User login
Inclusive sexual health counseling and care
Sexual health screening and counseling is an important part of wellness care for all adolescents, and transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) youth are no exception. TGNC youth may avoid routine health visits and sexual health conversations because they fear discrimination in the health care setting and feel uncomfortable about physical exams.1 Providers should be aware of the potential anxiety patients may feel during health care visits and work to establish an environment of respect and inclusiveness. Below are some tips to help provide care that is inclusive of the diverse gender and sexual identities of the patients we see.
Obtaining a sexual history
1. Clearly explain the reasons for asking sexually explicit questions.
TGNC youth experiencing dysphoria may have heightened levels of anxiety when discussing sexuality. Before asking these questions, acknowledge the sensitivity of this topic and explain that this information is important for providers to know so that they can provide appropriate counseling and screening recommendations. This may alleviate some of their discomfort.
2. Ensure confidentiality.
When obtaining sexual health histories, it is crucial to ensure confidential patient encounters, as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.2,3 The Guttmacher Institute provides information about minors’ consent law in each state.4
3. Do not assume identity equals behavior.
Here are some sexual health questions you need to ask:
- Who are you attracted to? What is/are the gender(s) of your partner(s)?
- Have you ever had anal, genital, or oral sex? If yes:
Do you give, receive, or both?
When was the last time you had sex?
How many partners have you had in past 6 months?
Do you use barrier protection most of the time, some of the time, always, or never?
Do you have symptoms of an infection, such as burning when you pee, abnormal genital discharge, pain with sex, or irregular bleeding?
- Have you ever been forced/coerced into having sex?
Starting with open-ended questions about attraction can give patients an opportunity to describe their pattern of attraction. If needed, patients can be prompted with more specific questions about their partners’ genders. It is important to ask explicitly about genital, oral, and anal sex because patients sometimes do not realize that the term sex includes oral and anal sex. Patients also may not be aware that it is possible to spread infections through oral and anal sex.
4. Anatomy and behavior may change over time, and it is important to reassess sexually transmitted infection risk at each visit
Studies suggest that, as gender dysphoria decreases, sexual desires may increase; this is true for all adolescents but of particular interest with TGNC youth. This may affect behaviors.5 For youth on hormone therapy, testosterone can increase libido, whereas estrogen may decrease libido and affect sexual function.6
Physical exam
Dysphoria related to primary and secondary sex characteristics may make exams particularly distressing. Providers should clearly explain reasons for performing various parts of the physical exam. When performing the physical exam, providers should use a gender-affirming approach. This includes using the patient’s identified name and pronouns throughout the visit and asking patients preference for terminology when discussing body parts (some patients may prefer the use of the term “front hole” to vagina).1,7,8 The exam and evaluation may need to be modified based on comfort. If a patient refuses a speculum exam after the need for the its use has been discussed, consider offering an external genital exam and bimanual exam instead. If a patient refuses to allow a provider to obtain a rectal or vaginal swab, consider allowing patients to self-swab. Providers also should consider whether genital exams can be deferred to subsequent visits. These techniques offer an opportunity to build trust and rapport with patients so that they remain engaged in care and may become comfortable with the necessary tests and procedures at future visits.
Sexual health counseling
Sexual health counseling should address reducing risk and optimizing physical and emotional satisfaction in relationships and encounters.9 In addition to assessing risky behaviors and screening for sexually transmitted infections, providers also should provide counseling on safer-sex practices. This includes the use of lubrication to reduce trauma to genital tissues, which can potentiate the spread of infections, and the use of barrier protection, such as external condoms (often referred to as male condoms), internal condoms (often referred to as female condoms), dental dams during oral sex, and gloves for digital penetration. Patients at risk for pregnancy should receive comprehensive contraceptive counseling. TGNC patients may be at increased risk of sexual victimization, and honest discussions about safety in relationships is important. The goal of sexual health counseling should be to promote safe, satisfying experiences for all patients.
Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Guidelines for the Primary and Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender and Gender Nonbinary People, in Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: University of California, 2016).
2. Pediatrics. 2008. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0694.
3. J Adol Health. 2004;35:160-7.
4. An Overview of Minors’ Consent Law: State Laws and Policies. 2017, by the Guttmacher Institute.
5. Eur J Endocrinol. 2011 Aug;165(2):331-7.
6. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep;94(9):3132-54.
7. Sex Roles. 2013 Jun 1;68(11-12):675-89.
8. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;53(4):331-7.
9. “The Fenway Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health,” 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: American College of Physicians Press, 2008).
Sexual health screening and counseling is an important part of wellness care for all adolescents, and transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) youth are no exception. TGNC youth may avoid routine health visits and sexual health conversations because they fear discrimination in the health care setting and feel uncomfortable about physical exams.1 Providers should be aware of the potential anxiety patients may feel during health care visits and work to establish an environment of respect and inclusiveness. Below are some tips to help provide care that is inclusive of the diverse gender and sexual identities of the patients we see.
Obtaining a sexual history
1. Clearly explain the reasons for asking sexually explicit questions.
TGNC youth experiencing dysphoria may have heightened levels of anxiety when discussing sexuality. Before asking these questions, acknowledge the sensitivity of this topic and explain that this information is important for providers to know so that they can provide appropriate counseling and screening recommendations. This may alleviate some of their discomfort.
2. Ensure confidentiality.
When obtaining sexual health histories, it is crucial to ensure confidential patient encounters, as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.2,3 The Guttmacher Institute provides information about minors’ consent law in each state.4
3. Do not assume identity equals behavior.
Here are some sexual health questions you need to ask:
- Who are you attracted to? What is/are the gender(s) of your partner(s)?
- Have you ever had anal, genital, or oral sex? If yes:
Do you give, receive, or both?
When was the last time you had sex?
How many partners have you had in past 6 months?
Do you use barrier protection most of the time, some of the time, always, or never?
Do you have symptoms of an infection, such as burning when you pee, abnormal genital discharge, pain with sex, or irregular bleeding?
- Have you ever been forced/coerced into having sex?
Starting with open-ended questions about attraction can give patients an opportunity to describe their pattern of attraction. If needed, patients can be prompted with more specific questions about their partners’ genders. It is important to ask explicitly about genital, oral, and anal sex because patients sometimes do not realize that the term sex includes oral and anal sex. Patients also may not be aware that it is possible to spread infections through oral and anal sex.
4. Anatomy and behavior may change over time, and it is important to reassess sexually transmitted infection risk at each visit
Studies suggest that, as gender dysphoria decreases, sexual desires may increase; this is true for all adolescents but of particular interest with TGNC youth. This may affect behaviors.5 For youth on hormone therapy, testosterone can increase libido, whereas estrogen may decrease libido and affect sexual function.6
Physical exam
Dysphoria related to primary and secondary sex characteristics may make exams particularly distressing. Providers should clearly explain reasons for performing various parts of the physical exam. When performing the physical exam, providers should use a gender-affirming approach. This includes using the patient’s identified name and pronouns throughout the visit and asking patients preference for terminology when discussing body parts (some patients may prefer the use of the term “front hole” to vagina).1,7,8 The exam and evaluation may need to be modified based on comfort. If a patient refuses a speculum exam after the need for the its use has been discussed, consider offering an external genital exam and bimanual exam instead. If a patient refuses to allow a provider to obtain a rectal or vaginal swab, consider allowing patients to self-swab. Providers also should consider whether genital exams can be deferred to subsequent visits. These techniques offer an opportunity to build trust and rapport with patients so that they remain engaged in care and may become comfortable with the necessary tests and procedures at future visits.
Sexual health counseling
Sexual health counseling should address reducing risk and optimizing physical and emotional satisfaction in relationships and encounters.9 In addition to assessing risky behaviors and screening for sexually transmitted infections, providers also should provide counseling on safer-sex practices. This includes the use of lubrication to reduce trauma to genital tissues, which can potentiate the spread of infections, and the use of barrier protection, such as external condoms (often referred to as male condoms), internal condoms (often referred to as female condoms), dental dams during oral sex, and gloves for digital penetration. Patients at risk for pregnancy should receive comprehensive contraceptive counseling. TGNC patients may be at increased risk of sexual victimization, and honest discussions about safety in relationships is important. The goal of sexual health counseling should be to promote safe, satisfying experiences for all patients.
Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Guidelines for the Primary and Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender and Gender Nonbinary People, in Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: University of California, 2016).
2. Pediatrics. 2008. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0694.
3. J Adol Health. 2004;35:160-7.
4. An Overview of Minors’ Consent Law: State Laws and Policies. 2017, by the Guttmacher Institute.
5. Eur J Endocrinol. 2011 Aug;165(2):331-7.
6. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep;94(9):3132-54.
7. Sex Roles. 2013 Jun 1;68(11-12):675-89.
8. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;53(4):331-7.
9. “The Fenway Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health,” 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: American College of Physicians Press, 2008).
Sexual health screening and counseling is an important part of wellness care for all adolescents, and transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) youth are no exception. TGNC youth may avoid routine health visits and sexual health conversations because they fear discrimination in the health care setting and feel uncomfortable about physical exams.1 Providers should be aware of the potential anxiety patients may feel during health care visits and work to establish an environment of respect and inclusiveness. Below are some tips to help provide care that is inclusive of the diverse gender and sexual identities of the patients we see.
Obtaining a sexual history
1. Clearly explain the reasons for asking sexually explicit questions.
TGNC youth experiencing dysphoria may have heightened levels of anxiety when discussing sexuality. Before asking these questions, acknowledge the sensitivity of this topic and explain that this information is important for providers to know so that they can provide appropriate counseling and screening recommendations. This may alleviate some of their discomfort.
2. Ensure confidentiality.
When obtaining sexual health histories, it is crucial to ensure confidential patient encounters, as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.2,3 The Guttmacher Institute provides information about minors’ consent law in each state.4
3. Do not assume identity equals behavior.
Here are some sexual health questions you need to ask:
- Who are you attracted to? What is/are the gender(s) of your partner(s)?
- Have you ever had anal, genital, or oral sex? If yes:
Do you give, receive, or both?
When was the last time you had sex?
How many partners have you had in past 6 months?
Do you use barrier protection most of the time, some of the time, always, or never?
Do you have symptoms of an infection, such as burning when you pee, abnormal genital discharge, pain with sex, or irregular bleeding?
- Have you ever been forced/coerced into having sex?
Starting with open-ended questions about attraction can give patients an opportunity to describe their pattern of attraction. If needed, patients can be prompted with more specific questions about their partners’ genders. It is important to ask explicitly about genital, oral, and anal sex because patients sometimes do not realize that the term sex includes oral and anal sex. Patients also may not be aware that it is possible to spread infections through oral and anal sex.
4. Anatomy and behavior may change over time, and it is important to reassess sexually transmitted infection risk at each visit
Studies suggest that, as gender dysphoria decreases, sexual desires may increase; this is true for all adolescents but of particular interest with TGNC youth. This may affect behaviors.5 For youth on hormone therapy, testosterone can increase libido, whereas estrogen may decrease libido and affect sexual function.6
Physical exam
Dysphoria related to primary and secondary sex characteristics may make exams particularly distressing. Providers should clearly explain reasons for performing various parts of the physical exam. When performing the physical exam, providers should use a gender-affirming approach. This includes using the patient’s identified name and pronouns throughout the visit and asking patients preference for terminology when discussing body parts (some patients may prefer the use of the term “front hole” to vagina).1,7,8 The exam and evaluation may need to be modified based on comfort. If a patient refuses a speculum exam after the need for the its use has been discussed, consider offering an external genital exam and bimanual exam instead. If a patient refuses to allow a provider to obtain a rectal or vaginal swab, consider allowing patients to self-swab. Providers also should consider whether genital exams can be deferred to subsequent visits. These techniques offer an opportunity to build trust and rapport with patients so that they remain engaged in care and may become comfortable with the necessary tests and procedures at future visits.
Sexual health counseling
Sexual health counseling should address reducing risk and optimizing physical and emotional satisfaction in relationships and encounters.9 In addition to assessing risky behaviors and screening for sexually transmitted infections, providers also should provide counseling on safer-sex practices. This includes the use of lubrication to reduce trauma to genital tissues, which can potentiate the spread of infections, and the use of barrier protection, such as external condoms (often referred to as male condoms), internal condoms (often referred to as female condoms), dental dams during oral sex, and gloves for digital penetration. Patients at risk for pregnancy should receive comprehensive contraceptive counseling. TGNC patients may be at increased risk of sexual victimization, and honest discussions about safety in relationships is important. The goal of sexual health counseling should be to promote safe, satisfying experiences for all patients.
Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Guidelines for the Primary and Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender and Gender Nonbinary People, in Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: University of California, 2016).
2. Pediatrics. 2008. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0694.
3. J Adol Health. 2004;35:160-7.
4. An Overview of Minors’ Consent Law: State Laws and Policies. 2017, by the Guttmacher Institute.
5. Eur J Endocrinol. 2011 Aug;165(2):331-7.
6. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep;94(9):3132-54.
7. Sex Roles. 2013 Jun 1;68(11-12):675-89.
8. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;53(4):331-7.
9. “The Fenway Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health,” 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: American College of Physicians Press, 2008).
