the importance of culture in psychiatry, and I thought it instructive to share.
Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit; clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of the Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), all in Chicago. He is recipient of the American Psychiatric Association’s 2019 Adolph Meyer Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychiatric Research. Check out Dr. Bell’s new book, Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community, at https://thirdworldpressfoundation.org/product/pre-order-fetal-alcohol-exposure-in-the-african-american-community.
Culture can affect patients’ understanding of symptoms
Culture can affect patients’ understanding of symptoms
The other day, I saw a patient who really brought home the importance of considering culture in psychiatry. The patient’s chief complaint was that he had been hearing the voice of an “invisible man.” I noticed he had an accent I was familiar with, and it sounded like he was from Haiti. Indeed, he was born there.
Accordingly, I asked him about voodoo. He said he is not a voodoo worshiper but he believes in voodoo – and he thought that that was what was happening to him. He reported this was the second time he heard the voices – the last time was less than a year ago. He said he came to the hospital because he was trying to wash dishes when he felt some invisible force holding him down. The patient got upset, and he broke the dishes he was washing. Of course, a big melee ensued, and the police were called. They brought the patient to my hospital.
When I spoke with him, he said he was doing pretty well with his Parkinson’s disease but he was a little stiff. The patient was on carbidopa-levodopa 25-100 mg 1.5 t.i.d. for his Parkinson’s, quetiapine 50 mg b.i.d. for his psychotic symptoms, amantadine 100 mg b.i.d. to stimulate his dopamine, ropinirole 1 mg t.i.d. for restless legs, and baclofen 10 mg t.i.d. for muscle spasms.
This is a 66-year-old male who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview. He was not hyperactive or lethargic. His mood was euthymic, and he had a wide range of affect as he was able to smile, get serious, and be sad (about his problems). His speech was relevant, linear, and goal directed. His thought processes did not show any signs of loose associations, tangentiality or circumstantiality, but he did have delusions, and current auditory and visual hallucinations. His thought content was surrounding his problems, which because of the culture he is from, were attributed by him to voodoo. He was attentive, and his recent and remote memory were intact. Clinical estimate of his intelligence was average. Despite my explaining to him that his psychotic symptoms were caused by the medication he was taking, his judgment and insight were fair as he explained to me the things that were happening to him were so tangible they had to be real. He had no suicidal or homicidal ideation.
I decided to leave his meds as is, and I gave him 25 mg loxapine at h.s.
When I saw him a few days later, I asked him how he was doing, and he reported that the invisible man and all of his shenanigans were gone. I again explained that the medication he was taking for his Parkinson’s was causing his psychotic symptoms, and now I had proof. He looked skeptical.
This struck me as a perfect example of the importance of culture in psychiatry, and I thought it instructive to share.
Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit; clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of the Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), all in Chicago. He is recipient of the American Psychiatric Association’s 2019 Adolph Meyer Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychiatric Research. Check out Dr. Bell’s new book, Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community, at https://thirdworldpressfoundation.org/product/pre-order-fetal-alcohol-exposure-in-the-african-american-community.
The other day, I saw a patient who really brought home the importance of considering culture in psychiatry. The patient’s chief complaint was that he had been hearing the voice of an “invisible man.” I noticed he had an accent I was familiar with, and it sounded like he was from Haiti. Indeed, he was born there.
Accordingly, I asked him about voodoo. He said he is not a voodoo worshiper but he believes in voodoo – and he thought that that was what was happening to him. He reported this was the second time he heard the voices – the last time was less than a year ago. He said he came to the hospital because he was trying to wash dishes when he felt some invisible force holding him down. The patient got upset, and he broke the dishes he was washing. Of course, a big melee ensued, and the police were called. They brought the patient to my hospital.
When I spoke with him, he said he was doing pretty well with his Parkinson’s disease but he was a little stiff. The patient was on carbidopa-levodopa 25-100 mg 1.5 t.i.d. for his Parkinson’s, quetiapine 50 mg b.i.d. for his psychotic symptoms, amantadine 100 mg b.i.d. to stimulate his dopamine, ropinirole 1 mg t.i.d. for restless legs, and baclofen 10 mg t.i.d. for muscle spasms.
This is a 66-year-old male who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview. He was not hyperactive or lethargic. His mood was euthymic, and he had a wide range of affect as he was able to smile, get serious, and be sad (about his problems). His speech was relevant, linear, and goal directed. His thought processes did not show any signs of loose associations, tangentiality or circumstantiality, but he did have delusions, and current auditory and visual hallucinations. His thought content was surrounding his problems, which because of the culture he is from, were attributed by him to voodoo. He was attentive, and his recent and remote memory were intact. Clinical estimate of his intelligence was average. Despite my explaining to him that his psychotic symptoms were caused by the medication he was taking, his judgment and insight were fair as he explained to me the things that were happening to him were so tangible they had to be real. He had no suicidal or homicidal ideation.
I decided to leave his meds as is, and I gave him 25 mg loxapine at h.s.
When I saw him a few days later, I asked him how he was doing, and he reported that the invisible man and all of his shenanigans were gone. I again explained that the medication he was taking for his Parkinson’s was causing his psychotic symptoms, and now I had proof. He looked skeptical.
This struck me as a perfect example of the importance of culture in psychiatry, and I thought it instructive to share.
Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit; clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of the Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), all in Chicago. He is recipient of the American Psychiatric Association’s 2019 Adolph Meyer Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychiatric Research. Check out Dr. Bell’s new book, Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community, at https://thirdworldpressfoundation.org/product/pre-order-fetal-alcohol-exposure-in-the-african-american-community.
