Commentary

A recent opinion piece in MedPage Today by an internist about poor communications between emergency physicians (EPs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) was subtitled “We’ve gotten better going from office to ER, but not the other way,” and complained about the lack of a “live, warm handoff” from EPs to PCPs of patients being discharged from EDs. Similar complaints were examined in two recent Emergency Medicine (EM) editorials (Anger Management, 2015;47[4]:149 and Broadside Journalism, 2015;47[6]:244). In the first, we noted that PCPs sometimes are angered when they are not consulted about one of their patients in the ED or about a treatment or disposition plan with which they disagree, while EPs are frustrated by the number of phone calls required to reach some PCPs or a knowledgeable covering physician. 

Only 2 months later, we expressed concerns about a New York Times opinion editorial describing a young patient whose vertebral artery dissection had been “diagnosed correctly and acted on in the ED,” but then angrily criticizing an initial recommendation that the patient curtail her physical activities based on what a famous neurologist considered an erroneously interpreted vascular imaging study. (Presumably, the recommendation was by another neurologist and the interpretation by a radiologist, but all of the neurologist’s caustic criticism was directed at the EP and ED.) Although the neurologist subsequently apologized in a letter to his emergency medicine colleagues for “being quoted out of context,” few if any Times readers ever learned of the “clarifications.”

We concluded the second EM editorial with the suggestion that “all physicians must be very, very careful in framing statements to the media, and should assume that their remarks will not be placed ‘in context’ or nuanced as they may have been intended....Most important, is to not disparage entire specialties or use belittling terms such as ‘ER docs’....[that] heighten...patients’ fears” of being treated in EDs.

Why another editorial about physician-to-physician miscommunications and name-calling? Because patient care is significantly affected. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services originally classified four medical specialties as “primary care” for reimbursement purposes: family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics-gynecology, and the 2010 Affordable Care Act added geriatrics. Although emergency medicine had been considered initially, it has never been categorized as a primary care specialty. That being the case, isn’t it incumbent upon us to learn as much as we can from PCPs about their ill patients en route to the ED for treatment or admission, and afterward ensure that an ED visit is part of a continuum of patient care and not an isolated episode?

In 1996, when I accepted an offer to become New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell’s first Emergency Physician-in-Chief, I created a new position of full-time “ED follow-up nurse practitioner” to track and report test results to discharged patients and their designated PCPs. When we added a fourth unit to the ED a few years later, I designated an experienced, senior attending EP among the four on duty as the “administrative attending” (AA) who, among other tasks, took all phone calls from PCPs about patients they were sending to the ED and entered the information in the “en route” section of our electronic tracking board. In this way, important patient information, including PCP contact information, was no longer misplaced during shift changes. The AA carried a direct-dial cell phone-like device and eventually all attending EPs and the charge nurse were equipped with such phones. In a short time, most of the communications problems and complaints about incoming patients were eliminated.

But despite numerous attempts, for the reasons mentioned above, systematically ensuring effective communications with PCPs for discharged patients has proven to be a more difficult task. At present, handing off discharged patients to PCPs still depends largely on a combination of judgment, understanding, compassion, and respect. 

A recent opinion piece in MedPage Today by an internist about poor communications between emergency physicians (EPs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) was subtitled “We’ve gotten better going from office to ER, but not the other way,” and complained about the lack of a “live, warm handoff” from EPs to PCPs of patients being discharged from EDs. Similar complaints were examined in two recent Emergency Medicine (EM) editorials (Anger Management, 2015;47[4]:149 and Broadside Journalism, 2015;47[6]:244). In the first, we noted that PCPs sometimes are angered when they are not consulted about one of their patients in the ED or about a treatment or disposition plan with which they disagree, while EPs are frustrated by the number of phone calls required to reach some PCPs or a knowledgeable covering physician. 

Only 2 months later, we expressed concerns about a New York Times opinion editorial describing a young patient whose vertebral artery dissection had been “diagnosed correctly and acted on in the ED,” but then angrily criticizing an initial recommendation that the patient curtail her physical activities based on what a famous neurologist considered an erroneously interpreted vascular imaging study. (Presumably, the recommendation was by another neurologist and the interpretation by a radiologist, but all of the neurologist’s caustic criticism was directed at the EP and ED.) Although the neurologist subsequently apologized in a letter to his emergency medicine colleagues for “being quoted out of context,” few if any Times readers ever learned of the “clarifications.”

We concluded the second EM editorial with the suggestion that “all physicians must be very, very careful in framing statements to the media, and should assume that their remarks will not be placed ‘in context’ or nuanced as they may have been intended....Most important, is to not disparage entire specialties or use belittling terms such as ‘ER docs’....[that] heighten...patients’ fears” of being treated in EDs.

Why another editorial about physician-to-physician miscommunications and name-calling? Because patient care is significantly affected. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services originally classified four medical specialties as “primary care” for reimbursement purposes: family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics-gynecology, and the 2010 Affordable Care Act added geriatrics. Although emergency medicine had been considered initially, it has never been categorized as a primary care specialty. That being the case, isn’t it incumbent upon us to learn as much as we can from PCPs about their ill patients en route to the ED for treatment or admission, and afterward ensure that an ED visit is part of a continuum of patient care and not an isolated episode?

In 1996, when I accepted an offer to become New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell’s first Emergency Physician-in-Chief, I created a new position of full-time “ED follow-up nurse practitioner” to track and report test results to discharged patients and their designated PCPs. When we added a fourth unit to the ED a few years later, I designated an experienced, senior attending EP among the four on duty as the “administrative attending” (AA) who, among other tasks, took all phone calls from PCPs about patients they were sending to the ED and entered the information in the “en route” section of our electronic tracking board. In this way, important patient information, including PCP contact information, was no longer misplaced during shift changes. The AA carried a direct-dial cell phone-like device and eventually all attending EPs and the charge nurse were equipped with such phones. In a short time, most of the communications problems and complaints about incoming patients were eliminated.

But despite numerous attempts, for the reasons mentioned above, systematically ensuring effective communications with PCPs for discharged patients has proven to be a more difficult task. At present, handing off discharged patients to PCPs still depends largely on a combination of judgment, understanding, compassion, and respect. 

A recent opinion piece in MedPage Today by an internist about poor communications between emergency physicians (EPs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) was subtitled “We’ve gotten better going from office to ER, but not the other way,” and complained about the lack of a “live, warm handoff” from EPs to PCPs of patients being discharged from EDs. Similar complaints were examined in two recent Emergency Medicine (EM) editorials (Anger Management, 2015;47[4]:149 and Broadside Journalism, 2015;47[6]:244). In the first, we noted that PCPs sometimes are angered when they are not consulted about one of their patients in the ED or about a treatment or disposition plan with which they disagree, while EPs are frustrated by the number of phone calls required to reach some PCPs or a knowledgeable covering physician. 

Only 2 months later, we expressed concerns about a New York Times opinion editorial describing a young patient whose vertebral artery dissection had been “diagnosed correctly and acted on in the ED,” but then angrily criticizing an initial recommendation that the patient curtail her physical activities based on what a famous neurologist considered an erroneously interpreted vascular imaging study. (Presumably, the recommendation was by another neurologist and the interpretation by a radiologist, but all of the neurologist’s caustic criticism was directed at the EP and ED.) Although the neurologist subsequently apologized in a letter to his emergency medicine colleagues for “being quoted out of context,” few if any Times readers ever learned of the “clarifications.”

We concluded the second EM editorial with the suggestion that “all physicians must be very, very careful in framing statements to the media, and should assume that their remarks will not be placed ‘in context’ or nuanced as they may have been intended....Most important, is to not disparage entire specialties or use belittling terms such as ‘ER docs’....[that] heighten...patients’ fears” of being treated in EDs.

Why another editorial about physician-to-physician miscommunications and name-calling? Because patient care is significantly affected. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services originally classified four medical specialties as “primary care” for reimbursement purposes: family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics-gynecology, and the 2010 Affordable Care Act added geriatrics. Although emergency medicine had been considered initially, it has never been categorized as a primary care specialty. That being the case, isn’t it incumbent upon us to learn as much as we can from PCPs about their ill patients en route to the ED for treatment or admission, and afterward ensure that an ED visit is part of a continuum of patient care and not an isolated episode?