Salmonella infections: The source may be as close as your patient’s backyard
I recently received a group text from a friend voicing her frustration that her neighbor had acquired chickens, and she shared a photo of some roaming freely in the front yard. Naturally, my response was related to the potential infectious disease exposure and infections. Another friend chimed in “fresh eggs, and these are free range chickens. They don’t get sick. ... Many people in my area have chickens.” Unbeknownst to my friends, they had helped me select the ID Consult topic for this month.
Nontyphoidal Salmonella bacteria are associated with a wide spectrum of infections which range from asymptomatic gastrointestinal carriage to bacteremia, meningitis, osteomyelitis, and focal infections. Invasive disease is seen most often in children younger than 5 years of age, persons aged 65 years or older, and individuals with hemoglobinopathies including sickle cell disease and those with immunodeficiencies. Annually, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nontyphoidal salmonellosis is responsible for 1.2 million illnesses, 23,000 hospitalizations, and 450 deaths in the United States. Gastroenteritis is the most common manifestation of the disease and is characterized by abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and fever that develops 12-72 hours after exposure. It is usually self-limited. As previously reported in this column (June, 2017), Salmonella is one of the top two foodborne pathogens in the United States, and most outbreaks have been associated with consumption of contaminated food. But wait, contaminated food is not the only cause of some of our most recent outbreaks.
Live poultry-associated salmonellosis (LPAS)
LPAS was first reported in the 1950s. More recent epidemiologic data was published by C. Basler et al. (Emerging Infect Dis. 2016;22[10]:1705-11). LPAS was defined as two or more culture confirmed human Salmonella infections with a combination of epidemiologic, laboratory, or traceback evidence linking illnesses to contact with live poultry. The median outbreak size involved 26 cases (range, 4-363) and 77% (41 of 53) were multistate. The median age of the patients was 9 years (range, less than 1 to 92 years), and 31% were aged 5 years or younger. Exposure to chicks and ducklings was reported in 85% and 38%, respectively. High-risk practices included keeping poultry inside of the home (46%), snuggling baby birds (49%), and kissing baby birds (13%). The median time from purchase of poultry to onset of illness was 17 days (range, 1-672), and 66% reported onset of illness less than 30 days after purchase. Almost 52% reported owning poultry for less than 1 year.
The number of outbreaks continued to increase. From 1990 to 2005, there were a total of 17 outbreaks, compared with 36 between 2006 and 2014. Historically, outbreaks occurred in children around Easter when brightly colored dyed chicks were purchased. In the above review, 80% of outbreaks began in February, March, or April with an average duration of 4.9 months (range, 1-12).
Salmonella isolates
Backyard flocks and LPAS
More recently outbreaks have been associated with backyard flocks occurring year round and affecting both adults and children in contrast to seasonal peaks. The first multistate backyard flock outbreak was documented in 2007. Currently, the CDC is investigating 10 separate multistate outbreaks that began on Jan. 4, 2017. It involves 48 states, 961 infected individuals, 215 hospitalizations, and 1 death. At least 5 salmonella serotypes have been isolated.
What about the hatcheries?
It’s estimated that 50 million live poultry are sold annually. Birds are shipped within 24 hours after hatching via the U.S. Postal Service in boxes containing up to 100 chicks. Delivery occurs within 72 hours of hatching. Approximately 20 mail order hatcheries provide the majority of poultry sold to the general public. The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) is a voluntary state and federal testing and certification program whose goal is to eliminate poultry disease from breeder flocks to prevent egg-transmitted and hatchery-disseminated diseases. All hatcheries may participate. They also may participate in the voluntary Salmonella monitoring program. Note participation is not mandatory.
Preventing future outbreaks: patient/parental education is mandatory
1. Make sure your parents know about the association of Salmonella and live poultry. Reinforce these are farm animals, not pets. Purchase birds from hatcheries that participate in NPIP and the Salmonella monitoring programs.
2. Chicks, ducklings, or other live poultry should not be taken to schools, day care facilities, or nursing homes. Poultry should not be allowed in the home or in areas where food or drink is being prepared or consumed.
3. Poultry should not be snuggled, kissed, or allowed to touch one’s mouth. Hand washing with soap and water should occur after touching live poultry or any object touched in areas where they live or roam.
4. Contact with live poultry should be avoided in those at risk for developing serious infections including persons aged 5 years or younger, 65 years or older, immunocompromised individuals, and those with hemoglobinopathies.
5. All equipment used to care for live birds should be washed outdoors. Owners should have designated shoes when caring for poultry which should never be worn inside the home.
Hopefully, the next time you see a patient with fever and diarrhea you will recall this topic and ask about their contact with live poultry.
Additional resources to facilitate discussions can be found at www.cdc.gov/salmonella.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
I recently received a group text from a friend voicing her frustration that her neighbor had acquired chickens, and she shared a photo of some roaming freely in the front yard. Naturally, my response was related to the potential infectious disease exposure and infections. Another friend chimed in “fresh eggs, and these are free range chickens. They don’t get sick. ... Many people in my area have chickens.” Unbeknownst to my friends, they had helped me select the ID Consult topic for this month.
Nontyphoidal Salmonella bacteria are associated with a wide spectrum of infections which range from asymptomatic gastrointestinal carriage to bacteremia, meningitis, osteomyelitis, and focal infections. Invasive disease is seen most often in children younger than 5 years of age, persons aged 65 years or older, and individuals with hemoglobinopathies including sickle cell disease and those with immunodeficiencies. Annually, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nontyphoidal salmonellosis is responsible for 1.2 million illnesses, 23,000 hospitalizations, and 450 deaths in the United States. Gastroenteritis is the most common manifestation of the disease and is characterized by abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and fever that develops 12-72 hours after exposure. It is usually self-limited. As previously reported in this column (June, 2017), Salmonella is one of the top two foodborne pathogens in the United States, and most outbreaks have been associated with consumption of contaminated food. But wait, contaminated food is not the only cause of some of our most recent outbreaks.
Live poultry-associated salmonellosis (LPAS)
LPAS was first reported in the 1950s. More recent epidemiologic data was published by C. Basler et al. (Emerging Infect Dis. 2016;22[10]:1705-11). LPAS was defined as two or more culture confirmed human Salmonella infections with a combination of epidemiologic, laboratory, or traceback evidence linking illnesses to contact with live poultry. The median outbreak size involved 26 cases (range, 4-363) and 77% (41 of 53) were multistate. The median age of the patients was 9 years (range, less than 1 to 92 years), and 31% were aged 5 years or younger. Exposure to chicks and ducklings was reported in 85% and 38%, respectively. High-risk practices included keeping poultry inside of the home (46%), snuggling baby birds (49%), and kissing baby birds (13%). The median time from purchase of poultry to onset of illness was 17 days (range, 1-672), and 66% reported onset of illness less than 30 days after purchase. Almost 52% reported owning poultry for less than 1 year.
The number of outbreaks continued to increase. From 1990 to 2005, there were a total of 17 outbreaks, compared with 36 between 2006 and 2014. Historically, outbreaks occurred in children around Easter when brightly colored dyed chicks were purchased. In the above review, 80% of outbreaks began in February, March, or April with an average duration of 4.9 months (range, 1-12).
Salmonella isolates
Backyard flocks and LPAS
More recently outbreaks have been associated with backyard flocks occurring year round and affecting both adults and children in contrast to seasonal peaks. The first multistate backyard flock outbreak was documented in 2007. Currently, the CDC is investigating 10 separate multistate outbreaks that began on Jan. 4, 2017. It involves 48 states, 961 infected individuals, 215 hospitalizations, and 1 death. At least 5 salmonella serotypes have been isolated.
What about the hatcheries?
It’s estimated that 50 million live poultry are sold annually. Birds are shipped within 24 hours after hatching via the U.S. Postal Service in boxes containing up to 100 chicks. Delivery occurs within 72 hours of hatching. Approximately 20 mail order hatcheries provide the majority of poultry sold to the general public. The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) is a voluntary state and federal testing and certification program whose goal is to eliminate poultry disease from breeder flocks to prevent egg-transmitted and hatchery-disseminated diseases. All hatcheries may participate. They also may participate in the voluntary Salmonella monitoring program. Note participation is not mandatory.
Preventing future outbreaks: patient/parental education is mandatory
1. Make sure your parents know about the association of Salmonella and live poultry. Reinforce these are farm animals, not pets. Purchase birds from hatcheries that participate in NPIP and the Salmonella monitoring programs.
2. Chicks, ducklings, or other live poultry should not be taken to schools, day care facilities, or nursing homes. Poultry should not be allowed in the home or in areas where food or drink is being prepared or consumed.
3. Poultry should not be snuggled, kissed, or allowed to touch one’s mouth. Hand washing with soap and water should occur after touching live poultry or any object touched in areas where they live or roam.
4. Contact with live poultry should be avoided in those at risk for developing serious infections including persons aged 5 years or younger, 65 years or older, immunocompromised individuals, and those with hemoglobinopathies.
5. All equipment used to care for live birds should be washed outdoors. Owners should have designated shoes when caring for poultry which should never be worn inside the home.
Hopefully, the next time you see a patient with fever and diarrhea you will recall this topic and ask about their contact with live poultry.
Additional resources to facilitate discussions can be found at www.cdc.gov/salmonella.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
I recently received a group text from a friend voicing her frustration that her neighbor had acquired chickens, and she shared a photo of some roaming freely in the front yard. Naturally, my response was related to the potential infectious disease exposure and infections. Another friend chimed in “fresh eggs, and these are free range chickens. They don’t get sick. ... Many people in my area have chickens.” Unbeknownst to my friends, they had helped me select the ID Consult topic for this month.
Nontyphoidal Salmonella bacteria are associated with a wide spectrum of infections which range from asymptomatic gastrointestinal carriage to bacteremia, meningitis, osteomyelitis, and focal infections. Invasive disease is seen most often in children younger than 5 years of age, persons aged 65 years or older, and individuals with hemoglobinopathies including sickle cell disease and those with immunodeficiencies. Annually, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nontyphoidal salmonellosis is responsible for 1.2 million illnesses, 23,000 hospitalizations, and 450 deaths in the United States. Gastroenteritis is the most common manifestation of the disease and is characterized by abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and fever that develops 12-72 hours after exposure. It is usually self-limited. As previously reported in this column (June, 2017), Salmonella is one of the top two foodborne pathogens in the United States, and most outbreaks have been associated with consumption of contaminated food. But wait, contaminated food is not the only cause of some of our most recent outbreaks.
Live poultry-associated salmonellosis (LPAS)
LPAS was first reported in the 1950s. More recent epidemiologic data was published by C. Basler et al. (Emerging Infect Dis. 2016;22[10]:1705-11). LPAS was defined as two or more culture confirmed human Salmonella infections with a combination of epidemiologic, laboratory, or traceback evidence linking illnesses to contact with live poultry. The median outbreak size involved 26 cases (range, 4-363) and 77% (41 of 53) were multistate. The median age of the patients was 9 years (range, less than 1 to 92 years), and 31% were aged 5 years or younger. Exposure to chicks and ducklings was reported in 85% and 38%, respectively. High-risk practices included keeping poultry inside of the home (46%), snuggling baby birds (49%), and kissing baby birds (13%). The median time from purchase of poultry to onset of illness was 17 days (range, 1-672), and 66% reported onset of illness less than 30 days after purchase. Almost 52% reported owning poultry for less than 1 year.
The number of outbreaks continued to increase. From 1990 to 2005, there were a total of 17 outbreaks, compared with 36 between 2006 and 2014. Historically, outbreaks occurred in children around Easter when brightly colored dyed chicks were purchased. In the above review, 80% of outbreaks began in February, March, or April with an average duration of 4.9 months (range, 1-12).
Salmonella isolates
Backyard flocks and LPAS
More recently outbreaks have been associated with backyard flocks occurring year round and affecting both adults and children in contrast to seasonal peaks. The first multistate backyard flock outbreak was documented in 2007. Currently, the CDC is investigating 10 separate multistate outbreaks that began on Jan. 4, 2017. It involves 48 states, 961 infected individuals, 215 hospitalizations, and 1 death. At least 5 salmonella serotypes have been isolated.
What about the hatcheries?
It’s estimated that 50 million live poultry are sold annually. Birds are shipped within 24 hours after hatching via the U.S. Postal Service in boxes containing up to 100 chicks. Delivery occurs within 72 hours of hatching. Approximately 20 mail order hatcheries provide the majority of poultry sold to the general public. The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) is a voluntary state and federal testing and certification program whose goal is to eliminate poultry disease from breeder flocks to prevent egg-transmitted and hatchery-disseminated diseases. All hatcheries may participate. They also may participate in the voluntary Salmonella monitoring program. Note participation is not mandatory.
Preventing future outbreaks: patient/parental education is mandatory
1. Make sure your parents know about the association of Salmonella and live poultry. Reinforce these are farm animals, not pets. Purchase birds from hatcheries that participate in NPIP and the Salmonella monitoring programs.
2. Chicks, ducklings, or other live poultry should not be taken to schools, day care facilities, or nursing homes. Poultry should not be allowed in the home or in areas where food or drink is being prepared or consumed.
3. Poultry should not be snuggled, kissed, or allowed to touch one’s mouth. Hand washing with soap and water should occur after touching live poultry or any object touched in areas where they live or roam.