Medical community confronts physician depression, suicide
Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.
Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.
MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.
Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”
These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.
The following is an edited version of the discussion.
Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.
Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.
Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.
Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.
Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.
Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.
MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.
Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”
These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.
The following is an edited version of the discussion.
Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.
Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.
Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.
Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.
Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.
Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.
MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.
Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”
These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.
The following is an edited version of the discussion.
Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.
Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.
Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.
Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.
We all benefit from this powerful pairing
In this issue of JFP, Rajesh and colleagues present a scholarly review that details why it makes sense to integrate behavioral health into primary care. There is strong evidence that the presence of behavioral health care managers in primary care practices improves outcomes for patients with anxiety and depression. The mental health–trained care manager serves as a link between the primary care physician and mental health professional and can provide psychotherapy, as well.
A more integrated model, however, includes a full range of behavioral health services on site. Although not as well studied, co-location is a powerful pairing of physical and mental health treatment. Primary care physicians benefit because referral and feedback are immediate and seamless through warm hand-offs and easy access to medical and mental health notes in a common medical record. Patients benefit because they are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.
We know that trust improves treatment outcomes. What better way to encourage trust than with a warm smile and handshake when a patient is most vulnerable? In addition, integrating behavioral health into primary care helps patients avoid the stigma of going to a “mental health clinic.”
Integrating medical and mental health professionals into one practice is hardly a new idea and is spreading quickly in some parts of the country. It is perhaps no coincidence that Rajesh refers to a study of behavioral health integration in Colorado family practice offices. Recently, I (JH) presented a CME program to family physicians in Colorado, and, after reviewing recent studies of anxiety and depression, I asked how many participants had mental health professionals working in their practices. A full third raised their hands.
I (JH) had an excellent psychologist in my practice as far back as 1980, and he was an integral member of the care team. It seems that behavioral health integration has been a long time coming, and as a health care community we would be wise to spread this model of whole-person care to all primary care practices.
John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Anna Hickner, PsyD
Associate Director of Adult Psychology Training, Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Roosevelt Hospitals, New York, NY
John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Anna Hickner, PsyD
Associate Director of Adult Psychology Training, Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Roosevelt Hospitals, New York, NY
John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Anna Hickner, PsyD
Associate Director of Adult Psychology Training, Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Roosevelt Hospitals, New York, NY
In this issue of JFP, Rajesh and colleagues present a scholarly review that details why it makes sense to integrate behavioral health into primary care. There is strong evidence that the presence of behavioral health care managers in primary care practices improves outcomes for patients with anxiety and depression. The mental health–trained care manager serves as a link between the primary care physician and mental health professional and can provide psychotherapy, as well.
A more integrated model, however, includes a full range of behavioral health services on site. Although not as well studied, co-location is a powerful pairing of physical and mental health treatment. Primary care physicians benefit because referral and feedback are immediate and seamless through warm hand-offs and easy access to medical and mental health notes in a common medical record. Patients benefit because they are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.
We know that trust improves treatment outcomes. What better way to encourage trust than with a warm smile and handshake when a patient is most vulnerable? In addition, integrating behavioral health into primary care helps patients avoid the stigma of going to a “mental health clinic.”
Integrating medical and mental health professionals into one practice is hardly a new idea and is spreading quickly in some parts of the country. It is perhaps no coincidence that Rajesh refers to a study of behavioral health integration in Colorado family practice offices. Recently, I (JH) presented a CME program to family physicians in Colorado, and, after reviewing recent studies of anxiety and depression, I asked how many participants had mental health professionals working in their practices. A full third raised their hands.
I (JH) had an excellent psychologist in my practice as far back as 1980, and he was an integral member of the care team. It seems that behavioral health integration has been a long time coming, and as a health care community we would be wise to spread this model of whole-person care to all primary care practices.
In this issue of JFP, Rajesh and colleagues present a scholarly review that details why it makes sense to integrate behavioral health into primary care. There is strong evidence that the presence of behavioral health care managers in primary care practices improves outcomes for patients with anxiety and depression. The mental health–trained care manager serves as a link between the primary care physician and mental health professional and can provide psychotherapy, as well.
A more integrated model, however, includes a full range of behavioral health services on site. Although not as well studied, co-location is a powerful pairing of physical and mental health treatment. Primary care physicians benefit because referral and feedback are immediate and seamless through warm hand-offs and easy access to medical and mental health notes in a common medical record. Patients benefit because they are more likely to engage with treatment when the physician introduces them to the mental health professional and expresses confidence in his or her abilities.
We know that trust improves treatment outcomes. What better way to encourage trust than with a warm smile and handshake when a patient is most vulnerable? In addition, integrating behavioral health into primary care helps patients avoid the stigma of going to a “mental health clinic.”
Integrating medical and mental health professionals into one practice is hardly a new idea and is spreading quickly in some parts of the country. It is perhaps no coincidence that Rajesh refers to a study of behavioral health integration in Colorado family practice offices. Recently, I (JH) presented a CME program to family physicians in Colorado, and, after reviewing recent studies of anxiety and depression, I asked how many participants had mental health professionals working in their practices. A full third raised their hands.
I (JH) had an excellent psychologist in my practice as far back as 1980, and he was an integral member of the care team. It seems that behavioral health integration has been a long time coming, and as a health care community we would be wise to spread this model of whole-person care to all primary care practices.