In 1996, when I accepted an offer to become New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell’s first Emergency Physician-in-Chief, I created a new position of full-time “ED follow-up nurse practitioner” to track and report test results to discharged patients and their designated PCPs. When we added a fourth unit to the ED a few years later, I designated an experienced, senior attending EP among the four on duty as the “administrative attending” (AA) who, among other tasks, took all phone calls from PCPs about patients they were sending to the ED and entered the information in the “en route” section of our electronic tracking board. In this way, important patient information, including PCP contact information, was no longer misplaced during shift changes. The AA carried a direct-dial cell phone-like device and eventually all attending EPs and the charge nurse were equipped with such phones. In a short time, most of the communications problems and complaints about incoming patients were eliminated.

But despite numerous attempts, for the reasons mentioned above, systematically ensuring effective communications with PCPs for discharged patients has proven to be a more difficult task. At present, handing off discharged patients to PCPs still depends largely on a combination of judgment, understanding, compassion, and respect. 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common hospital-acquired infection with significant morbidity and mortality. The CDC currently recommends contact precautions as a mainstay to prevent transmission of MRSA in health care settings. Most hospitals routinely screen patients for MRSA and use contact precautions for those who screen positive. The duration of these precautions vary across hospitals and no standard recommendation exists.

A recent study of members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) research network indicated that the majority of physicians (94%) and nurses (76%) dislike contact precautions (CP) and most (63%) were in favor of implementing CP in a different way than current practice.¹ Patients also report less satisfaction and increased isolation.¹

My colleagues and I recently published a study² in the American Journal of Infection Control to explore the necessary duration of contact precautions for hospitalized patients with MRSA. Our goal was to maintain contact precautions as long as necessary to prevent undesired MRSA infections and colonization but minimize unnecessary days in contact isolation. We also sought to figure out whether patients with positive MRSA surveillance cultures should always remain in isolation and, if not, at what point they could be considered for rescreening and removal of precautions if culture negative.

Medical University of South Carolina

Lauren Richey, MD, MPH, is assistant professor in the infectious diseases division at the Medical University of South Carolina.

References

1. Morgan DJ, Diekema DJ, Sepkowitz K, Perencevich EN. Adverse outcomes associated with contact precautions: A review of the literature. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Mar;37(2):85-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.04.257.

2. Richey LE, Oh Y, Tchamba DM, Engle M, Formby L, Salgado CD. When should contact precautions be discontinued for patients with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? Am J Infect Control. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2016.05.030.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common hospital-acquired infection with significant morbidity and mortality. The CDC currently recommends contact precautions as a mainstay to prevent transmission of MRSA in health care settings. Most hospitals routinely screen patients for MRSA and use contact precautions for those who screen positive. The duration of these precautions vary across hospitals and no standard recommendation exists.

A recent study of members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) research network indicated that the majority of physicians (94%) and nurses (76%) dislike contact precautions (CP) and most (63%) were in favor of implementing CP in a different way than current practice.¹ Patients also report less satisfaction and increased isolation.¹

My colleagues and I recently published a study² in the American Journal of Infection Control to explore the necessary duration of contact precautions for hospitalized patients with MRSA. Our goal was to maintain contact precautions as long as necessary to prevent undesired MRSA infections and colonization but minimize unnecessary days in contact isolation. We also sought to figure out whether patients with positive MRSA surveillance cultures should always remain in isolation and, if not, at what point they could be considered for rescreening and removal of precautions if culture negative.

Medical University of South Carolina

Lauren Richey, MD, MPH, is assistant professor in the infectious diseases division at the Medical University of South Carolina.

References

1. Morgan DJ, Diekema DJ, Sepkowitz K, Perencevich EN. Adverse outcomes associated with contact precautions: A review of the literature. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Mar;37(2):85-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.04.257.

2. Richey LE, Oh Y, Tchamba DM, Engle M, Formby L, Salgado CD. When should contact precautions be discontinued for patients with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? Am J Infect Control. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2016.05.030.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common hospital-acquired infection with significant morbidity and mortality. The CDC currently recommends contact precautions as a mainstay to prevent transmission of MRSA in health care settings. Most hospitals routinely screen patients for MRSA and use contact precautions for those who screen positive. The duration of these precautions vary across hospitals and no standard recommendation exists.

A recent study of members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) research network indicated that the majority of physicians (94%) and nurses (76%) dislike contact precautions (CP) and most (63%) were in favor of implementing CP in a different way than current practice.¹ Patients also report less satisfaction and increased isolation.¹

My colleagues and I recently published a study² in the American Journal of Infection Control to explore the necessary duration of contact precautions for hospitalized patients with MRSA. Our goal was to maintain contact precautions as long as necessary to prevent undesired MRSA infections and colonization but minimize unnecessary days in contact isolation. We also sought to figure out whether patients with positive MRSA surveillance cultures should always remain in isolation and, if not, at what point they could be considered for rescreening and removal of precautions if culture negative.

Medical University of South Carolina

Lauren Richey, MD, MPH, is assistant professor in the infectious diseases division at the Medical University of South Carolina.

References

1. Morgan DJ, Diekema DJ, Sepkowitz K, Perencevich EN. Adverse outcomes associated with contact precautions: A review of the literature. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Mar;37(2):85-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.04.257.

2. Richey LE, Oh Y, Tchamba DM, Engle M, Formby L, Salgado CD. When should contact precautions be discontinued for patients with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? Am J Infect Control. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2016.05.030.

How many calories are there in a cheeseburger? (Yes, I too am looking forward to a svelter 2017). The answer, according to my new assistant, is 300 calories. She knows the dose of acetaminophen for a 10-year-old, 65-pound child is 325 mg every 4-6 hours. She also plays George Michael, reorders my Dentyne Ice gum, and turns off the lights. She is Alexa of Amazon’s Echo, the intelligent personal assistant.

Echo and Google Home are popular voice-assisted home appliances. Amazon has built a natural language processing system, so to use it, you simply say, “Alexa,” pause, then ask your question (What’s the weather in New York?) or deliver your command (Play Spotify). It’s hands free, so you can interface while typing, reading, or cooking dinner.

1. Physicians can ask for real-time help such as: What are treatment options for juvenile dermatomyositis? Order doxycycline 100 mg by mouth, twice daily, quantity sufficient 10 days.

2. Physicians might also use it to dictate notes intelligently, and even extract patient instructions directly from the notes to be emailed to the patient.

3. Surgeons could command an MRI to be viewed without having to scrub out.

4. Bedridden or chronically ill patients could use it to refill medications, make doctor appointments, or contact a caregiver in an emergency.

5. Patients could receive customized instructions, such as the answer to “How often do I change my surgical bandage?”

For all its potential, voice-assisted personal assistants have a long way to go. It would be a mistake to think these won’t be integrated into the entire health care chain from care to wellness, but it will be awhile before we get there.

Interestingly, when I asked my Apple Siri how many calories are in a cheeseburger, she reported 500, which is much more than Alexa’s 300. Which is why, for now, devices like Alexa are ideal for ordering a pizza hands free from your recliner. Just don’t ask how many calories are in it.
 

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]. He has no disclosures related to this column.

How many calories are there in a cheeseburger? (Yes, I too am looking forward to a svelter 2017). The answer, according to my new assistant, is 300 calories. She knows the dose of acetaminophen for a 10-year-old, 65-pound child is 325 mg every 4-6 hours. She also plays George Michael, reorders my Dentyne Ice gum, and turns off the lights. She is Alexa of Amazon’s Echo, the intelligent personal assistant.

Echo and Google Home are popular voice-assisted home appliances. Amazon has built a natural language processing system, so to use it, you simply say, “Alexa,” pause, then ask your question (What’s the weather in New York?) or deliver your command (Play Spotify). It’s hands free, so you can interface while typing, reading, or cooking dinner.

1. Physicians can ask for real-time help such as: What are treatment options for juvenile dermatomyositis? Order doxycycline 100 mg by mouth, twice daily, quantity sufficient 10 days.

2. Physicians might also use it to dictate notes intelligently, and even extract patient instructions directly from the notes to be emailed to the patient.

3. Surgeons could command an MRI to be viewed without having to scrub out.

4. Bedridden or chronically ill patients could use it to refill medications, make doctor appointments, or contact a caregiver in an emergency.

5. Patients could receive customized instructions, such as the answer to “How often do I change my surgical bandage?”

For all its potential, voice-assisted personal assistants have a long way to go. It would be a mistake to think these won’t be integrated into the entire health care chain from care to wellness, but it will be awhile before we get there.