4. Contact with live poultry should be avoided in those at risk for developing serious infections including persons aged 5 years or younger, 65 years or older, immunocompromised individuals, and those with hemoglobinopathies.
5. All equipment used to care for live birds should be washed outdoors. Owners should have designated shoes when caring for poultry which should never be worn inside the home.
Hopefully, the next time you see a patient with fever and diarrhea you will recall this topic and ask about their contact with live poultry.
Additional resources to facilitate discussions can be found at www.cdc.gov/salmonella.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Alternative therapies
Alternative therapies, from vitamins and supplements to meditation and acupuncture, have become increasingly popular treatments in the United States for many medical problems in the past few decades. In 2008, the National Institutes of Health reported that nearly 40% of adults and 12% of children had used “complementary or alternative medicine” (CAM) in the preceding year. Other surveys have suggested that closer to 30% of general pediatric patients and as many as 75% of adolescent patients have used CAM at least once. These treatments are especially popular for chronic conditions that are managed but not usually cured with current evidence-based treatments. Psychiatric conditions in childhood sometimes have a long course, and have effective but controversial treatments, as with stimulants for ADHD. Parents sometimes feel guilty about their child’s problem and want to use “natural” methods or deny the accepted understanding of their child’s illness. So it is not surprising that families may investigate alternative treatments, and such treatments have multiplied.
While there is evidence that parents and patients rarely discuss these treatments with their physicians, it is critical that you know what therapies your patients are using. You should focus on tolerance in the context of protecting the child from harm and improving the child’s functioning. If you have ever recommended chicken soup for a cold, then you have prescribed complementary medicine, so it is not a stretch for you to offer some input about the other alternative therapies your patients may be considering.
It is important to note that rigorous, case-controlled studies of efficacy of most alternative therapies are few in number and usually small in size (so any evidence of efficacy is weaker), and that the products themselves are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or other public body. This means that the family (and you) will have to do some homework to ensure that the therapy they purchase comes from a reputable source and is what it purports to be.
Many of the alternative therapies patients are investigating will be herbs or supplements. Omega-3 fatty acids are critical to multiple essential body functions, and are taken in primarily via certain foods, primarily fish and certain seeds and nuts. A deficiency in certain omega-3 fatty acids can cause problems in infant neurological development and put one at risk for heart disease, rheumatologic illness, and depression. Supplementation with Omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA], specifically) has a solid evidence base as an effective adjunctive treatment for depression and bipolar disorder in adults. In addition, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies have demonstrated efficacy in treatment of children with mild to moderate ADHD at doses of 1,200 mg/day. There are some studies that have demonstrated improvement in hyperactivity in children with autism with supplementation at similar doses. These supplements have very low risk of side effects. They are a reasonable recommendation to your patients whose children have mild to moderate ADHD, and they want to manage it without stimulants.
Families also may be considering physical or mechanical treatments. Acupuncture has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of fatigue and pain, migraines, and addiction, although there are very few studies in children and adolescents. There is some evidence for its efficacy in treatment of mild to moderate depression and anxiety in adults, but again no research has been done in youth. Hypnotherapy has shown modest efficacy in treatment of anticipatory anxiety symptoms, headache, chronic pain, nausea and vomiting, migraines, hair-pulling and skin picking as well as compulsive eating and smoking cessation in adults. There is some clinical evidence for its efficacy in children and adolescents, and its safety is well established. Massage therapy has shown value in improving mood and behavior in children with ADHD, but not efficacy as a first-line treatment for ADHD symptoms. Chiropractic care, which is among the most commonly used alternative therapies, claims to be effective for the treatment of anxiety, depression, ADHD, behavioral problems of autism and even schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but there is no significant scientific evidence to support these claims. And neurofeedback, which is a variant of biofeedback in which patients practice calming themselves or improving focus while watching an EEG has shown modest efficacy in the treatment of ADHD in children in early studies. It is worth noting that all of these therapies may be costly and not covered by insurance.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Additional readings
1. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2013 Jul;22(3):375-80.
2. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(4):364-8.
3. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(10):991-1000.
4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Jun; 53(6):658-66.
5. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;55(10):S168-9.
Alternative therapies, from vitamins and supplements to meditation and acupuncture, have become increasingly popular treatments in the United States for many medical problems in the past few decades. In 2008, the National Institutes of Health reported that nearly 40% of adults and 12% of children had used “complementary or alternative medicine” (CAM) in the preceding year. Other surveys have suggested that closer to 30% of general pediatric patients and as many as 75% of adolescent patients have used CAM at least once. These treatments are especially popular for chronic conditions that are managed but not usually cured with current evidence-based treatments. Psychiatric conditions in childhood sometimes have a long course, and have effective but controversial treatments, as with stimulants for ADHD. Parents sometimes feel guilty about their child’s problem and want to use “natural” methods or deny the accepted understanding of their child’s illness. So it is not surprising that families may investigate alternative treatments, and such treatments have multiplied.
While there is evidence that parents and patients rarely discuss these treatments with their physicians, it is critical that you know what therapies your patients are using. You should focus on tolerance in the context of protecting the child from harm and improving the child’s functioning. If you have ever recommended chicken soup for a cold, then you have prescribed complementary medicine, so it is not a stretch for you to offer some input about the other alternative therapies your patients may be considering.
It is important to note that rigorous, case-controlled studies of efficacy of most alternative therapies are few in number and usually small in size (so any evidence of efficacy is weaker), and that the products themselves are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or other public body. This means that the family (and you) will have to do some homework to ensure that the therapy they purchase comes from a reputable source and is what it purports to be.
Many of the alternative therapies patients are investigating will be herbs or supplements. Omega-3 fatty acids are critical to multiple essential body functions, and are taken in primarily via certain foods, primarily fish and certain seeds and nuts. A deficiency in certain omega-3 fatty acids can cause problems in infant neurological development and put one at risk for heart disease, rheumatologic illness, and depression. Supplementation with Omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA], specifically) has a solid evidence base as an effective adjunctive treatment for depression and bipolar disorder in adults. In addition, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies have demonstrated efficacy in treatment of children with mild to moderate ADHD at doses of 1,200 mg/day. There are some studies that have demonstrated improvement in hyperactivity in children with autism with supplementation at similar doses. These supplements have very low risk of side effects. They are a reasonable recommendation to your patients whose children have mild to moderate ADHD, and they want to manage it without stimulants.
Families also may be considering physical or mechanical treatments. Acupuncture has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of fatigue and pain, migraines, and addiction, although there are very few studies in children and adolescents. There is some evidence for its efficacy in treatment of mild to moderate depression and anxiety in adults, but again no research has been done in youth. Hypnotherapy has shown modest efficacy in treatment of anticipatory anxiety symptoms, headache, chronic pain, nausea and vomiting, migraines, hair-pulling and skin picking as well as compulsive eating and smoking cessation in adults. There is some clinical evidence for its efficacy in children and adolescents, and its safety is well established. Massage therapy has shown value in improving mood and behavior in children with ADHD, but not efficacy as a first-line treatment for ADHD symptoms. Chiropractic care, which is among the most commonly used alternative therapies, claims to be effective for the treatment of anxiety, depression, ADHD, behavioral problems of autism and even schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but there is no significant scientific evidence to support these claims. And neurofeedback, which is a variant of biofeedback in which patients practice calming themselves or improving focus while watching an EEG has shown modest efficacy in the treatment of ADHD in children in early studies. It is worth noting that all of these therapies may be costly and not covered by insurance.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Additional readings
1. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2013 Jul;22(3):375-80.
2. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(4):364-8.
3. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(10):991-1000.
4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Jun; 53(6):658-66.
5. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;55(10):S168-9.
Alternative therapies, from vitamins and supplements to meditation and acupuncture, have become increasingly popular treatments in the United States for many medical problems in the past few decades. In 2008, the National Institutes of Health reported that nearly 40% of adults and 12% of children had used “complementary or alternative medicine” (CAM) in the preceding year. Other surveys have suggested that closer to 30% of general pediatric patients and as many as 75% of adolescent patients have used CAM at least once. These treatments are especially popular for chronic conditions that are managed but not usually cured with current evidence-based treatments. Psychiatric conditions in childhood sometimes have a long course, and have effective but controversial treatments, as with stimulants for ADHD. Parents sometimes feel guilty about their child’s problem and want to use “natural” methods or deny the accepted understanding of their child’s illness. So it is not surprising that families may investigate alternative treatments, and such treatments have multiplied.
While there is evidence that parents and patients rarely discuss these treatments with their physicians, it is critical that you know what therapies your patients are using. You should focus on tolerance in the context of protecting the child from harm and improving the child’s functioning. If you have ever recommended chicken soup for a cold, then you have prescribed complementary medicine, so it is not a stretch for you to offer some input about the other alternative therapies your patients may be considering.
It is important to note that rigorous, case-controlled studies of efficacy of most alternative therapies are few in number and usually small in size (so any evidence of efficacy is weaker), and that the products themselves are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or other public body. This means that the family (and you) will have to do some homework to ensure that the therapy they purchase comes from a reputable source and is what it purports to be.
Many of the alternative therapies patients are investigating will be herbs or supplements. Omega-3 fatty acids are critical to multiple essential body functions, and are taken in primarily via certain foods, primarily fish and certain seeds and nuts. A deficiency in certain omega-3 fatty acids can cause problems in infant neurological development and put one at risk for heart disease, rheumatologic illness, and depression. Supplementation with Omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA], specifically) has a solid evidence base as an effective adjunctive treatment for depression and bipolar disorder in adults. In addition, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies have demonstrated efficacy in treatment of children with mild to moderate ADHD at doses of 1,200 mg/day. There are some studies that have demonstrated improvement in hyperactivity in children with autism with supplementation at similar doses. These supplements have very low risk of side effects. They are a reasonable recommendation to your patients whose children have mild to moderate ADHD, and they want to manage it without stimulants.
Families also may be considering physical or mechanical treatments. Acupuncture has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of fatigue and pain, migraines, and addiction, although there are very few studies in children and adolescents. There is some evidence for its efficacy in treatment of mild to moderate depression and anxiety in adults, but again no research has been done in youth. Hypnotherapy has shown modest efficacy in treatment of anticipatory anxiety symptoms, headache, chronic pain, nausea and vomiting, migraines, hair-pulling and skin picking as well as compulsive eating and smoking cessation in adults. There is some clinical evidence for its efficacy in children and adolescents, and its safety is well established. Massage therapy has shown value in improving mood and behavior in children with ADHD, but not efficacy as a first-line treatment for ADHD symptoms. Chiropractic care, which is among the most commonly used alternative therapies, claims to be effective for the treatment of anxiety, depression, ADHD, behavioral problems of autism and even schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but there is no significant scientific evidence to support these claims. And neurofeedback, which is a variant of biofeedback in which patients practice calming themselves or improving focus while watching an EEG has shown modest efficacy in the treatment of ADHD in children in early studies. It is worth noting that all of these therapies may be costly and not covered by insurance.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Additional readings
1. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2013 Jul;22(3):375-80.
2. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(4):364-8.
3. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(10):991-1000.
4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Jun; 53(6):658-66.
5. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;55(10):S168-9.
Nature versus nurture: 50 years of a popular debate
This basic question has been debated at settings ranging from scientific conferences to dinner tables for many decades. The media also has covered it in forms ranging from documentaries to the popular comedy movie “Trading Places” (1983). Yet, despite so much attention and so much research devoted to resolving this timeless debate, the arguments continue to this day.
A lack of a clear answer, however, by no means implies that we have not made major advances in our understanding. This short review takes a look at the progression of this seemingly eternal question by categorizing the development of the nature versus nurture question into three main stages. While such a partitioning is somewhat oversimplified with regard to what the various positions on this issue have been at different times, it does illustrate the way that the debate has gradually evolved.
Part 1: Nature versus nurture
The origins of the nature versus nurture debate date back far beyond the past 50 years. The ancient Greek philosopher Galen postulated that personality traits were driven by the relative concentrations of four bodily fluids or “humours.” In 1874, Sir Francis Galton published “English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture,” in which he advanced his ideas about the dominance of hereditary factors in intelligence and character at the beginning of the eugenics movement.1 These ideas were in stark opposition to the perspective of earlier scholars, such as the philosopher John Locke, who popularized the theory that children are born a “blank slate” and from there develop their traits and intellectual abilities through their environment and experiences.
The other primary school of thought in the mid-1960s was psychoanalysis, which was based on the ideas of Sigmund Freud, MD. Psychoanalysis maintains that the way that unconscious sexual and aggressive drives were channeled through various defense mechanisms was of primary importance to the understanding of both psychopathology and typical human behavior.
While these two perspectives were often very much in opposition to each other, they shared in common the view that the environment and a person’s individual experiences, i.e. nurture, were the prevailing forces in development. In the background, more biologically oriented research and clinical work was slowly beginning to work its way into the field, especially at certain institutions, such as Washington University in St. Louis. Several medications of various types were then available, including chlorpromazine, imipramine, and diazepam.
Overall, however, it is probably fair to say that, 50 years ago, it was the nurture perspective that held the most sway since psychodynamic treatment and behaviorist research dominated, while the emerging fields of genetics and neuroscience were only beginning to take hold.
Part 2: Nature and nurture
From the 1970s to the end of the 20th century, a noticeable shift occurred as knowledge of the brain and genetics – supported by remarkable advances in research techniques – began to swing the pendulum back toward an increased appreciation of nature as a critical influence on a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
Researchers Stella Chess, MD, and Alexander Thomas, MD, for example, conducted the New York Longitudinal Study, in which they closely observed a group of young children over many years. Their studies compelled them to argue for the significance of more innate temperament traits as critical aspects of a youth’s overall adjustment.2 The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990, and the entire decade was designated as the “Decade of the Brain.” During this time, neuroscience research exploded as techniques, such as MRI and PET, allowed scientists to view the living brain like never before.
The type of research investigation that perhaps was most directly relevant to the nature-nurture debate and that became quite popular during this time was the twin study. By comparing the relative similarities among monozygotic and dizygotic twins raised in the same household, it became possible to calculate directly the degree to which a variable of interest (intelligence, height, aggressive behavior) could be attributed to genetic versus environmental factors. When it came to behavioral variables, a repeated finding that emerged was that both genetic and environmental influences are important, often at close to a 50/50 split in terms of magnitude.3,4 These studies were complemented by molecular genetic studies, which were beginning to be able to identify specific genes that conveyed usually small amounts of risk for a wide range of psychiatric disorders.
Yet, while twin studies and many other lines of research made it increasingly difficult to argue for the overwhelming supremacy of either nature or nurture, the two domains generally were treated as being independent of each other. Specific traits or symptoms in an individual often were thought of as being the result of either psychological (nurture) or biological (nature) causes. Terms such as “endogenous depression,” for example, were used to distinguish those who had symptoms that were thought generally to be out of reach for “psychological” treatments, such as psychotherapy. Looking back, it might be fair to say that one of the principle flaws in this perspective was the commonly held belief that, if something was brain based or biological, then it therefore implied a kind of automatic “wiring” of the brain that was generally driven by genes and beyond the influence of environmental factors.
Part 3: Nature is nurture (and vice versa)
As the science progressed, it became increasingly clear that the nature and nurture domains were hopelessly intertwined with one another. From early PET-scan studies showing that both medications and psychotherapy not only changed the brain but also did so in ways similar to behavioral-genetic studies showing how genetically influenced behaviors actually cause certain environmental events to be more likely to occur, research continued to demonstrate the bidirectional influences of genetic and environmental factors on development.5,6 This appreciation rose to even greater heights with advances in the field of epigenetics, which was able to document some of the specific mechanisms through which environmental factors cause genes involved in regulating the plasticity of the brain to turn on and off.7
In thinking through some of this complexity, however, it is important to remember the hopeful message that is contained in this rich understanding. All of these complicated, interacting genetic and environmental factors give us many avenues for positive intervention. Now we understand that not only might a medication help strengthen some of the brain connections needed to reduce and cope with that child’s anxiety, but so could mindfulness, exercise, and addressing his parents’ symptoms. When the families ask me whether their child’s struggles are behavioral or psychological, the answer I tend to give them is “yes.”
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington.
Email him at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.
References
1. “English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture” (London: MacMillan & Co., 1874)
2. “Temperament: Theory and Practice” (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1996)
3. “Nature and Nurture during Infancy and Early Childhood” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988)
4. Nat Genet. 2015;47(7):702-9.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992;49(9):681-9.
6. Dev Psychopathol. 1997 Spring;9(2):335-64.
7. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(6):551-2.
This basic question has been debated at settings ranging from scientific conferences to dinner tables for many decades. The media also has covered it in forms ranging from documentaries to the popular comedy movie “Trading Places” (1983). Yet, despite so much attention and so much research devoted to resolving this timeless debate, the arguments continue to this day.
A lack of a clear answer, however, by no means implies that we have not made major advances in our understanding. This short review takes a look at the progression of this seemingly eternal question by categorizing the development of the nature versus nurture question into three main stages. While such a partitioning is somewhat oversimplified with regard to what the various positions on this issue have been at different times, it does illustrate the way that the debate has gradually evolved.
Part 1: Nature versus nurture
The origins of the nature versus nurture debate date back far beyond the past 50 years. The ancient Greek philosopher Galen postulated that personality traits were driven by the relative concentrations of four bodily fluids or “humours.” In 1874, Sir Francis Galton published “English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture,” in which he advanced his ideas about the dominance of hereditary factors in intelligence and character at the beginning of the eugenics movement.1 These ideas were in stark opposition to the perspective of earlier scholars, such as the philosopher John Locke, who popularized the theory that children are born a “blank slate” and from there develop their traits and intellectual abilities through their environment and experiences.
The other primary school of thought in the mid-1960s was psychoanalysis, which was based on the ideas of Sigmund Freud, MD. Psychoanalysis maintains that the way that unconscious sexual and aggressive drives were channeled through various defense mechanisms was of primary importance to the understanding of both psychopathology and typical human behavior.
While these two perspectives were often very much in opposition to each other, they shared in common the view that the environment and a person’s individual experiences, i.e. nurture, were the prevailing forces in development. In the background, more biologically oriented research and clinical work was slowly beginning to work its way into the field, especially at certain institutions, such as Washington University in St. Louis. Several medications of various types were then available, including chlorpromazine, imipramine, and diazepam.
Overall, however, it is probably fair to say that, 50 years ago, it was the nurture perspective that held the most sway since psychodynamic treatment and behaviorist research dominated, while the emerging fields of genetics and neuroscience were only beginning to take hold.
Part 2: Nature and nurture
From the 1970s to the end of the 20th century, a noticeable shift occurred as knowledge of the brain and genetics – supported by remarkable advances in research techniques – began to swing the pendulum back toward an increased appreciation of nature as a critical influence on a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
Researchers Stella Chess, MD, and Alexander Thomas, MD, for example, conducted the New York Longitudinal Study, in which they closely observed a group of young children over many years. Their studies compelled them to argue for the significance of more innate temperament traits as critical aspects of a youth’s overall adjustment.2 The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990, and the entire decade was designated as the “Decade of the Brain.” During this time, neuroscience research exploded as techniques, such as MRI and PET, allowed scientists to view the living brain like never before.
The type of research investigation that perhaps was most directly relevant to the nature-nurture debate and that became quite popular during this time was the twin study. By comparing the relative similarities among monozygotic and dizygotic twins raised in the same household, it became possible to calculate directly the degree to which a variable of interest (intelligence, height, aggressive behavior) could be attributed to genetic versus environmental factors. When it came to behavioral variables, a repeated finding that emerged was that both genetic and environmental influences are important, often at close to a 50/50 split in terms of magnitude.3,4 These studies were complemented by molecular genetic studies, which were beginning to be able to identify specific genes that conveyed usually small amounts of risk for a wide range of psychiatric disorders.
Yet, while twin studies and many other lines of research made it increasingly difficult to argue for the overwhelming supremacy of either nature or nurture, the two domains generally were treated as being independent of each other. Specific traits or symptoms in an individual often were thought of as being the result of either psychological (nurture) or biological (nature) causes. Terms such as “endogenous depression,” for example, were used to distinguish those who had symptoms that were thought generally to be out of reach for “psychological” treatments, such as psychotherapy. Looking back, it might be fair to say that one of the principle flaws in this perspective was the commonly held belief that, if something was brain based or biological, then it therefore implied a kind of automatic “wiring” of the brain that was generally driven by genes and beyond the influence of environmental factors.
Part 3: Nature is nurture (and vice versa)
As the science progressed, it became increasingly clear that the nature and nurture domains were hopelessly intertwined with one another. From early PET-scan studies showing that both medications and psychotherapy not only changed the brain but also did so in ways similar to behavioral-genetic studies showing how genetically influenced behaviors actually cause certain environmental events to be more likely to occur, research continued to demonstrate the bidirectional influences of genetic and environmental factors on development.5,6 This appreciation rose to even greater heights with advances in the field of epigenetics, which was able to document some of the specific mechanisms through which environmental factors cause genes involved in regulating the plasticity of the brain to turn on and off.7
In thinking through some of this complexity, however, it is important to remember the hopeful message that is contained in this rich understanding. All of these complicated, interacting genetic and environmental factors give us many avenues for positive intervention. Now we understand that not only might a medication help strengthen some of the brain connections needed to reduce and cope with that child’s anxiety, but so could mindfulness, exercise, and addressing his parents’ symptoms. When the families ask me whether their child’s struggles are behavioral or psychological, the answer I tend to give them is “yes.”
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington.
Email him at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.
References
1. “English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture” (London: MacMillan & Co., 1874)
2. “Temperament: Theory and Practice” (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1996)
3. “Nature and Nurture during Infancy and Early Childhood” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988)
4. Nat Genet. 2015;47(7):702-9.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992;49(9):681-9.
6. Dev Psychopathol. 1997 Spring;9(2):335-64.
7. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(6):551-2.
This basic question has been debated at settings ranging from scientific conferences to dinner tables for many decades. The media also has covered it in forms ranging from documentaries to the popular comedy movie “Trading Places” (1983). Yet, despite so much attention and so much research devoted to resolving this timeless debate, the arguments continue to this day.
A lack of a clear answer, however, by no means implies that we have not made major advances in our understanding. This short review takes a look at the progression of this seemingly eternal question by categorizing the development of the nature versus nurture question into three main stages. While such a partitioning is somewhat oversimplified with regard to what the various positions on this issue have been at different times, it does illustrate the way that the debate has gradually evolved.
Part 1: Nature versus nurture
The origins of the nature versus nurture debate date back far beyond the past 50 years. The ancient Greek philosopher Galen postulated that personality traits were driven by the relative concentrations of four bodily fluids or “humours.” In 1874, Sir Francis Galton published “English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture,” in which he advanced his ideas about the dominance of hereditary factors in intelligence and character at the beginning of the eugenics movement.1 These ideas were in stark opposition to the perspective of earlier scholars, such as the philosopher John Locke, who popularized the theory that children are born a “blank slate” and from there develop their traits and intellectual abilities through their environment and experiences.
The other primary school of thought in the mid-1960s was psychoanalysis, which was based on the ideas of Sigmund Freud, MD. Psychoanalysis maintains that the way that unconscious sexual and aggressive drives were channeled through various defense mechanisms was of primary importance to the understanding of both psychopathology and typical human behavior.
While these two perspectives were often very much in opposition to each other, they shared in common the view that the environment and a person’s individual experiences, i.e. nurture, were the prevailing forces in development. In the background, more biologically oriented research and clinical work was slowly beginning to work its way into the field, especially at certain institutions, such as Washington University in St. Louis. Several medications of various types were then available, including chlorpromazine, imipramine, and diazepam.
Overall, however, it is probably fair to say that, 50 years ago, it was the nurture perspective that held the most sway since psychodynamic treatment and behaviorist research dominated, while the emerging fields of genetics and neuroscience were only beginning to take hold.
Part 2: Nature and nurture
From the 1970s to the end of the 20th century, a noticeable shift occurred as knowledge of the brain and genetics – supported by remarkable advances in research techniques – began to swing the pendulum back toward an increased appreciation of nature as a critical influence on a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
Researchers Stella Chess, MD, and Alexander Thomas, MD, for example, conducted the New York Longitudinal Study, in which they closely observed a group of young children over many years. Their studies compelled them to argue for the significance of more innate temperament traits as critical aspects of a youth’s overall adjustment.2 The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990, and the entire decade was designated as the “Decade of the Brain.” During this time, neuroscience research exploded as techniques, such as MRI and PET, allowed scientists to view the living brain like never before.
The type of research investigation that perhaps was most directly relevant to the nature-nurture debate and that became quite popular during this time was the twin study. By comparing the relative similarities among monozygotic and dizygotic twins raised in the same household, it became possible to calculate directly the degree to which a variable of interest (intelligence, height, aggressive behavior) could be attributed to genetic versus environmental factors. When it came to behavioral variables, a repeated finding that emerged was that both genetic and environmental influences are important, often at close to a 50/50 split in terms of magnitude.3,4 These studies were complemented by molecular genetic studies, which were beginning to be able to identify specific genes that conveyed usually small amounts of risk for a wide range of psychiatric disorders.
Yet, while twin studies and many other lines of research made it increasingly difficult to argue for the overwhelming supremacy of either nature or nurture, the two domains generally were treated as being independent of each other. Specific traits or symptoms in an individual often were thought of as being the result of either psychological (nurture) or biological (nature) causes. Terms such as “endogenous depression,” for example, were used to distinguish those who had symptoms that were thought generally to be out of reach for “psychological” treatments, such as psychotherapy. Looking back, it might be fair to say that one of the principle flaws in this perspective was the commonly held belief that, if something was brain based or biological, then it therefore implied a kind of automatic “wiring” of the brain that was generally driven by genes and beyond the influence of environmental factors.
Part 3: Nature is nurture (and vice versa)
As the science progressed, it became increasingly clear that the nature and nurture domains were hopelessly intertwined with one another. From early PET-scan studies showing that both medications and psychotherapy not only changed the brain but also did so in ways similar to behavioral-genetic studies showing how genetically influenced behaviors actually cause certain environmental events to be more likely to occur, research continued to demonstrate the bidirectional influences of genetic and environmental factors on development.5,6 This appreciation rose to even greater heights with advances in the field of epigenetics, which was able to document some of the specific mechanisms through which environmental factors cause genes involved in regulating the plasticity of the brain to turn on and off.7
In thinking through some of this complexity, however, it is important to remember the hopeful message that is contained in this rich understanding. All of these complicated, interacting genetic and environmental factors give us many avenues for positive intervention. Now we understand that not only might a medication help strengthen some of the brain connections needed to reduce and cope with that child’s anxiety, but so could mindfulness, exercise, and addressing his parents’ symptoms. When the families ask me whether their child’s struggles are behavioral or psychological, the answer I tend to give them is “yes.”