Interestingly, when I asked my Apple Siri how many calories are in a cheeseburger, she reported 500, which is much more than Alexa’s 300. Which is why, for now, devices like Alexa are ideal for ordering a pizza hands free from your recliner. Just don’t ask how many calories are in it.
 

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]. He has no disclosures related to this column.

How many calories are there in a cheeseburger? (Yes, I too am looking forward to a svelter 2017). The answer, according to my new assistant, is 300 calories. She knows the dose of acetaminophen for a 10-year-old, 65-pound child is 325 mg every 4-6 hours. She also plays George Michael, reorders my Dentyne Ice gum, and turns off the lights. She is Alexa of Amazon’s Echo, the intelligent personal assistant.

Echo and Google Home are popular voice-assisted home appliances. Amazon has built a natural language processing system, so to use it, you simply say, “Alexa,” pause, then ask your question (What’s the weather in New York?) or deliver your command (Play Spotify). It’s hands free, so you can interface while typing, reading, or cooking dinner.

1. Physicians can ask for real-time help such as: What are treatment options for juvenile dermatomyositis? Order doxycycline 100 mg by mouth, twice daily, quantity sufficient 10 days.

2. Physicians might also use it to dictate notes intelligently, and even extract patient instructions directly from the notes to be emailed to the patient.

3. Surgeons could command an MRI to be viewed without having to scrub out.

4. Bedridden or chronically ill patients could use it to refill medications, make doctor appointments, or contact a caregiver in an emergency.

5. Patients could receive customized instructions, such as the answer to “How often do I change my surgical bandage?”

For all its potential, voice-assisted personal assistants have a long way to go. It would be a mistake to think these won’t be integrated into the entire health care chain from care to wellness, but it will be awhile before we get there.

Interestingly, when I asked my Apple Siri how many calories are in a cheeseburger, she reported 500, which is much more than Alexa’s 300. Which is why, for now, devices like Alexa are ideal for ordering a pizza hands free from your recliner. Just don’t ask how many calories are in it.
 

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]. He has no disclosures related to this column.

It has been a long time since a new year has brought as much uncertainty as 2017 promises to bring, making some federal employees excited and others apprehensive. Rumors abound of how the federal health care sector may change: Hiring freezes, manpower cuts, and privatization are all concerns of Federal Practitioner readers. As in the past, we will keep you up-to-date with in-depth interviews of leaders in federal health care, intelligent coverage of news stories impacting your practice, and clinical and research articles about new programs and initiatives.

Also this year, we are pleased to announce several new regular columns that we hope will inform and entertain you. The first is a column on mental health and traumatic brain injury in the DoD and the VA. We are privileged to have U.S. Army COL (Ret) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, edit this column. She is widely known and respected and brings her vast experience to the column as an active-duty psychiatrist coupled with her current position as a VA physician. Dr. Ritchie will author articles as well as edit those of her VA and DoD colleagues. Mental health touches almost every aspect of federal practice, and we all will learn our contributions and challenges in this rapidly moving specialty.

Whereas the mental health column looks toward the scientific future, the second column looks back to the humanistic past. We are thrilled that 2 physician-historians of military medicine, Robert Hierholzer, MD, a VA psychiatrist, and John Pierce, MD, a retired U.S. Army pediatrician share the writing and editing for this column, which will debut this spring.

Have you ever wondered who or how VA and military hospitals were named? These 2 historical writers have a wealth of interesting anecdotes and stories about VA and military medical centers. We hope you will enjoy reading the stories of military and veteran health care: the war heroes, devoted clinicians, and groundbreaking researchers who have left their mark on DoD and VA health care.

We also will be launching a new pilot study feature for clinicians and researchers who have a novel or valuable idea but have only a small number of participants or preliminary results. This will be a great way for new investigators, trainees, and young health care practitioners to present their work to the medical community.

These new editorial offerings are just a start—we also want to invite you, your colleagues, and learners to start your own new tradition of writing for Federal Practitioner. For those who have submitted articles in the past, please keep up the habit.We are eager to receive original research, review articles, and clinical cases from DoD, PHS, and VA mid-career and senior clinicians and researchers as well as articles describing innovative programs and modes of health care treatment and delivery. With a print circulation of more than 35,000 readers and very active online presence, consider Federal Practitioner for your next article!

This year my New Year’s resolution as editor-in-chief is to encourage readers to contact either Editor Reid Paul or me if you have an idea for an article you would like to write, a column you would like to see, or if you have an interest in serving as a peer reviewer or joining our Editorial Advisory Association. We want to hear from you about what you want and need from Federal Practitioner. You can contact the editorial team at [email protected].

Author disclosures

The author reports no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

It has been a long time since a new year has brought as much uncertainty as 2017 promises to bring, making some federal employees excited and others apprehensive. Rumors abound of how the federal health care sector may change: Hiring freezes, manpower cuts, and privatization are all concerns of Federal Practitioner readers. As in the past, we will keep you up-to-date with in-depth interviews of leaders in federal health care, intelligent coverage of news stories impacting your practice, and clinical and research articles about new programs and initiatives.

Also this year, we are pleased to announce several new regular columns that we hope will inform and entertain you. The first is a column on mental health and traumatic brain injury in the DoD and the VA. We are privileged to have U.S. Army COL (Ret) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, edit this column. She is widely known and respected and brings her vast experience to the column as an active-duty psychiatrist coupled with her current position as a VA physician. Dr. Ritchie will author articles as well as edit those of her VA and DoD colleagues. Mental health touches almost every aspect of federal practice, and we all will learn our contributions and challenges in this rapidly moving specialty.

Whereas the mental health column looks toward the scientific future, the second column looks back to the humanistic past. We are thrilled that 2 physician-historians of military medicine, Robert Hierholzer, MD, a VA psychiatrist, and John Pierce, MD, a retired U.S. Army pediatrician share the writing and editing for this column, which will debut this spring.

Have you ever wondered who or how VA and military hospitals were named? These 2 historical writers have a wealth of interesting anecdotes and stories about VA and military medical centers. We hope you will enjoy reading the stories of military and veteran health care: the war heroes, devoted clinicians, and groundbreaking researchers who have left their mark on DoD and VA health care.

We also will be launching a new pilot study feature for clinicians and researchers who have a novel or valuable idea but have only a small number of participants or preliminary results. This will be a great way for new investigators, trainees, and young health care practitioners to present their work to the medical community.

These new editorial offerings are just a start—we also want to invite you, your colleagues, and learners to start your own new tradition of writing for Federal Practitioner. For those who have submitted articles in the past, please keep up the habit.We are eager to receive original research, review articles, and clinical cases from DoD, PHS, and VA mid-career and senior clinicians and researchers as well as articles describing innovative programs and modes of health care treatment and delivery. With a print circulation of more than 35,000 readers and very active online presence, consider Federal Practitioner for your next article!

This year my New Year’s resolution as editor-in-chief is to encourage readers to contact either Editor Reid Paul or me if you have an idea for an article you would like to write, a column you would like to see, or if you have an interest in serving as a peer reviewer or joining our Editorial Advisory Association. We want to hear from you about what you want and need from Federal Practitioner. You can contact the editorial team at [email protected].

Author disclosures

The author reports no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

It has been a long time since a new year has brought as much uncertainty as 2017 promises to bring, making some federal employees excited and others apprehensive. Rumors abound of how the federal health care sector may change: Hiring freezes, manpower cuts, and privatization are all concerns of Federal Practitioner readers. As in the past, we will keep you up-to-date with in-depth interviews of leaders in federal health care, intelligent coverage of news stories impacting your practice, and clinical and research articles about new programs and initiatives.

Also this year, we are pleased to announce several new regular columns that we hope will inform and entertain you. The first is a column on mental health and traumatic brain injury in the DoD and the VA. We are privileged to have U.S. Army COL (Ret) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, edit this column. She is widely known and respected and brings her vast experience to the column as an active-duty psychiatrist coupled with her current position as a VA physician. Dr. Ritchie will author articles as well as edit those of her VA and DoD colleagues. Mental health touches almost every aspect of federal practice, and we all will learn our contributions and challenges in this rapidly moving specialty.

Whereas the mental health column looks toward the scientific future, the second column looks back to the humanistic past. We are thrilled that 2 physician-historians of military medicine, Robert Hierholzer, MD, a VA psychiatrist, and John Pierce, MD, a retired U.S. Army pediatrician share the writing and editing for this column, which will debut this spring.

Have you ever wondered who or how VA and military hospitals were named? These 2 historical writers have a wealth of interesting anecdotes and stories about VA and military medical centers. We hope you will enjoy reading the stories of military and veteran health care: the war heroes, devoted clinicians, and groundbreaking researchers who have left their mark on DoD and VA health care.