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington.
Email him at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.
References
1. “English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture” (London: MacMillan & Co., 1874)
2. “Temperament: Theory and Practice” (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1996)
3. “Nature and Nurture during Infancy and Early Childhood” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988)
4. Nat Genet. 2015;47(7):702-9.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992;49(9):681-9.
6. Dev Psychopathol. 1997 Spring;9(2):335-64.
7. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(6):551-2.
Winds of change at the American Board of Surgery: An interview with Executive Director Jo Buyske, MD, FACS
Just as surgeons must maintain currency in their profession, the American Board of Surgery is doing the same: revising and reinventing the recertification process to better fulfill its mission. The ABS aims to make the recertification a lifelong learning activity that is more relevant to the way surgeons actually practice. The high-stakes exam taken every decade will be supplemented with other options for demonstrating competence and currency in various surgical specialties.
Dr. Buyske will be the first woman to assume the role of Executive Director of the ABS, and she will take the lead in implementing the overhaul of recertification.
We asked Dr. Buyske to share with us some of her insights on the new direction of the ABS, the challenges ahead, and her plans to carry out the mission.
Surgery News: The recent ABS announcement regarding a new direction for the program of recertification has come at a time when many medical specialties are facing challenges in the means by which practitioners are required to demonstrate currency in their fields. Is this initiative a response to complaints from surgeons about the Maintenance of Certification (MOC)?
Dr. Buyske: The ABS has been looking at options for the initiation and maintenance of certification for over 10 years. This effort isn’t really reactive but an ongoing process in the works for some time. This initial statement is a first swing at an attempt to better serve the profession. We all understand that it is necessary to stay up to date and demonstrate mastery.
SN: What has been the response from the Diplomates to the announcement?
Dr. Buyske: We haven’t gotten formal feedback yet, but all the response has been quite positive and, rightfully, conservative. People say, “That sounds good, but what does it really mean?” This is an entirely legitimate question, because all we really said is that we are going to change the process, make it more practice focused and less onerous. That sounds good to many. Diplomates want to know the practical implications of this approach.
SN: What happens now in this process of overhauling the recertification process?
Dr. Buyske: We have a hardworking, fast-moving task force that is taking up all the information we have gathered over the past months and years. We did a survey at this time last year that gave us a lot of information about what the Diplomates want. The concerns were on a more practice-focused recertification process, and also one that is less onerous in terms of cost and time away from practice for study and travel.
Right now, the task force is fanning out across the country to talk to state and local societies, regional representatives, and nominating societies to ask for time on their programs to meet with their members and leadership. The objective is feedback and input to help us get a handle on what people’s practices are really about.
Mary Klingensmith, MD, FACS, the Mary Culver Distinguished Professor and the vice chair of education in the department of surgery at Washington University in St. Louis, has been elected as the chair of the ABS. She will be leading a town hall at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress in October to discuss the process and get input.
The communications division will be recruiting additional staff and will be undertaking another survey. We will be asking ABS directors to be a presence in their regional societies and to listen to their members on behalf of the ABS. We also hope the directors will participate in the ACS Communities and be a part of a discussion on recertification.
The task force timeline will be to have a basic structure for 2018, but this will not be a final project set in granite. We will have more options available in 2018, and we will continue to roll out ever more options. This is a moving target and needs to be continually reassessed as technology improves and practice needs change. And we will get better as time goes on at understanding what practices are about and what the needs of recertification are.
SN: Many of our readers are general surgeons. What do you think the new approach to recertification will mean to general surgeons?
Dr. Buyske: General surgery is a large umbrella. I have thought for years that the MOC is a general surgery exam. It covers the entire waterfront of surgery, but it doesn’t represent how people actually practice. But the new approach will apply to the many ways that people practice general surgery.
We know from our research that most general surgeons perform about 10 different operations, depending on where they live and what their interests are. And each general surgeon has a different list of operations. We want the recertification process to reflect and be relevant to each surgeon’s list of around 10, although it may be too high an expectation to have this ready by 2018. But we will begin, and we will roll out more options as time goes on.
SN: Anti-MOC legislation has been initiated in several states recently, some of which involved laws that prevent hospitals, licensing boards, insurance companies, and health systems from requiring MOC. How is the ABS responding to this trend?
Dr. Buyske: When ABS becomes aware of a particular legislative movement along these lines, we reach out to directors and senior directors and ask them to write to their state legislators and to testify. What we really want is to be allowed to continue to self-regulate our profession. We don’t want the government to intervene with the process that hospitals and insurance companies use to hire staff and compensate surgeons. For legislation to dictate how hospitals hire is a slippery slope. I feel strongly that it is incumbent that we police our own standards.
It is a fair expectation of our patients that physicians in our field keep up to date and demonstrate this. I have to dispute the argument that patients should “just trust us.” The whole argument that being up to date is unnecessary and insulting is just off base. People from all lines of work are required to demonstrate that they are up to date on their profession. You can argue that the methods used in the surgical profession are currently not the best, but not that the principle of maintenance of currency in our field is invalid. I continue to believe in the value of certification.
SN: What would you like to tell us about ABS that surgeons may be unaware of or may not have a the complete picture of?
Dr. Buyske: I would like your readers to get a sense of how much volunteer effort goes into the certification process. We have 30+ volunteer directors that give 30 days per year of time – an amazing commitment. We invite local surgeons to give examinations with us. We also have a 200+ pool of surgeons who write questions for the exams and another pool of 600 surgeons who help out in a variety of ways. We work to make sure there is a great diversity of people who take part – from all over the country, from different points in the surgical career, specialists, fellowship and nonfellowship surgeons, etc. We have people from rural practices, from the military, and some just 1 year out of training. We also have a “standard setting” meeting where we revisit and review questions to make sure they are pertinent and to evaluate their difficulty. We invite surgeons who have never done any work for the board to help us review our examinations. These can be daylong events or 4-day–long events, and most of the work is done by volunteer surgeons as a contribution to their profession.
SN: How would you describe your leadership style, and how do you think it will play out in the reinvention of the certification process?Dr. Buyske: My leadership mode is collaborative. When it comes to the new look of recertification, I have my opinions about what I want it to look like, and I think they are in line with ideas of other ABS leaders, but I don’t want to hamstring the task force in advance, before it has had a chance to do its work. I have ideas, but I consider it my job to be convincing and persuasive and listen to other very smart and committed people on the board, and they have the opportunity to try to convince me. I am grateful every day for the quality of the people I work with, both here in the office and the volunteer directors, the leaders in surgical societies, and ABS leaders.
SN: Is there something in particular you would like to say to Diplomates who are reading this?Dr. Buyske: I would say to them that I feel in my heart that we are all on the same side: We all want to take good care of the patients. The charge of the board is to protect the public and enhance the profession, and both of those things are of great importance to me. I still take care of patients, I go to the hospital, I put on scrubs, I train with residents, and I deal with the electronic medical record. I really honor the hard work required to take care of patients. And I understand the gravity of the charge of the board, which is to protect the public and enhance the profession. We all want that and we are all on the same side.
Just as surgeons must maintain currency in their profession, the American Board of Surgery is doing the same: revising and reinventing the recertification process to better fulfill its mission. The ABS aims to make the recertification a lifelong learning activity that is more relevant to the way surgeons actually practice. The high-stakes exam taken every decade will be supplemented with other options for demonstrating competence and currency in various surgical specialties.
Dr. Buyske will be the first woman to assume the role of Executive Director of the ABS, and she will take the lead in implementing the overhaul of recertification.
We asked Dr. Buyske to share with us some of her insights on the new direction of the ABS, the challenges ahead, and her plans to carry out the mission.
Surgery News: The recent ABS announcement regarding a new direction for the program of recertification has come at a time when many medical specialties are facing challenges in the means by which practitioners are required to demonstrate currency in their fields. Is this initiative a response to complaints from surgeons about the Maintenance of Certification (MOC)?
Dr. Buyske: The ABS has been looking at options for the initiation and maintenance of certification for over 10 years. This effort isn’t really reactive but an ongoing process in the works for some time. This initial statement is a first swing at an attempt to better serve the profession. We all understand that it is necessary to stay up to date and demonstrate mastery.
SN: What has been the response from the Diplomates to the announcement?
Dr. Buyske: We haven’t gotten formal feedback yet, but all the response has been quite positive and, rightfully, conservative. People say, “That sounds good, but what does it really mean?” This is an entirely legitimate question, because all we really said is that we are going to change the process, make it more practice focused and less onerous. That sounds good to many. Diplomates want to know the practical implications of this approach.
SN: What happens now in this process of overhauling the recertification process?
Dr. Buyske: We have a hardworking, fast-moving task force that is taking up all the information we have gathered over the past months and years. We did a survey at this time last year that gave us a lot of information about what the Diplomates want. The concerns were on a more practice-focused recertification process, and also one that is less onerous in terms of cost and time away from practice for study and travel.
Right now, the task force is fanning out across the country to talk to state and local societies, regional representatives, and nominating societies to ask for time on their programs to meet with their members and leadership. The objective is feedback and input to help us get a handle on what people’s practices are really about.
Mary Klingensmith, MD, FACS, the Mary Culver Distinguished Professor and the vice chair of education in the department of surgery at Washington University in St. Louis, has been elected as the chair of the ABS. She will be leading a town hall at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress in October to discuss the process and get input.
The communications division will be recruiting additional staff and will be undertaking another survey. We will be asking ABS directors to be a presence in their regional societies and to listen to their members on behalf of the ABS. We also hope the directors will participate in the ACS Communities and be a part of a discussion on recertification.
The task force timeline will be to have a basic structure for 2018, but this will not be a final project set in granite. We will have more options available in 2018, and we will continue to roll out ever more options. This is a moving target and needs to be continually reassessed as technology improves and practice needs change. And we will get better as time goes on at understanding what practices are about and what the needs of recertification are.
SN: Many of our readers are general surgeons. What do you think the new approach to recertification will mean to general surgeons?
Dr. Buyske: General surgery is a large umbrella. I have thought for years that the MOC is a general surgery exam. It covers the entire waterfront of surgery, but it doesn’t represent how people actually practice. But the new approach will apply to the many ways that people practice general surgery.
We know from our research that most general surgeons perform about 10 different operations, depending on where they live and what their interests are. And each general surgeon has a different list of operations. We want the recertification process to reflect and be relevant to each surgeon’s list of around 10, although it may be too high an expectation to have this ready by 2018. But we will begin, and we will roll out more options as time goes on.
SN: Anti-MOC legislation has been initiated in several states recently, some of which involved laws that prevent hospitals, licensing boards, insurance companies, and health systems from requiring MOC. How is the ABS responding to this trend?
Dr. Buyske: When ABS becomes aware of a particular legislative movement along these lines, we reach out to directors and senior directors and ask them to write to their state legislators and to testify. What we really want is to be allowed to continue to self-regulate our profession. We don’t want the government to intervene with the process that hospitals and insurance companies use to hire staff and compensate surgeons. For legislation to dictate how hospitals hire is a slippery slope. I feel strongly that it is incumbent that we police our own standards.
It is a fair expectation of our patients that physicians in our field keep up to date and demonstrate this. I have to dispute the argument that patients should “just trust us.” The whole argument that being up to date is unnecessary and insulting is just off base. People from all lines of work are required to demonstrate that they are up to date on their profession. You can argue that the methods used in the surgical profession are currently not the best, but not that the principle of maintenance of currency in our field is invalid. I continue to believe in the value of certification.
SN: What would you like to tell us about ABS that surgeons may be unaware of or may not have a the complete picture of?
Dr. Buyske: I would like your readers to get a sense of how much volunteer effort goes into the certification process. We have 30+ volunteer directors that give 30 days per year of time – an amazing commitment. We invite local surgeons to give examinations with us. We also have a 200+ pool of surgeons who write questions for the exams and another pool of 600 surgeons who help out in a variety of ways. We work to make sure there is a great diversity of people who take part – from all over the country, from different points in the surgical career, specialists, fellowship and nonfellowship surgeons, etc. We have people from rural practices, from the military, and some just 1 year out of training. We also have a “standard setting” meeting where we revisit and review questions to make sure they are pertinent and to evaluate their difficulty. We invite surgeons who have never done any work for the board to help us review our examinations. These can be daylong events or 4-day–long events, and most of the work is done by volunteer surgeons as a contribution to their profession.
SN: How would you describe your leadership style, and how do you think it will play out in the reinvention of the certification process?Dr. Buyske: My leadership mode is collaborative. When it comes to the new look of recertification, I have my opinions about what I want it to look like, and I think they are in line with ideas of other ABS leaders, but I don’t want to hamstring the task force in advance, before it has had a chance to do its work. I have ideas, but I consider it my job to be convincing and persuasive and listen to other very smart and committed people on the board, and they have the opportunity to try to convince me. I am grateful every day for the quality of the people I work with, both here in the office and the volunteer directors, the leaders in surgical societies, and ABS leaders.