We also will be launching a new pilot study feature for clinicians and researchers who have a novel or valuable idea but have only a small number of participants or preliminary results. This will be a great way for new investigators, trainees, and young health care practitioners to present their work to the medical community.

These new editorial offerings are just a start—we also want to invite you, your colleagues, and learners to start your own new tradition of writing for Federal Practitioner. For those who have submitted articles in the past, please keep up the habit.We are eager to receive original research, review articles, and clinical cases from DoD, PHS, and VA mid-career and senior clinicians and researchers as well as articles describing innovative programs and modes of health care treatment and delivery. With a print circulation of more than 35,000 readers and very active online presence, consider Federal Practitioner for your next article!

This year my New Year’s resolution as editor-in-chief is to encourage readers to contact either Editor Reid Paul or me if you have an idea for an article you would like to write, a column you would like to see, or if you have an interest in serving as a peer reviewer or joining our Editorial Advisory Association. We want to hear from you about what you want and need from Federal Practitioner. You can contact the editorial team at [email protected].

Author disclosures

The author reports no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

We all know these patients:

The young man who, when his name shows up on the ED board, everyone lets out a little groan, knowing his hospital stay will be long and tumultuous.

The middle-aged woman who seems to do want your care and attention and yet rebuffs your attempts to help her, meanwhile, making constant demands on nursing staff.

The older man who trusts no one and will not cooperate with any of his needed care, frustrating staff and physicians alike.

Caring for the patient is integral to the art of doctoring, and yet, there are some people for whom this is incredibly hard to do. They frustrate even the most seasoned professional and work their way under our skin. While their disruptive acts may feel volitional to those of us attempting to provide care, these individuals may suffer from a personality disorder.

Megan Riddle, MD, PhD, is based in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle.

NOTES

1. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

2. Riddle M, Meeks T, Alvarez C, Dubovsky A. When personality is the problem: Managing patients with difficult personalities on the acute care unit. J Hosp Med. 2016 Dec;11(12):873-878.

3. Bukh JD, Bock C, Kessing LV. Association between genetic polymorphisms in the serotonergic system and comorbid personality disorders among patients with first-episode depression. J Pers Disord. 2014 Jun;28(3):365-378.

4. Perez-Rodriguez MM, Weinstein S, New AS, et al. Tryptophan-hydroxylase 2 haplotype association with borderline personality disorder and aggression in a sample of patients with personality disorders and healthy controls. J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Nov; 44(15):1075-1081.

5. Checknita D, Maussion G, Labonte B, et al. Monoamine oxidase: A gene promoter methylation and transcriptional downregulation in an offender population with antisocial personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;206(3):216-222.

6. Boen E, Westlye LT, Elvsashagen T, et al. Regional cortical thinning may be a biological marker for borderline personality disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014 Sep;130(3):193-204.

7. Thoma P, Friedmann C, Suchan B. Empathy and social problem solving in alcohol dependence, mood disorders and selected personality disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Mar;37(3):448-470.

8. Liu H, Liao J, Jiang W, Wang W. Changes in low-frequency fluctuations in patients with antisocial personality disorder revealed by resting-state functional MRI. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 5;9(3):e89790.

9. Yang Y, Raine A. Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2009 Nov 30;174(2):81-88.

10. Fok ML, Hayes RD, Chang CK, Stewart R, Callard FJ, Moran P. Life expectancy at birth and all-cause mortality among people with personality disorder. J Psychosom Res. 2012 Aug;73(2):104-107.

11. Tyrer P, Reed GM, Crawford MJ. Classification, assessment, prevalence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015 Feb 21;385:717-726.

12. Groves JE. Taking care of the hateful patient. N Engl J Med. 1978 Apr 20; 298:883-887.

13. Groves JE. Management of the borderline patient on a medical or surgical ward: The psychiatric consultant’s role. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1975;6(3):337-348.

14. Bodner E, Cohen-Fridel S, Mashiah M, et al. The attitudes of psychiatric hospital staff toward hospitalization and treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. BMC psychiatry. 2015 Jan 22;15:2.

15. Colli A, Tanzilli A, Dimaggio G, Lingiardi V. Patient personality and therapist response: An empirical investigation. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Jan;171(1):102-108.

16. Ingenhoven T, Lafay P, Rinne T, Passchier J, Duivenvoorden H. Effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for severe personality disorders: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;71(1):14-25.

We all know these patients:

The young man who, when his name shows up on the ED board, everyone lets out a little groan, knowing his hospital stay will be long and tumultuous.

The middle-aged woman who seems to do want your care and attention and yet rebuffs your attempts to help her, meanwhile, making constant demands on nursing staff.

The older man who trusts no one and will not cooperate with any of his needed care, frustrating staff and physicians alike.

Caring for the patient is integral to the art of doctoring, and yet, there are some people for whom this is incredibly hard to do. They frustrate even the most seasoned professional and work their way under our skin. While their disruptive acts may feel volitional to those of us attempting to provide care, these individuals may suffer from a personality disorder.

Megan Riddle, MD, PhD, is based in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle.

NOTES

1. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

2. Riddle M, Meeks T, Alvarez C, Dubovsky A. When personality is the problem: Managing patients with difficult personalities on the acute care unit. J Hosp Med. 2016 Dec;11(12):873-878.

3. Bukh JD, Bock C, Kessing LV. Association between genetic polymorphisms in the serotonergic system and comorbid personality disorders among patients with first-episode depression. J Pers Disord. 2014 Jun;28(3):365-378.

4. Perez-Rodriguez MM, Weinstein S, New AS, et al. Tryptophan-hydroxylase 2 haplotype association with borderline personality disorder and aggression in a sample of patients with personality disorders and healthy controls. J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Nov; 44(15):1075-1081.

5. Checknita D, Maussion G, Labonte B, et al. Monoamine oxidase: A gene promoter methylation and transcriptional downregulation in an offender population with antisocial personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;206(3):216-222.

6. Boen E, Westlye LT, Elvsashagen T, et al. Regional cortical thinning may be a biological marker for borderline personality disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014 Sep;130(3):193-204.

7. Thoma P, Friedmann C, Suchan B. Empathy and social problem solving in alcohol dependence, mood disorders and selected personality disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Mar;37(3):448-470.

8. Liu H, Liao J, Jiang W, Wang W. Changes in low-frequency fluctuations in patients with antisocial personality disorder revealed by resting-state functional MRI. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 5;9(3):e89790.

9. Yang Y, Raine A. Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2009 Nov 30;174(2):81-88.

10. Fok ML, Hayes RD, Chang CK, Stewart R, Callard FJ, Moran P. Life expectancy at birth and all-cause mortality among people with personality disorder. J Psychosom Res. 2012 Aug;73(2):104-107.

11. Tyrer P, Reed GM, Crawford MJ. Classification, assessment, prevalence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015 Feb 21;385:717-726.

12. Groves JE. Taking care of the hateful patient. N Engl J Med. 1978 Apr 20; 298:883-887.

13. Groves JE. Management of the borderline patient on a medical or surgical ward: The psychiatric consultant’s role. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1975;6(3):337-348.

14. Bodner E, Cohen-Fridel S, Mashiah M, et al. The attitudes of psychiatric hospital staff toward hospitalization and treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. BMC psychiatry. 2015 Jan 22;15:2.

15. Colli A, Tanzilli A, Dimaggio G, Lingiardi V. Patient personality and therapist response: An empirical investigation. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Jan;171(1):102-108.

16. Ingenhoven T, Lafay P, Rinne T, Passchier J, Duivenvoorden H. Effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for severe personality disorders: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;71(1):14-25.

We all know these patients:

The young man who, when his name shows up on the ED board, everyone lets out a little groan, knowing his hospital stay will be long and tumultuous.

The middle-aged woman who seems to do want your care and attention and yet rebuffs your attempts to help her, meanwhile, making constant demands on nursing staff.

The older man who trusts no one and will not cooperate with any of his needed care, frustrating staff and physicians alike.

Caring for the patient is integral to the art of doctoring, and yet, there are some people for whom this is incredibly hard to do. They frustrate even the most seasoned professional and work their way under our skin. While their disruptive acts may feel volitional to those of us attempting to provide care, these individuals may suffer from a personality disorder.

Megan Riddle, MD, PhD, is based in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle.

NOTES

1. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

2. Riddle M, Meeks T, Alvarez C, Dubovsky A. When personality is the problem: Managing patients with difficult personalities on the acute care unit. J Hosp Med. 2016 Dec;11(12):873-878.

3. Bukh JD, Bock C, Kessing LV. Association between genetic polymorphisms in the serotonergic system and comorbid personality disorders among patients with first-episode depression. J Pers Disord. 2014 Jun;28(3):365-378.

4. Perez-Rodriguez MM, Weinstein S, New AS, et al. Tryptophan-hydroxylase 2 haplotype association with borderline personality disorder and aggression in a sample of patients with personality disorders and healthy controls. J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Nov; 44(15):1075-1081.

5. Checknita D, Maussion G, Labonte B, et al. Monoamine oxidase: A gene promoter methylation and transcriptional downregulation in an offender population with antisocial personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;206(3):216-222.

6. Boen E, Westlye LT, Elvsashagen T, et al. Regional cortical thinning may be a biological marker for borderline personality disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014 Sep;130(3):193-204.

7. Thoma P, Friedmann C, Suchan B. Empathy and social problem solving in alcohol dependence, mood disorders and selected personality disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Mar;37(3):448-470.

8. Liu H, Liao J, Jiang W, Wang W. Changes in low-frequency fluctuations in patients with antisocial personality disorder revealed by resting-state functional MRI. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 5;9(3):e89790.

9. Yang Y, Raine A. Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2009 Nov 30;174(2):81-88.

10. Fok ML, Hayes RD, Chang CK, Stewart R, Callard FJ, Moran P. Life expectancy at birth and all-cause mortality among people with personality disorder. J Psychosom Res. 2012 Aug;73(2):104-107.

11. Tyrer P, Reed GM, Crawford MJ. Classification, assessment, prevalence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015 Feb 21;385:717-726.

12. Groves JE. Taking care of the hateful patient. N Engl J Med. 1978 Apr 20; 298:883-887.

13. Groves JE. Management of the borderline patient on a medical or surgical ward: The psychiatric consultant’s role. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1975;6(3):337-348.

14. Bodner E, Cohen-Fridel S, Mashiah M, et al. The attitudes of psychiatric hospital staff toward hospitalization and treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. BMC psychiatry. 2015 Jan 22;15:2.

15. Colli A, Tanzilli A, Dimaggio G, Lingiardi V. Patient personality and therapist response: An empirical investigation. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Jan;171(1):102-108.

16. Ingenhoven T, Lafay P, Rinne T, Passchier J, Duivenvoorden H. Effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for severe personality disorders: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;71(1):14-25.

Over the last 2 decades, the number of teen females involved in competitive sports has skyrocketed. Research studies continue to show that girls involved in sports have better self-esteem and reduce the risk of obesity.But this involvement in competitive sports has not come without a cost. Recent studies have shown that females are four to six times more likely to tear their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) than are their male counterparts playing the same sport.^1,2 But why is this? And can it be prevented?

Researchers have spent countless hours studying videos to better determine why females are at greater risk. Their findings showed that there were many contributing factors for the difference between the sexes. The general mechanics that put the ACL at risk are landing on an extended knee, the center of mass being off the base, and internal rotation and adduction of the knee. These combined movements put the ACL at its most vulnerable position.

Reference

1. Pediatrics. 2014 May;133(5):e1437-50

2. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2000;59(4):217-26

3. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Dec;21(10):1060-6

4. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Feb;84(2):122-30

5. Am J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):1476-83

6. Curr Womens Health Rep. 2001 Dec;1(3):218-24

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Email her at [email protected].

Over the last 2 decades, the number of teen females involved in competitive sports has skyrocketed. Research studies continue to show that girls involved in sports have better self-esteem and reduce the risk of obesity.But this involvement in competitive sports has not come without a cost. Recent studies have shown that females are four to six times more likely to tear their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) than are their male counterparts playing the same sport.^1,2 But why is this? And can it be prevented?

Researchers have spent countless hours studying videos to better determine why females are at greater risk. Their findings showed that there were many contributing factors for the difference between the sexes. The general mechanics that put the ACL at risk are landing on an extended knee, the center of mass being off the base, and internal rotation and adduction of the knee. These combined movements put the ACL at its most vulnerable position.

Reference

1. Pediatrics. 2014 May;133(5):e1437-50

2. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2000;59(4):217-26

3. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Dec;21(10):1060-6

4. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Feb;84(2):122-30

5. Am J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):1476-83

6. Curr Womens Health Rep. 2001 Dec;1(3):218-24

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Email her at [email protected].

Over the last 2 decades, the number of teen females involved in competitive sports has skyrocketed. Research studies continue to show that girls involved in sports have better self-esteem and reduce the risk of obesity.But this involvement in competitive sports has not come without a cost. Recent studies have shown that females are four to six times more likely to tear their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) than are their male counterparts playing the same sport.^1,2 But why is this? And can it be prevented?

Researchers have spent countless hours studying videos to better determine why females are at greater risk. Their findings showed that there were many contributing factors for the difference between the sexes. The general mechanics that put the ACL at risk are landing on an extended knee, the center of mass being off the base, and internal rotation and adduction of the knee. These combined movements put the ACL at its most vulnerable position.

Reference

1. Pediatrics. 2014 May;133(5):e1437-50

2. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2000;59(4):217-26

3. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Dec;21(10):1060-6

4. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Feb;84(2):122-30

5. Am J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):1476-83

6. Curr Womens Health Rep. 2001 Dec;1(3):218-24

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Email her at [email protected].

It is that time of year again. We are in the midst of flu season, which means that it is time to remind our patients’ parents about the importance of using acetaminophen instead of aspirin. This fact became evident when several guardians of our patients came in within a few days of each other in late November to early December unaware of the dangers of giving their children aspirin and other salicylate medications.

Case 1: A 4-year-old boy presented with mild diarrhea, but otherwise was clinically well. The diarrhea started while visiting family in Mexico. The mother took out a small bottle of Pepto-Bismol (bismuth subsalicylate) liquid, which she gave him 2 days previously. The bottle did have, in small font, a warning about Reye’s syndrome on the label, which the mother did not notice. She also did not think it pertained to her son anyway. During the visit, she was counseled on this being early influenza season and the avoidance of salicylate products since the 1980s in children, with the exception of cardiac uses.

References

1. Pediatrics. 1980 Dec;66(6):859-64.

2. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Dec;27(12):1697-703.

Rachel Masia is a third-year medical student at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, N.J. Dr. Alan Masia, Ms. Masia’s father, has a practice in Toms River, N.J. They said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

It is that time of year again. We are in the midst of flu season, which means that it is time to remind our patients’ parents about the importance of using acetaminophen instead of aspirin. This fact became evident when several guardians of our patients came in within a few days of each other in late November to early December unaware of the dangers of giving their children aspirin and other salicylate medications.

Case 1: A 4-year-old boy presented with mild diarrhea, but otherwise was clinically well. The diarrhea started while visiting family in Mexico. The mother took out a small bottle of Pepto-Bismol (bismuth subsalicylate) liquid, which she gave him 2 days previously. The bottle did have, in small font, a warning about Reye’s syndrome on the label, which the mother did not notice. She also did not think it pertained to her son anyway. During the visit, she was counseled on this being early influenza season and the avoidance of salicylate products since the 1980s in children, with the exception of cardiac uses.

References

1. Pediatrics. 1980 Dec;66(6):859-64.

2. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Dec;27(12):1697-703.

Rachel Masia is a third-year medical student at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, N.J. Dr. Alan Masia, Ms. Masia’s father, has a practice in Toms River, N.J. They said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

It is that time of year again. We are in the midst of flu season, which means that it is time to remind our patients’ parents about the importance of using acetaminophen instead of aspirin. This fact became evident when several guardians of our patients came in within a few days of each other in late November to early December unaware of the dangers of giving their children aspirin and other salicylate medications.

Case 1: A 4-year-old boy presented with mild diarrhea, but otherwise was clinically well. The diarrhea started while visiting family in Mexico. The mother took out a small bottle of Pepto-Bismol (bismuth subsalicylate) liquid, which she gave him 2 days previously. The bottle did have, in small font, a warning about Reye’s syndrome on the label, which the mother did not notice. She also did not think it pertained to her son anyway. During the visit, she was counseled on this being early influenza season and the avoidance of salicylate products since the 1980s in children, with the exception of cardiac uses.