SN: Is there something in particular you would like to say to Diplomates who are reading this?Dr. Buyske: I would say to them that I feel in my heart that we are all on the same side: We all want to take good care of the patients. The charge of the board is to protect the public and enhance the profession, and both of those things are of great importance to me. I still take care of patients, I go to the hospital, I put on scrubs, I train with residents, and I deal with the electronic medical record. I really honor the hard work required to take care of patients. And I understand the gravity of the charge of the board, which is to protect the public and enhance the profession. We all want that and we are all on the same side.
Just as surgeons must maintain currency in their profession, the American Board of Surgery is doing the same: revising and reinventing the recertification process to better fulfill its mission. The ABS aims to make the recertification a lifelong learning activity that is more relevant to the way surgeons actually practice. The high-stakes exam taken every decade will be supplemented with other options for demonstrating competence and currency in various surgical specialties.
Dr. Buyske will be the first woman to assume the role of Executive Director of the ABS, and she will take the lead in implementing the overhaul of recertification.
We asked Dr. Buyske to share with us some of her insights on the new direction of the ABS, the challenges ahead, and her plans to carry out the mission.
Surgery News: The recent ABS announcement regarding a new direction for the program of recertification has come at a time when many medical specialties are facing challenges in the means by which practitioners are required to demonstrate currency in their fields. Is this initiative a response to complaints from surgeons about the Maintenance of Certification (MOC)?
Dr. Buyske: The ABS has been looking at options for the initiation and maintenance of certification for over 10 years. This effort isn’t really reactive but an ongoing process in the works for some time. This initial statement is a first swing at an attempt to better serve the profession. We all understand that it is necessary to stay up to date and demonstrate mastery.
SN: What has been the response from the Diplomates to the announcement?
Dr. Buyske: We haven’t gotten formal feedback yet, but all the response has been quite positive and, rightfully, conservative. People say, “That sounds good, but what does it really mean?” This is an entirely legitimate question, because all we really said is that we are going to change the process, make it more practice focused and less onerous. That sounds good to many. Diplomates want to know the practical implications of this approach.
SN: What happens now in this process of overhauling the recertification process?
Dr. Buyske: We have a hardworking, fast-moving task force that is taking up all the information we have gathered over the past months and years. We did a survey at this time last year that gave us a lot of information about what the Diplomates want. The concerns were on a more practice-focused recertification process, and also one that is less onerous in terms of cost and time away from practice for study and travel.
Right now, the task force is fanning out across the country to talk to state and local societies, regional representatives, and nominating societies to ask for time on their programs to meet with their members and leadership. The objective is feedback and input to help us get a handle on what people’s practices are really about.
Mary Klingensmith, MD, FACS, the Mary Culver Distinguished Professor and the vice chair of education in the department of surgery at Washington University in St. Louis, has been elected as the chair of the ABS. She will be leading a town hall at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress in October to discuss the process and get input.
The communications division will be recruiting additional staff and will be undertaking another survey. We will be asking ABS directors to be a presence in their regional societies and to listen to their members on behalf of the ABS. We also hope the directors will participate in the ACS Communities and be a part of a discussion on recertification.
The task force timeline will be to have a basic structure for 2018, but this will not be a final project set in granite. We will have more options available in 2018, and we will continue to roll out ever more options. This is a moving target and needs to be continually reassessed as technology improves and practice needs change. And we will get better as time goes on at understanding what practices are about and what the needs of recertification are.
SN: Many of our readers are general surgeons. What do you think the new approach to recertification will mean to general surgeons?
Dr. Buyske: General surgery is a large umbrella. I have thought for years that the MOC is a general surgery exam. It covers the entire waterfront of surgery, but it doesn’t represent how people actually practice. But the new approach will apply to the many ways that people practice general surgery.
We know from our research that most general surgeons perform about 10 different operations, depending on where they live and what their interests are. And each general surgeon has a different list of operations. We want the recertification process to reflect and be relevant to each surgeon’s list of around 10, although it may be too high an expectation to have this ready by 2018. But we will begin, and we will roll out more options as time goes on.
SN: Anti-MOC legislation has been initiated in several states recently, some of which involved laws that prevent hospitals, licensing boards, insurance companies, and health systems from requiring MOC. How is the ABS responding to this trend?
Dr. Buyske: When ABS becomes aware of a particular legislative movement along these lines, we reach out to directors and senior directors and ask them to write to their state legislators and to testify. What we really want is to be allowed to continue to self-regulate our profession. We don’t want the government to intervene with the process that hospitals and insurance companies use to hire staff and compensate surgeons. For legislation to dictate how hospitals hire is a slippery slope. I feel strongly that it is incumbent that we police our own standards.
It is a fair expectation of our patients that physicians in our field keep up to date and demonstrate this. I have to dispute the argument that patients should “just trust us.” The whole argument that being up to date is unnecessary and insulting is just off base. People from all lines of work are required to demonstrate that they are up to date on their profession. You can argue that the methods used in the surgical profession are currently not the best, but not that the principle of maintenance of currency in our field is invalid. I continue to believe in the value of certification.
SN: What would you like to tell us about ABS that surgeons may be unaware of or may not have a the complete picture of?
Dr. Buyske: I would like your readers to get a sense of how much volunteer effort goes into the certification process. We have 30+ volunteer directors that give 30 days per year of time – an amazing commitment. We invite local surgeons to give examinations with us. We also have a 200+ pool of surgeons who write questions for the exams and another pool of 600 surgeons who help out in a variety of ways. We work to make sure there is a great diversity of people who take part – from all over the country, from different points in the surgical career, specialists, fellowship and nonfellowship surgeons, etc. We have people from rural practices, from the military, and some just 1 year out of training. We also have a “standard setting” meeting where we revisit and review questions to make sure they are pertinent and to evaluate their difficulty. We invite surgeons who have never done any work for the board to help us review our examinations. These can be daylong events or 4-day–long events, and most of the work is done by volunteer surgeons as a contribution to their profession.
SN: How would you describe your leadership style, and how do you think it will play out in the reinvention of the certification process?Dr. Buyske: My leadership mode is collaborative. When it comes to the new look of recertification, I have my opinions about what I want it to look like, and I think they are in line with ideas of other ABS leaders, but I don’t want to hamstring the task force in advance, before it has had a chance to do its work. I have ideas, but I consider it my job to be convincing and persuasive and listen to other very smart and committed people on the board, and they have the opportunity to try to convince me. I am grateful every day for the quality of the people I work with, both here in the office and the volunteer directors, the leaders in surgical societies, and ABS leaders.
SN: Is there something in particular you would like to say to Diplomates who are reading this?Dr. Buyske: I would say to them that I feel in my heart that we are all on the same side: We all want to take good care of the patients. The charge of the board is to protect the public and enhance the profession, and both of those things are of great importance to me. I still take care of patients, I go to the hospital, I put on scrubs, I train with residents, and I deal with the electronic medical record. I really honor the hard work required to take care of patients. And I understand the gravity of the charge of the board, which is to protect the public and enhance the profession. We all want that and we are all on the same side.
How to give a talk
I have to give a talk. Get this – the topic is how to give a good talk. Very meta.
I’ve given a hundred or so presentations in my career, including a couple of TEDx talks. With each one, I try to get a little better. Effective speaking is always simple but never easy. Let me share with you a few things I’ve learned.
Even if you don’t want to become a TEDMED phenom, you should know a few fundamentals. Giving good talks enhances your reputation and can jump-start your practice or career. For any talk, you must master three things: preparation, content, and delivery.
Just as we choose movies with actors we like, people choose speakers they want to see. Who you are matters. If you are introduced by an emcee, then be sure he or she bills you as a star. However, don’t try to be someone you aren’t – If I gave a talk on robotic prostate surgery, I’d be sure to lose no matter how witty I was. That’s why writing your own intro can sometimes be your best option.
Next up: content. It’s the king of speaking as well as marketing. Although you can pick up points for style, if you want to be remembered, you have to deliver something worth remembering. This starts with your preparation. Resist the temptation to focus exclusively on your slides. As in writing, it is best to brainstorm what you want to cover, then outline your ideas, then fill in content with slides.
Most presentations require visuals; however, there are times when you can do without. Go for it! Nothing is more freeing or more intimate than you one-on-one with your audience. If you must have slides, then follow the one-idea one-slide rule. Slides crammed with information actually detract from your presentation. Here’s a tip: Write only what you can fit with a marker on a Post-it pad. Then, laying out the Post-its, you can rearrange slides getting a feel for the flow or argument of the talk.
Did you ever wonder why headlines like, “Why I never use this suture” and “How I cut my EMR documentation time in half” work so well? They tap into a core human instinct: curiosity. Your opening should introduce some sense of wonder. What is she going to share? Really, how does he do that? Starting with a problem and taking them to a solution is also a great game plan that will often yield success.
When it comes to slides, be clean and concise. Taking a cue from wildly popular TED talks, use images and art instead of words. Use sentence fragments, not sentences, and limit content to the width of the slide (no easy feat). Sometimes you need the slide to prompt your talking point. Put only the data or fact you need and leave the rest at the bottom in your notes section.
Humor is almost always a good idea and more difficult to execute than most realize. Cartoons with captions don’t work. I know that’s hard for many of you to hear, but it’s true. Delete them from your decks. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Instead, try finding something relevant to the audience that only they will find funny. Inside jokes not only have a higher chance of success, but will also help you bond with your audience. A joke about ICD10 as it relates to neurology is better than the funniest Calvin and Hobbes strip. Self-deprecating humor is always appreciated. I’m not among the gifted who can come up with a great one-liner on the spot. It’s OK to plan it ahead.
Once you’ve got your talk built, it’s time to run it. This is hard, as it requires planning to have your content done in time to rehearse. Find the discipline to do it. The first time you run it, you’ll likely realize that 1/3 of the content needs to be cut. Cut it. Indeed, plan to run 10% less than the time allotted. Leave your audience wanting for more rather than wishing for less.
As I’ve learned, your talking points and slides will always be most appreciated in your own head. Keeping to time shows your respect for your audience and makes you appear polished.
The day of, get to the venue well ahead of time and check the sound, lights, and temperature. All of your preparation will be for naught if they can’t hear you, see your slides, or feel their fingers due to the frigid AC.
One of the reasons I love giving talks is because they are live. You and your audience are intimately engaged, and like any conversation, you’ll sense how it’s going. Are they looking at you or at their phones? Do they seem bored? Do they laugh easily, even when you weren’t expecting them to? Observe what is happening and adjust your performance accordingly. Are you losing them? Pause. Let them catch up. Are you putting them to sleep? Pick up the pace. Try that bit of humor now.
Your delivery is critical to your success. If you’re on the dais and behind the podium of a large audience, then be big, Greek theatre big, which means bigger facial expressions and bigger arm and hand gestures. Vary the tone and pace of your voice. Speed it up to build excitement. Slow down and lower your pitch for gravity and authority. Pause for 3-4 seconds to create suspense and drama.
Leave time for discussion when possible. Invite the audience to engage by asking, What do you think? Finally, on the plane ride home, or even as you walk back from the auditorium to your clinic, think about your presentation: What worked? What fell flat? What roused the audience? How can you deliver it better next time?
Even if it didn’t go well, remember, there’s always next week. It’s on to Cincinnati.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
I have to give a talk. Get this – the topic is how to give a good talk. Very meta.
I’ve given a hundred or so presentations in my career, including a couple of TEDx talks. With each one, I try to get a little better. Effective speaking is always simple but never easy. Let me share with you a few things I’ve learned.
Even if you don’t want to become a TEDMED phenom, you should know a few fundamentals. Giving good talks enhances your reputation and can jump-start your practice or career. For any talk, you must master three things: preparation, content, and delivery.
Just as we choose movies with actors we like, people choose speakers they want to see. Who you are matters. If you are introduced by an emcee, then be sure he or she bills you as a star. However, don’t try to be someone you aren’t – If I gave a talk on robotic prostate surgery, I’d be sure to lose no matter how witty I was. That’s why writing your own intro can sometimes be your best option.
Next up: content. It’s the king of speaking as well as marketing. Although you can pick up points for style, if you want to be remembered, you have to deliver something worth remembering. This starts with your preparation. Resist the temptation to focus exclusively on your slides. As in writing, it is best to brainstorm what you want to cover, then outline your ideas, then fill in content with slides.
Most presentations require visuals; however, there are times when you can do without. Go for it! Nothing is more freeing or more intimate than you one-on-one with your audience. If you must have slides, then follow the one-idea one-slide rule. Slides crammed with information actually detract from your presentation. Here’s a tip: Write only what you can fit with a marker on a Post-it pad. Then, laying out the Post-its, you can rearrange slides getting a feel for the flow or argument of the talk.
Did you ever wonder why headlines like, “Why I never use this suture” and “How I cut my EMR documentation time in half” work so well? They tap into a core human instinct: curiosity. Your opening should introduce some sense of wonder. What is she going to share? Really, how does he do that? Starting with a problem and taking them to a solution is also a great game plan that will often yield success.