References

1. Pediatrics. 1980 Dec;66(6):859-64.

2. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Dec;27(12):1697-703.

Rachel Masia is a third-year medical student at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, N.J. Dr. Alan Masia, Ms. Masia’s father, has a practice in Toms River, N.J. They said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

Four years ago, I left my career at a large urban VA hospital due to cancer; residual effects of my treatment have prevented my return. I share this as it reflects my personal experience with pain management.

As a Certified Addiction Registered Nurse–Advance Practice, I worked in a substance abuse clinic for 15 years, providing everything from primary care to detoxification and opiate replacement maintenance. I also consulted on cases throughout the facility and advocated for patients with substance abuse histories in regard to care management concerns, including pain. I spent a great deal of time educating staff from all areas on proper care for patients with a variety of substance abuse and addiction concerns.

In order to better address the conundrum of appropriate pain management, a fine distinction needs to be made between dependence and addiction. Chemical dependence is a physiologic status and a medical diagnosis; reduction or discontinuation of a culprit drug will result in symptoms of physiologic withdrawal. Addiction, on the other hand, is a legitimate brain disease that might be better thought of as a mental health disorder. It manifests signs and symptoms very similar to those of chemical dependence.

Perhaps the distinction is best revealed by example: A 65-year-old woman who is on opioid-based pain management for two weeks due to a complicated orthopedic injury will need to be tapered off to avoid physiologic symptoms of withdrawal. Yet, she is not considered a drug addict.

The behavioral characteristics of addiction are familiar: drug-seeking, illicit use, presentation with unexplained withdrawal symptoms, etc. Additionally, process addictions involve the same neurochemical pathways as chemical addictions. When they abstain, gamblers, sex addicts, and television addicts manifest the same anxiety and psychologic or even physical symptoms of withdrawal. The pathophysiology of the addiction process is established in addiction medicine literature.

The problem is that this knowledge has not been extended to practice. In my experience, poorly managed pain has a much greater risk for unintended negative consequences than aggressive management with opiods and adjuncts in a patient with a history of heroin addiction. Pseudo-addiction is real, and patients present with signs and symptoms similar to those of addiction: demanding, making specific requests, history of multiple providers (doctor shopping), and elevated anxiety.

Anyone who has experienced poorly managed severe pain will share stories of the drive to get relief at almost any cost. These people are not drug addicts. They are patients in need of informed, aggressive, and compassionate care.

Fear-based inadequate pain management creates instability and desperation in patients. Their intensive search for relief is nothing but rational. A clinician’s withholding of adequate care due to social prejudice, fear (of the DEA), and/or ignorance in a field where knowledge and tools are widely available is bad care at best and negligent incompetence at worst. Ultimately, it is the patient who suffers the consequences.

The well-known but often denied chasm between medicine and mental health has gone on too long. Medical practitioners need to

• Be better able to identify and distinguish between potential and current chemical dependence and true addiction.
• Be willing to treat pain aggressively in patients with a known history of addiction in order to prevent relapse or exacerbation of their addictive use.
• Develop a working knowledge of strategies to treat pain while minimizing risk for addiction and dependence.
• Commit to the intensity of practice that is required for effective pain management in any population.

Yes, my suggestions imply a labor-intensive approach. But there are no 20-minute appointments with a heroin addict. And time spent appropriately assessing patient risk for substance abuse, treating legitimate pain management needs, and intensively following up will reduce the medical and mental health costs associated with poorly managed pain in low-risk patients, and the hugely expensive and potentially tragic outcomes associated with poorly treated drug addicts.

L. Henry Beazlie, RN, CCRN, CARN-AP, MSN, MA (retired)

Akron, OH

Four years ago, I left my career at a large urban VA hospital due to cancer; residual effects of my treatment have prevented my return. I share this as it reflects my personal experience with pain management.

As a Certified Addiction Registered Nurse–Advance Practice, I worked in a substance abuse clinic for 15 years, providing everything from primary care to detoxification and opiate replacement maintenance. I also consulted on cases throughout the facility and advocated for patients with substance abuse histories in regard to care management concerns, including pain. I spent a great deal of time educating staff from all areas on proper care for patients with a variety of substance abuse and addiction concerns.

In order to better address the conundrum of appropriate pain management, a fine distinction needs to be made between dependence and addiction. Chemical dependence is a physiologic status and a medical diagnosis; reduction or discontinuation of a culprit drug will result in symptoms of physiologic withdrawal. Addiction, on the other hand, is a legitimate brain disease that might be better thought of as a mental health disorder. It manifests signs and symptoms very similar to those of chemical dependence.

Perhaps the distinction is best revealed by example: A 65-year-old woman who is on opioid-based pain management for two weeks due to a complicated orthopedic injury will need to be tapered off to avoid physiologic symptoms of withdrawal. Yet, she is not considered a drug addict.

The behavioral characteristics of addiction are familiar: drug-seeking, illicit use, presentation with unexplained withdrawal symptoms, etc. Additionally, process addictions involve the same neurochemical pathways as chemical addictions. When they abstain, gamblers, sex addicts, and television addicts manifest the same anxiety and psychologic or even physical symptoms of withdrawal. The pathophysiology of the addiction process is established in addiction medicine literature.

The problem is that this knowledge has not been extended to practice. In my experience, poorly managed pain has a much greater risk for unintended negative consequences than aggressive management with opiods and adjuncts in a patient with a history of heroin addiction. Pseudo-addiction is real, and patients present with signs and symptoms similar to those of addiction: demanding, making specific requests, history of multiple providers (doctor shopping), and elevated anxiety.

Anyone who has experienced poorly managed severe pain will share stories of the drive to get relief at almost any cost. These people are not drug addicts. They are patients in need of informed, aggressive, and compassionate care.

Fear-based inadequate pain management creates instability and desperation in patients. Their intensive search for relief is nothing but rational. A clinician’s withholding of adequate care due to social prejudice, fear (of the DEA), and/or ignorance in a field where knowledge and tools are widely available is bad care at best and negligent incompetence at worst. Ultimately, it is the patient who suffers the consequences.

The well-known but often denied chasm between medicine and mental health has gone on too long. Medical practitioners need to

• Be better able to identify and distinguish between potential and current chemical dependence and true addiction.
• Be willing to treat pain aggressively in patients with a known history of addiction in order to prevent relapse or exacerbation of their addictive use.
• Develop a working knowledge of strategies to treat pain while minimizing risk for addiction and dependence.
• Commit to the intensity of practice that is required for effective pain management in any population.

Yes, my suggestions imply a labor-intensive approach. But there are no 20-minute appointments with a heroin addict. And time spent appropriately assessing patient risk for substance abuse, treating legitimate pain management needs, and intensively following up will reduce the medical and mental health costs associated with poorly managed pain in low-risk patients, and the hugely expensive and potentially tragic outcomes associated with poorly treated drug addicts.

L. Henry Beazlie, RN, CCRN, CARN-AP, MSN, MA (retired)

Akron, OH

Four years ago, I left my career at a large urban VA hospital due to cancer; residual effects of my treatment have prevented my return. I share this as it reflects my personal experience with pain management.

As a Certified Addiction Registered Nurse–Advance Practice, I worked in a substance abuse clinic for 15 years, providing everything from primary care to detoxification and opiate replacement maintenance. I also consulted on cases throughout the facility and advocated for patients with substance abuse histories in regard to care management concerns, including pain. I spent a great deal of time educating staff from all areas on proper care for patients with a variety of substance abuse and addiction concerns.

In order to better address the conundrum of appropriate pain management, a fine distinction needs to be made between dependence and addiction. Chemical dependence is a physiologic status and a medical diagnosis; reduction or discontinuation of a culprit drug will result in symptoms of physiologic withdrawal. Addiction, on the other hand, is a legitimate brain disease that might be better thought of as a mental health disorder. It manifests signs and symptoms very similar to those of chemical dependence.

Perhaps the distinction is best revealed by example: A 65-year-old woman who is on opioid-based pain management for two weeks due to a complicated orthopedic injury will need to be tapered off to avoid physiologic symptoms of withdrawal. Yet, she is not considered a drug addict.

The behavioral characteristics of addiction are familiar: drug-seeking, illicit use, presentation with unexplained withdrawal symptoms, etc. Additionally, process addictions involve the same neurochemical pathways as chemical addictions. When they abstain, gamblers, sex addicts, and television addicts manifest the same anxiety and psychologic or even physical symptoms of withdrawal. The pathophysiology of the addiction process is established in addiction medicine literature.

The problem is that this knowledge has not been extended to practice. In my experience, poorly managed pain has a much greater risk for unintended negative consequences than aggressive management with opiods and adjuncts in a patient with a history of heroin addiction. Pseudo-addiction is real, and patients present with signs and symptoms similar to those of addiction: demanding, making specific requests, history of multiple providers (doctor shopping), and elevated anxiety.

Anyone who has experienced poorly managed severe pain will share stories of the drive to get relief at almost any cost. These people are not drug addicts. They are patients in need of informed, aggressive, and compassionate care.

Fear-based inadequate pain management creates instability and desperation in patients. Their intensive search for relief is nothing but rational. A clinician’s withholding of adequate care due to social prejudice, fear (of the DEA), and/or ignorance in a field where knowledge and tools are widely available is bad care at best and negligent incompetence at worst. Ultimately, it is the patient who suffers the consequences.

The well-known but often denied chasm between medicine and mental health has gone on too long. Medical practitioners need to

• Be better able to identify and distinguish between potential and current chemical dependence and true addiction.
• Be willing to treat pain aggressively in patients with a known history of addiction in order to prevent relapse or exacerbation of their addictive use.
• Develop a working knowledge of strategies to treat pain while minimizing risk for addiction and dependence.
• Commit to the intensity of practice that is required for effective pain management in any population.

Yes, my suggestions imply a labor-intensive approach. But there are no 20-minute appointments with a heroin addict. And time spent appropriately assessing patient risk for substance abuse, treating legitimate pain management needs, and intensively following up will reduce the medical and mental health costs associated with poorly managed pain in low-risk patients, and the hugely expensive and potentially tragic outcomes associated with poorly treated drug addicts.

L. Henry Beazlie, RN, CCRN, CARN-AP, MSN, MA (retired)

Akron, OH

Before pain was introduced as the “fifth vital sign” and the Joint Commission issued its standards, more than a decade’s worth of international research indicated that pain was largely ignored, untreated, or undertreated. The best tools available to treat pain (opioids) were reserved for patients on their deathbed. The horrific results of the SUPPORT study at the nation’s leading hospitals revealed that most patients had severe, uncontrolled pain up until their final days of life.¹ Unfortunately, research suggests we are still reserving opioids for the last days or weeks of life.²

In 1992 and 1994, the Department of Health and Human Services issued clinical practice guidelines highlighting the huge gap between the availability of evidence-based pain control methods and the lack of pain assessment and treatment in practice.³ When these guidelines failed to change practice, the Joint Commission added “attending to pain” to its standards—the first effort to require that evidence-based practices be utilized. Twenty years later, the National Academy of Science issued a report stating that, despite transient improvements, the current state is inadequate since pain is the leading reason people seek health care. Patients with pain report an inability to get help, which is “viewed worldwide as poor medicine, unethical practice, and an abrogation of a fundamental human right.”⁴ Since I started working as an NP in 1983, I have never seen as many patients with pain stigmatized, ignored, labeled, and denied access to treatment as I have in the past year.

Pain afflicts more than 100 million Americans and is the leading cause of disability worldwide.⁵ Acute pain that is not effectively treated progresses to chronic pain in 51% of cases.⁶ An estimated 23 million Americans report frequent intense pain, 25 million endure daily chronic pain, and 40 million adults have high-impact, disabling, chronic pain that degrades health and requires health care intervention.^6,7 The most notable damage is to the structure and function of the central nervous system.⁸ Brain remodeling and loss of gray matter occurs, producing changes in the brain similar to those observed with 10 to 20 years of aging; this explains why some of the learning, memory, and emotional difficulties endured by many with ongoing pain can be partially reversed with effective treatment.⁹ Left untreated, pain can result in significant biopsychosocial problems, frailty, financial ruin, and premature death.^10-14

Prescription drug misuse and addiction also affect millions and have been a largely ignored public health problem for decades. Trying to fix the pain problem without attending equally to the problems of nonmedical drug use, addiction, and overdose deaths has contributed to the escalation of health problems to “epidemic” and “crisis” proportions. Although most patients who are prescribed medically indicated opioids for pain do not misuse their medications or become addicted, the failure to subsequently identify and properly treat an emergent substance use disorder is a problem in our current system.¹⁵ Unfortunately, making prescription opioids inaccessible to patients forces some to abuse alcohol or seek drugs from illicit sources, which only exacerbates the situation.¹⁶ A national study performed over a five-year period revealed that only 10% of patients admitted for prescription opioid treatment were referred from their health care providers.¹⁷ So, health care providers may have been part of the problem but have not been fully engaged in the solution.

Although opioids are neither the firstline, nor only, treatment option in our current evidence-based treatment toolbox, their prudent use does not cause addiction. Only 1% of patients who receive postoperative opioids go on to develop chronic opioid use, and adolescents treated with medically necessary opioids have no greater risk for future addiction than unexposed children. It is the nonmedical use of opioids, rather than proper medical use, that predisposes people to addiction.^18,19 Discharging or not treating patients suspected of “drug-seeking” exacerbates the problem. Rates of opioid prescription have declined, while overdoses of illicitly manufactured fentanyl increased by 79% in 27 states from 2013 to 2014.²⁰ In Massachusetts, only 8% of people who fatally overdosed had a prescription, while illicit fentanyl accounted for 54% of overdose deaths in 2015 and more than 74% in the third quarter of 2016.²¹ We need to screen for nonmedical use, drug misuse, and addiction before, during, and after we treat with this particular tool.

Unfortunately, the prevalence of pain and addiction are both increasing, especially for women and minorities—but there are safe, effective medications and non-drug approaches available to combat this.^22-24 These problems will not go away on their own, and every health care professional must choose to be part of the solution rather than perpetuate the problem. A good place to start is to become familiar with the Surgeon General’s Report and the National Pain Strategy. Educate your patients, colleagues, and policy makers about the true nature of these problems. Take a public health approach to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention by recognizing and treating these conditions in an expedient and effective matter. When problems persist, expand the treatment team to include specialists who can develop a patient-centered, multimodal treatment plan that treats co-occurring conditions. If we continue to ignore these problems, or focus on one at the expense of the other, both problems will worsen and our patients will suffer serious consequences.

Paul Arnstein, PhD, NP-C, FAAN, FNP-C

Boston, MA

Before pain was introduced as the “fifth vital sign” and the Joint Commission issued its standards, more than a decade’s worth of international research indicated that pain was largely ignored, untreated, or undertreated. The best tools available to treat pain (opioids) were reserved for patients on their deathbed. The horrific results of the SUPPORT study at the nation’s leading hospitals revealed that most patients had severe, uncontrolled pain up until their final days of life.¹ Unfortunately, research suggests we are still reserving opioids for the last days or weeks of life.²

In 1992 and 1994, the Department of Health and Human Services issued clinical practice guidelines highlighting the huge gap between the availability of evidence-based pain control methods and the lack of pain assessment and treatment in practice.³ When these guidelines failed to change practice, the Joint Commission added “attending to pain” to its standards—the first effort to require that evidence-based practices be utilized. Twenty years later, the National Academy of Science issued a report stating that, despite transient improvements, the current state is inadequate since pain is the leading reason people seek health care. Patients with pain report an inability to get help, which is “viewed worldwide as poor medicine, unethical practice, and an abrogation of a fundamental human right.”⁴ Since I started working as an NP in 1983, I have never seen as many patients with pain stigmatized, ignored, labeled, and denied access to treatment as I have in the past year.

Pain afflicts more than 100 million Americans and is the leading cause of disability worldwide.⁵ Acute pain that is not effectively treated progresses to chronic pain in 51% of cases.⁶ An estimated 23 million Americans report frequent intense pain, 25 million endure daily chronic pain, and 40 million adults have high-impact, disabling, chronic pain that degrades health and requires health care intervention.^6,7 The most notable damage is to the structure and function of the central nervous system.⁸ Brain remodeling and loss of gray matter occurs, producing changes in the brain similar to those observed with 10 to 20 years of aging; this explains why some of the learning, memory, and emotional difficulties endured by many with ongoing pain can be partially reversed with effective treatment.⁹ Left untreated, pain can result in significant biopsychosocial problems, frailty, financial ruin, and premature death.^10-14

Prescription drug misuse and addiction also affect millions and have been a largely ignored public health problem for decades. Trying to fix the pain problem without attending equally to the problems of nonmedical drug use, addiction, and overdose deaths has contributed to the escalation of health problems to “epidemic” and “crisis” proportions. Although most patients who are prescribed medically indicated opioids for pain do not misuse their medications or become addicted, the failure to subsequently identify and properly treat an emergent substance use disorder is a problem in our current system.¹⁵ Unfortunately, making prescription opioids inaccessible to patients forces some to abuse alcohol or seek drugs from illicit sources, which only exacerbates the situation.¹⁶ A national study performed over a five-year period revealed that only 10% of patients admitted for prescription opioid treatment were referred from their health care providers.¹⁷ So, health care providers may have been part of the problem but have not been fully engaged in the solution.