When it comes to slides, be clean and concise. Taking a cue from wildly popular TED talks, use images and art instead of words. Use sentence fragments, not sentences, and limit content to the width of the slide (no easy feat). Sometimes you need the slide to prompt your talking point. Put only the data or fact you need and leave the rest at the bottom in your notes section.
Humor is almost always a good idea and more difficult to execute than most realize. Cartoons with captions don’t work. I know that’s hard for many of you to hear, but it’s true. Delete them from your decks. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Instead, try finding something relevant to the audience that only they will find funny. Inside jokes not only have a higher chance of success, but will also help you bond with your audience. A joke about ICD10 as it relates to neurology is better than the funniest Calvin and Hobbes strip. Self-deprecating humor is always appreciated. I’m not among the gifted who can come up with a great one-liner on the spot. It’s OK to plan it ahead.
Once you’ve got your talk built, it’s time to run it. This is hard, as it requires planning to have your content done in time to rehearse. Find the discipline to do it. The first time you run it, you’ll likely realize that 1/3 of the content needs to be cut. Cut it. Indeed, plan to run 10% less than the time allotted. Leave your audience wanting for more rather than wishing for less.
As I’ve learned, your talking points and slides will always be most appreciated in your own head. Keeping to time shows your respect for your audience and makes you appear polished.
The day of, get to the venue well ahead of time and check the sound, lights, and temperature. All of your preparation will be for naught if they can’t hear you, see your slides, or feel their fingers due to the frigid AC.
One of the reasons I love giving talks is because they are live. You and your audience are intimately engaged, and like any conversation, you’ll sense how it’s going. Are they looking at you or at their phones? Do they seem bored? Do they laugh easily, even when you weren’t expecting them to? Observe what is happening and adjust your performance accordingly. Are you losing them? Pause. Let them catch up. Are you putting them to sleep? Pick up the pace. Try that bit of humor now.
Your delivery is critical to your success. If you’re on the dais and behind the podium of a large audience, then be big, Greek theatre big, which means bigger facial expressions and bigger arm and hand gestures. Vary the tone and pace of your voice. Speed it up to build excitement. Slow down and lower your pitch for gravity and authority. Pause for 3-4 seconds to create suspense and drama.
Leave time for discussion when possible. Invite the audience to engage by asking, What do you think? Finally, on the plane ride home, or even as you walk back from the auditorium to your clinic, think about your presentation: What worked? What fell flat? What roused the audience? How can you deliver it better next time?
Even if it didn’t go well, remember, there’s always next week. It’s on to Cincinnati.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
I have to give a talk. Get this – the topic is how to give a good talk. Very meta.
I’ve given a hundred or so presentations in my career, including a couple of TEDx talks. With each one, I try to get a little better. Effective speaking is always simple but never easy. Let me share with you a few things I’ve learned.
Even if you don’t want to become a TEDMED phenom, you should know a few fundamentals. Giving good talks enhances your reputation and can jump-start your practice or career. For any talk, you must master three things: preparation, content, and delivery.
Just as we choose movies with actors we like, people choose speakers they want to see. Who you are matters. If you are introduced by an emcee, then be sure he or she bills you as a star. However, don’t try to be someone you aren’t – If I gave a talk on robotic prostate surgery, I’d be sure to lose no matter how witty I was. That’s why writing your own intro can sometimes be your best option.
Next up: content. It’s the king of speaking as well as marketing. Although you can pick up points for style, if you want to be remembered, you have to deliver something worth remembering. This starts with your preparation. Resist the temptation to focus exclusively on your slides. As in writing, it is best to brainstorm what you want to cover, then outline your ideas, then fill in content with slides.
Most presentations require visuals; however, there are times when you can do without. Go for it! Nothing is more freeing or more intimate than you one-on-one with your audience. If you must have slides, then follow the one-idea one-slide rule. Slides crammed with information actually detract from your presentation. Here’s a tip: Write only what you can fit with a marker on a Post-it pad. Then, laying out the Post-its, you can rearrange slides getting a feel for the flow or argument of the talk.
Did you ever wonder why headlines like, “Why I never use this suture” and “How I cut my EMR documentation time in half” work so well? They tap into a core human instinct: curiosity. Your opening should introduce some sense of wonder. What is she going to share? Really, how does he do that? Starting with a problem and taking them to a solution is also a great game plan that will often yield success.
When it comes to slides, be clean and concise. Taking a cue from wildly popular TED talks, use images and art instead of words. Use sentence fragments, not sentences, and limit content to the width of the slide (no easy feat). Sometimes you need the slide to prompt your talking point. Put only the data or fact you need and leave the rest at the bottom in your notes section.
Humor is almost always a good idea and more difficult to execute than most realize. Cartoons with captions don’t work. I know that’s hard for many of you to hear, but it’s true. Delete them from your decks. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Instead, try finding something relevant to the audience that only they will find funny. Inside jokes not only have a higher chance of success, but will also help you bond with your audience. A joke about ICD10 as it relates to neurology is better than the funniest Calvin and Hobbes strip. Self-deprecating humor is always appreciated. I’m not among the gifted who can come up with a great one-liner on the spot. It’s OK to plan it ahead.
Once you’ve got your talk built, it’s time to run it. This is hard, as it requires planning to have your content done in time to rehearse. Find the discipline to do it. The first time you run it, you’ll likely realize that 1/3 of the content needs to be cut. Cut it. Indeed, plan to run 10% less than the time allotted. Leave your audience wanting for more rather than wishing for less.
As I’ve learned, your talking points and slides will always be most appreciated in your own head. Keeping to time shows your respect for your audience and makes you appear polished.
The day of, get to the venue well ahead of time and check the sound, lights, and temperature. All of your preparation will be for naught if they can’t hear you, see your slides, or feel their fingers due to the frigid AC.
One of the reasons I love giving talks is because they are live. You and your audience are intimately engaged, and like any conversation, you’ll sense how it’s going. Are they looking at you or at their phones? Do they seem bored? Do they laugh easily, even when you weren’t expecting them to? Observe what is happening and adjust your performance accordingly. Are you losing them? Pause. Let them catch up. Are you putting them to sleep? Pick up the pace. Try that bit of humor now.
Your delivery is critical to your success. If you’re on the dais and behind the podium of a large audience, then be big, Greek theatre big, which means bigger facial expressions and bigger arm and hand gestures. Vary the tone and pace of your voice. Speed it up to build excitement. Slow down and lower your pitch for gravity and authority. Pause for 3-4 seconds to create suspense and drama.
Leave time for discussion when possible. Invite the audience to engage by asking, What do you think? Finally, on the plane ride home, or even as you walk back from the auditorium to your clinic, think about your presentation: What worked? What fell flat? What roused the audience? How can you deliver it better next time?
Even if it didn’t go well, remember, there’s always next week. It’s on to Cincinnati.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
The AHRQ Practice Tool Box
This is the first in a series of articles from the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This series introduces sets of tools and resources designed to help your practice.
Primary care providers deal with a multitude of challenging clinical issues (e.g., providing first contact and preventive care, diagnosis in the undifferentiated patient, care of patients with chronic illness and multiple chronic conditions, keeping up with the literature) while managing a rapidly changing and often difficult health care environment. Despite this complexity and these challenges, primary care clinicians and health care systems strive to provide high-quality health care – i.e., care that is safe, effective, patient centered, timely, efficient, and equitable.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, recognizes that revitalizing this nation’s primary care system is critical to achieving quality health care. To that end, the agency is committed to helping you improve the care you deliver by offering the latest information, providing evidence syntheses, developing tools for improving primary care practice, and generating data and measures to track and improve performance in primary care.
AHRQ established the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) to be its intellectual home for primary care research. It is the agency’s vehicle for communicating the evidence from AHRQ’s research – and information about how this evidence can be used to improve health and primary health care – to researchers, primary care professionals, health care decision makers, patients, and families.
Electronic resources for daily practice
Every day you rely on guidelines for handling issues that range from prevention to caring for those with multiple chronic conditions. Two of AHRQ’s tools make the use of these guidelines easier.
First, the Electronic Prevention Services Selector (ePSS) is a free application that allows you to search or browse U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on the Web, a PDA, or a mobile device. You can enter patient-specific information (for example, age, sex, smoking status) to get customized information for your patient. The ePSS brings information on clinical preventive services – recommendations, clinical considerations, and selected practice tools – to the point of care. You can sign up for notifications when there are updates.
The National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) provides health professionals with a tool for obtaining objective, detailed information on evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. After you enter a condition onto the webpage, the site offers key information on guidelines related to that condition – including relevant FDA drug safety alerts – and flags guidelines addressing multiple chronic conditions. The site lets you readily compare different guidelines on the same topic.
Like all of AHRQ’s tools and resources, the ePSS and NGC are freely available. These and other tools can be found at the NCEPCR website.
Dr. Bierman is the director of the Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement at AHRQ. Dr. Ganiats is the director for the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research at AHRQ.
This is the first in a series of articles from the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This series introduces sets of tools and resources designed to help your practice.
Primary care providers deal with a multitude of challenging clinical issues (e.g., providing first contact and preventive care, diagnosis in the undifferentiated patient, care of patients with chronic illness and multiple chronic conditions, keeping up with the literature) while managing a rapidly changing and often difficult health care environment. Despite this complexity and these challenges, primary care clinicians and health care systems strive to provide high-quality health care – i.e., care that is safe, effective, patient centered, timely, efficient, and equitable.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, recognizes that revitalizing this nation’s primary care system is critical to achieving quality health care. To that end, the agency is committed to helping you improve the care you deliver by offering the latest information, providing evidence syntheses, developing tools for improving primary care practice, and generating data and measures to track and improve performance in primary care.
AHRQ established the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) to be its intellectual home for primary care research. It is the agency’s vehicle for communicating the evidence from AHRQ’s research – and information about how this evidence can be used to improve health and primary health care – to researchers, primary care professionals, health care decision makers, patients, and families.
Electronic resources for daily practice
Every day you rely on guidelines for handling issues that range from prevention to caring for those with multiple chronic conditions. Two of AHRQ’s tools make the use of these guidelines easier.
First, the Electronic Prevention Services Selector (ePSS) is a free application that allows you to search or browse U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on the Web, a PDA, or a mobile device. You can enter patient-specific information (for example, age, sex, smoking status) to get customized information for your patient. The ePSS brings information on clinical preventive services – recommendations, clinical considerations, and selected practice tools – to the point of care. You can sign up for notifications when there are updates.
The National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) provides health professionals with a tool for obtaining objective, detailed information on evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. After you enter a condition onto the webpage, the site offers key information on guidelines related to that condition – including relevant FDA drug safety alerts – and flags guidelines addressing multiple chronic conditions. The site lets you readily compare different guidelines on the same topic.
Like all of AHRQ’s tools and resources, the ePSS and NGC are freely available. These and other tools can be found at the NCEPCR website.
Dr. Bierman is the director of the Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement at AHRQ. Dr. Ganiats is the director for the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research at AHRQ.
This is the first in a series of articles from the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This series introduces sets of tools and resources designed to help your practice.
Primary care providers deal with a multitude of challenging clinical issues (e.g., providing first contact and preventive care, diagnosis in the undifferentiated patient, care of patients with chronic illness and multiple chronic conditions, keeping up with the literature) while managing a rapidly changing and often difficult health care environment. Despite this complexity and these challenges, primary care clinicians and health care systems strive to provide high-quality health care – i.e., care that is safe, effective, patient centered, timely, efficient, and equitable.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, recognizes that revitalizing this nation’s primary care system is critical to achieving quality health care. To that end, the agency is committed to helping you improve the care you deliver by offering the latest information, providing evidence syntheses, developing tools for improving primary care practice, and generating data and measures to track and improve performance in primary care.
AHRQ established the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research (NCEPCR) to be its intellectual home for primary care research. It is the agency’s vehicle for communicating the evidence from AHRQ’s research – and information about how this evidence can be used to improve health and primary health care – to researchers, primary care professionals, health care decision makers, patients, and families.
Electronic resources for daily practice
Every day you rely on guidelines for handling issues that range from prevention to caring for those with multiple chronic conditions. Two of AHRQ’s tools make the use of these guidelines easier.
First, the Electronic Prevention Services Selector (ePSS) is a free application that allows you to search or browse U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on the Web, a PDA, or a mobile device. You can enter patient-specific information (for example, age, sex, smoking status) to get customized information for your patient. The ePSS brings information on clinical preventive services – recommendations, clinical considerations, and selected practice tools – to the point of care. You can sign up for notifications when there are updates.
The National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) provides health professionals with a tool for obtaining objective, detailed information on evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. After you enter a condition onto the webpage, the site offers key information on guidelines related to that condition – including relevant FDA drug safety alerts – and flags guidelines addressing multiple chronic conditions. The site lets you readily compare different guidelines on the same topic.
Like all of AHRQ’s tools and resources, the ePSS and NGC are freely available. These and other tools can be found at the NCEPCR website.
Dr. Bierman is the director of the Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement at AHRQ. Dr. Ganiats is the director for the National Center for Excellence in Primary Care Research at AHRQ.
The Inflection Point
In the early 1600s, the French playwright Molière wrote one of the great satires of all time, “The Doctor in Spite of Himself.” In that play the main character, Sganarelle, is a woodcutter who wastes all his money on alcohol, so his wife Martine decides she will teach him a lesson. As she is plotting her revenge, Martine overhears two peasants discussing how they have been trying to find a doctor for their rich employer’s daughter, who has become suddenly mute. Martine seizes the opportunity to tell the peasants that her husband is a brilliant – though eccentric – doctor who usually hides his identity. Learning this, the peasants find Sganarelle and beg him to see their master’s daughter. Though he initially refuses, they berate him until he can take it no more, and he finally says that he is a doctor and agrees to assess the ill young woman.
Sganarelle does his best to impersonate a doctor while examining the young woman, and as he is doing so it becomes apparent even to him that she is not truly ill. She is pretending to be mute because she’s being forced to marry a wealthy man she does not love. Sganarelle discusses the diagnosis with her father, stating, “this impediment to the action of the tongue is caused by certain humors.” He goes on to say that her muteness was triggered by, “the vapors that pass from the left side, where the liver resides, to the right side, where the heart dwells.” The rich aristocrat listens intently and accepts the diagnosis, though he seems puzzled about one thing. “Isn’t the heart on the left side of the chest?” he asks. To this insightful and obvious question Sganarelle replies, “Yes, that used to be true; but we’ve changed all that, and we practice medicine now according to a whole new method.”
It is astonishing that Molière, in a farcical comedy written in the 1600s, could have anticipated the dizzying rate of change in modern medicine. While the heart and liver have not changed sides, the ways we are practicing medicine have undergone landmark shifts over the past 10 years. Just look at the new ways in which we record documentation, learn new information, send in prescriptions, manage populations in addition to individual patients, and so many other aspects of care. At times this evolution has its own satirical feel to it. For example, the notion that refusing to refill an opioid prescription for a patient that broke their opioid contract could lead to a bad review on Yelp or points off on a Press Ganey satisfaction survey does not seem reasonable, but it is real.
When we started this column about 10 years ago, we regularly received emails (and even letters written in fine penmanship and mailed in envelopes) from physicians who felt that the EHR was ruining their practice and their lives. Many of the letters talked about early retirement. Some physicians ended up retiring early. Many of these physicians were smart, able people who we believe took great care of patients. But as Leon C. Megginson, interpreting the work of Darwin, observed, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Adaptability favors the young; the young have fewer habits to break, few preconceived ideas of how things should be, and perhaps more energy to give to new tasks.
We believe we have now reached the inflection point – a time in the history of an industry where an event (in this case the advent of the EHR) so fundamentally impacts the industry that the industry is changed from that point forward. The industry, and more importantly those who work in the industry, must adopt new approaches and attitudes in order to survive in the changed environment. Andrew Grove, the former CEO of Intel, talked about Strategic Inflection Points in a keynote address to the Academy of Management: “…what is common to [inflection points] and what is key is that they require a fundamental change in business strategy.” Grove also said, “That change can mean an opportunity to rise to new heights. But it may just as likely signal the beginning of the end.”
Up until recently, the introduction of the EHR lead to discussions about what was good and what was bad about the advent of EHRs. That time is past. We no longer receive letters from physicians expressing their concerns about the EHR, as many of those physicians have taken the change as a signal of the end of their careers, and chosen to retire. The rest have adapted to a new world. And in this new world we are certainly rising to new heights. We are forward-focused and looking at the multi-fold ways that our new technologies can accomplish their many missions – to improve the health of the population, to serve as a source of data to assess the real-world effectiveness of novel therapies, to evaluate and affect the quality of care given by practices and individual physicians, and to take excellent personalized care of individual patients. While we are physicians, not wood cutters as in Molière’s play, it remains incumbent upon us never to stop listening to our patients’ hearts, and to interpret their symptoms and signs with common sense, empathy and even humor when appropriate, all the while embracing approaches that move the health care of our patients forward to new heights.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
In the early 1600s, the French playwright Molière wrote one of the great satires of all time, “The Doctor in Spite of Himself.” In that play the main character, Sganarelle, is a woodcutter who wastes all his money on alcohol, so his wife Martine decides she will teach him a lesson. As she is plotting her revenge, Martine overhears two peasants discussing how they have been trying to find a doctor for their rich employer’s daughter, who has become suddenly mute. Martine seizes the opportunity to tell the peasants that her husband is a brilliant – though eccentric – doctor who usually hides his identity. Learning this, the peasants find Sganarelle and beg him to see their master’s daughter. Though he initially refuses, they berate him until he can take it no more, and he finally says that he is a doctor and agrees to assess the ill young woman.
Sganarelle does his best to impersonate a doctor while examining the young woman, and as he is doing so it becomes apparent even to him that she is not truly ill. She is pretending to be mute because she’s being forced to marry a wealthy man she does not love. Sganarelle discusses the diagnosis with her father, stating, “this impediment to the action of the tongue is caused by certain humors.” He goes on to say that her muteness was triggered by, “the vapors that pass from the left side, where the liver resides, to the right side, where the heart dwells.” The rich aristocrat listens intently and accepts the diagnosis, though he seems puzzled about one thing. “Isn’t the heart on the left side of the chest?” he asks. To this insightful and obvious question Sganarelle replies, “Yes, that used to be true; but we’ve changed all that, and we practice medicine now according to a whole new method.”
It is astonishing that Molière, in a farcical comedy written in the 1600s, could have anticipated the dizzying rate of change in modern medicine. While the heart and liver have not changed sides, the ways we are practicing medicine have undergone landmark shifts over the past 10 years. Just look at the new ways in which we record documentation, learn new information, send in prescriptions, manage populations in addition to individual patients, and so many other aspects of care. At times this evolution has its own satirical feel to it. For example, the notion that refusing to refill an opioid prescription for a patient that broke their opioid contract could lead to a bad review on Yelp or points off on a Press Ganey satisfaction survey does not seem reasonable, but it is real.
When we started this column about 10 years ago, we regularly received emails (and even letters written in fine penmanship and mailed in envelopes) from physicians who felt that the EHR was ruining their practice and their lives. Many of the letters talked about early retirement. Some physicians ended up retiring early. Many of these physicians were smart, able people who we believe took great care of patients. But as Leon C. Megginson, interpreting the work of Darwin, observed, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Adaptability favors the young; the young have fewer habits to break, few preconceived ideas of how things should be, and perhaps more energy to give to new tasks.
We believe we have now reached the inflection point – a time in the history of an industry where an event (in this case the advent of the EHR) so fundamentally impacts the industry that the industry is changed from that point forward. The industry, and more importantly those who work in the industry, must adopt new approaches and attitudes in order to survive in the changed environment. Andrew Grove, the former CEO of Intel, talked about Strategic Inflection Points in a keynote address to the Academy of Management: “…what is common to [inflection points] and what is key is that they require a fundamental change in business strategy.” Grove also said, “That change can mean an opportunity to rise to new heights. But it may just as likely signal the beginning of the end.”
Up until recently, the introduction of the EHR lead to discussions about what was good and what was bad about the advent of EHRs. That time is past. We no longer receive letters from physicians expressing their concerns about the EHR, as many of those physicians have taken the change as a signal of the end of their careers, and chosen to retire. The rest have adapted to a new world. And in this new world we are certainly rising to new heights. We are forward-focused and looking at the multi-fold ways that our new technologies can accomplish their many missions – to improve the health of the population, to serve as a source of data to assess the real-world effectiveness of novel therapies, to evaluate and affect the quality of care given by practices and individual physicians, and to take excellent personalized care of individual patients. While we are physicians, not wood cutters as in Molière’s play, it remains incumbent upon us never to stop listening to our patients’ hearts, and to interpret their symptoms and signs with common sense, empathy and even humor when appropriate, all the while embracing approaches that move the health care of our patients forward to new heights.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
In the early 1600s, the French playwright Molière wrote one of the great satires of all time, “The Doctor in Spite of Himself.” In that play the main character, Sganarelle, is a woodcutter who wastes all his money on alcohol, so his wife Martine decides she will teach him a lesson. As she is plotting her revenge, Martine overhears two peasants discussing how they have been trying to find a doctor for their rich employer’s daughter, who has become suddenly mute. Martine seizes the opportunity to tell the peasants that her husband is a brilliant – though eccentric – doctor who usually hides his identity. Learning this, the peasants find Sganarelle and beg him to see their master’s daughter. Though he initially refuses, they berate him until he can take it no more, and he finally says that he is a doctor and agrees to assess the ill young woman.
Sganarelle does his best to impersonate a doctor while examining the young woman, and as he is doing so it becomes apparent even to him that she is not truly ill. She is pretending to be mute because she’s being forced to marry a wealthy man she does not love. Sganarelle discusses the diagnosis with her father, stating, “this impediment to the action of the tongue is caused by certain humors.” He goes on to say that her muteness was triggered by, “the vapors that pass from the left side, where the liver resides, to the right side, where the heart dwells.” The rich aristocrat listens intently and accepts the diagnosis, though he seems puzzled about one thing. “Isn’t the heart on the left side of the chest?” he asks. To this insightful and obvious question Sganarelle replies, “Yes, that used to be true; but we’ve changed all that, and we practice medicine now according to a whole new method.”
It is astonishing that Molière, in a farcical comedy written in the 1600s, could have anticipated the dizzying rate of change in modern medicine. While the heart and liver have not changed sides, the ways we are practicing medicine have undergone landmark shifts over the past 10 years. Just look at the new ways in which we record documentation, learn new information, send in prescriptions, manage populations in addition to individual patients, and so many other aspects of care. At times this evolution has its own satirical feel to it. For example, the notion that refusing to refill an opioid prescription for a patient that broke their opioid contract could lead to a bad review on Yelp or points off on a Press Ganey satisfaction survey does not seem reasonable, but it is real.
When we started this column about 10 years ago, we regularly received emails (and even letters written in fine penmanship and mailed in envelopes) from physicians who felt that the EHR was ruining their practice and their lives. Many of the letters talked about early retirement. Some physicians ended up retiring early. Many of these physicians were smart, able people who we believe took great care of patients. But as Leon C. Megginson, interpreting the work of Darwin, observed, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Adaptability favors the young; the young have fewer habits to break, few preconceived ideas of how things should be, and perhaps more energy to give to new tasks.
We believe we have now reached the inflection point – a time in the history of an industry where an event (in this case the advent of the EHR) so fundamentally impacts the industry that the industry is changed from that point forward. The industry, and more importantly those who work in the industry, must adopt new approaches and attitudes in order to survive in the changed environment. Andrew Grove, the former CEO of Intel, talked about Strategic Inflection Points in a keynote address to the Academy of Management: “…what is common to [inflection points] and what is key is that they require a fundamental change in business strategy.” Grove also said, “That change can mean an opportunity to rise to new heights. But it may just as likely signal the beginning of the end.”
Up until recently, the introduction of the EHR lead to discussions about what was good and what was bad about the advent of EHRs. That time is past. We no longer receive letters from physicians expressing their concerns about the EHR, as many of those physicians have taken the change as a signal of the end of their careers, and chosen to retire. The rest have adapted to a new world. And in this new world we are certainly rising to new heights. We are forward-focused and looking at the multi-fold ways that our new technologies can accomplish their many missions – to improve the health of the population, to serve as a source of data to assess the real-world effectiveness of novel therapies, to evaluate and affect the quality of care given by practices and individual physicians, and to take excellent personalized care of individual patients. While we are physicians, not wood cutters as in Molière’s play, it remains incumbent upon us never to stop listening to our patients’ hearts, and to interpret their symptoms and signs with common sense, empathy and even humor when appropriate, all the while embracing approaches that move the health care of our patients forward to new heights.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
Climate change may lead to more cellulitis
As a follow-up to our previous column on the effects of climate change on the skin (Dermatology News, June 2016, p. 28), this month’s column will focus on a study recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that explores warmer weather as a possible risk factor for cellulitis.1 As the summer continues with sweltering weather, humidity, and the recent spate of hurricanes in North America, it’s interesting to think about how the climate affects our patients and puts them at risk.
Much attention has been given to global warming and climate change over the past several years. The results of this study demonstrate that, if temperatures consistently increase, the odds of cellulitis also may increase in regions exposed to warmer temperatures.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
Reference
1. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 31. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix487.
As a follow-up to our previous column on the effects of climate change on the skin (Dermatology News, June 2016, p. 28), this month’s column will focus on a study recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that explores warmer weather as a possible risk factor for cellulitis.1 As the summer continues with sweltering weather, humidity, and the recent spate of hurricanes in North America, it’s interesting to think about how the climate affects our patients and puts them at risk.
Much attention has been given to global warming and climate change over the past several years. The results of this study demonstrate that, if temperatures consistently increase, the odds of cellulitis also may increase in regions exposed to warmer temperatures.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
Reference
1. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 31. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix487.
As a follow-up to our previous column on the effects of climate change on the skin (Dermatology News, June 2016, p. 28), this month’s column will focus on a study recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that explores warmer weather as a possible risk factor for cellulitis.1 As the summer continues with sweltering weather, humidity, and the recent spate of hurricanes in North America, it’s interesting to think about how the climate affects our patients and puts them at risk.
Much attention has been given to global warming and climate change over the past several years. The results of this study demonstrate that, if temperatures consistently increase, the odds of cellulitis also may increase in regions exposed to warmer temperatures.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
Reference
1. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 31. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix487.