Although opioids are neither the firstline, nor only, treatment option in our current evidence-based treatment toolbox, their prudent use does not cause addiction. Only 1% of patients who receive postoperative opioids go on to develop chronic opioid use, and adolescents treated with medically necessary opioids have no greater risk for future addiction than unexposed children. It is the nonmedical use of opioids, rather than proper medical use, that predisposes people to addiction.^18,19 Discharging or not treating patients suspected of “drug-seeking” exacerbates the problem. Rates of opioid prescription have declined, while overdoses of illicitly manufactured fentanyl increased by 79% in 27 states from 2013 to 2014.²⁰ In Massachusetts, only 8% of people who fatally overdosed had a prescription, while illicit fentanyl accounted for 54% of overdose deaths in 2015 and more than 74% in the third quarter of 2016.²¹ We need to screen for nonmedical use, drug misuse, and addiction before, during, and after we treat with this particular tool.

Unfortunately, the prevalence of pain and addiction are both increasing, especially for women and minorities—but there are safe, effective medications and non-drug approaches available to combat this.^22-24 These problems will not go away on their own, and every health care professional must choose to be part of the solution rather than perpetuate the problem. A good place to start is to become familiar with the Surgeon General’s Report and the National Pain Strategy. Educate your patients, colleagues, and policy makers about the true nature of these problems. Take a public health approach to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention by recognizing and treating these conditions in an expedient and effective matter. When problems persist, expand the treatment team to include specialists who can develop a patient-centered, multimodal treatment plan that treats co-occurring conditions. If we continue to ignore these problems, or focus on one at the expense of the other, both problems will worsen and our patients will suffer serious consequences.

Paul Arnstein, PhD, NP-C, FAAN, FNP-C

Boston, MA

Before pain was introduced as the “fifth vital sign” and the Joint Commission issued its standards, more than a decade’s worth of international research indicated that pain was largely ignored, untreated, or undertreated. The best tools available to treat pain (opioids) were reserved for patients on their deathbed. The horrific results of the SUPPORT study at the nation’s leading hospitals revealed that most patients had severe, uncontrolled pain up until their final days of life.¹ Unfortunately, research suggests we are still reserving opioids for the last days or weeks of life.²

In 1992 and 1994, the Department of Health and Human Services issued clinical practice guidelines highlighting the huge gap between the availability of evidence-based pain control methods and the lack of pain assessment and treatment in practice.³ When these guidelines failed to change practice, the Joint Commission added “attending to pain” to its standards—the first effort to require that evidence-based practices be utilized. Twenty years later, the National Academy of Science issued a report stating that, despite transient improvements, the current state is inadequate since pain is the leading reason people seek health care. Patients with pain report an inability to get help, which is “viewed worldwide as poor medicine, unethical practice, and an abrogation of a fundamental human right.”⁴ Since I started working as an NP in 1983, I have never seen as many patients with pain stigmatized, ignored, labeled, and denied access to treatment as I have in the past year.

Pain afflicts more than 100 million Americans and is the leading cause of disability worldwide.⁵ Acute pain that is not effectively treated progresses to chronic pain in 51% of cases.⁶ An estimated 23 million Americans report frequent intense pain, 25 million endure daily chronic pain, and 40 million adults have high-impact, disabling, chronic pain that degrades health and requires health care intervention.^6,7 The most notable damage is to the structure and function of the central nervous system.⁸ Brain remodeling and loss of gray matter occurs, producing changes in the brain similar to those observed with 10 to 20 years of aging; this explains why some of the learning, memory, and emotional difficulties endured by many with ongoing pain can be partially reversed with effective treatment.⁹ Left untreated, pain can result in significant biopsychosocial problems, frailty, financial ruin, and premature death.^10-14

Prescription drug misuse and addiction also affect millions and have been a largely ignored public health problem for decades. Trying to fix the pain problem without attending equally to the problems of nonmedical drug use, addiction, and overdose deaths has contributed to the escalation of health problems to “epidemic” and “crisis” proportions. Although most patients who are prescribed medically indicated opioids for pain do not misuse their medications or become addicted, the failure to subsequently identify and properly treat an emergent substance use disorder is a problem in our current system.¹⁵ Unfortunately, making prescription opioids inaccessible to patients forces some to abuse alcohol or seek drugs from illicit sources, which only exacerbates the situation.¹⁶ A national study performed over a five-year period revealed that only 10% of patients admitted for prescription opioid treatment were referred from their health care providers.¹⁷ So, health care providers may have been part of the problem but have not been fully engaged in the solution.

Although opioids are neither the firstline, nor only, treatment option in our current evidence-based treatment toolbox, their prudent use does not cause addiction. Only 1% of patients who receive postoperative opioids go on to develop chronic opioid use, and adolescents treated with medically necessary opioids have no greater risk for future addiction than unexposed children. It is the nonmedical use of opioids, rather than proper medical use, that predisposes people to addiction.^18,19 Discharging or not treating patients suspected of “drug-seeking” exacerbates the problem. Rates of opioid prescription have declined, while overdoses of illicitly manufactured fentanyl increased by 79% in 27 states from 2013 to 2014.²⁰ In Massachusetts, only 8% of people who fatally overdosed had a prescription, while illicit fentanyl accounted for 54% of overdose deaths in 2015 and more than 74% in the third quarter of 2016.²¹ We need to screen for nonmedical use, drug misuse, and addiction before, during, and after we treat with this particular tool.

Unfortunately, the prevalence of pain and addiction are both increasing, especially for women and minorities—but there are safe, effective medications and non-drug approaches available to combat this.^22-24 These problems will not go away on their own, and every health care professional must choose to be part of the solution rather than perpetuate the problem. A good place to start is to become familiar with the Surgeon General’s Report and the National Pain Strategy. Educate your patients, colleagues, and policy makers about the true nature of these problems. Take a public health approach to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention by recognizing and treating these conditions in an expedient and effective matter. When problems persist, expand the treatment team to include specialists who can develop a patient-centered, multimodal treatment plan that treats co-occurring conditions. If we continue to ignore these problems, or focus on one at the expense of the other, both problems will worsen and our patients will suffer serious consequences.

Paul Arnstein, PhD, NP-C, FAAN, FNP-C

Boston, MA

In August 2014, we first heard of increased pediatric cases of severe respiratory tract disease, many requiring management in the ICU, and of acute flaccid myelitis/paralysis (AFM) of unknown etiology from many states across the United States. Concurrently with this outbreak in the United States, similar clinical cases were reported in Canada and Europe. Subsequently, enterovirus D68 was confirmed in some, but not all, of the paralyzed children. Although new to many of us, enterovirus D68 was already known as an atypical enterovirus sharing many of its structural and chemical properties with rhinovirus. For example, it most often was reported from respiratory samples and less common from stool samples. It also had been associated with clusters of respiratory disease since 2000 and a 2008 case of fatal AFM.

• Wash your hands often with soap and water for 20 seconds.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands.
• Avoid close contact such as kissing, hugging, and sharing cups with people who are ill.
• Cover your coughs and sneezes with a tissue or shirt sleeve, not your hands.
• Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces, such as toys and doorknobs, especially if someone is sick.
• Stay home when you are ill.

In 2014, it was speculated that the epidemic might have been a one-time event. It now appears more likely that enterovirus D68 activity has been increasing since 2000, and that children and immunocompromised hosts will be at greatest risk because of a lack of neutralizing antibody. Ongoing enterovirus surveillance will be critical to understand the potential for severe respiratory disease as will the development of new and effective antivirals. A vaccine for enterovirus 71 recently demonstrated efficacy against hand, foot, and mouth disease in children and may provide insights into the development of vaccines against enterovirus D68.

References

Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 May;16(5):e64-75

Emerg Infect Dis. 2017 Jan;23(1):140-3.

J Med Virol. 2016 May;88(5):739-45

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

In August 2014, we first heard of increased pediatric cases of severe respiratory tract disease, many requiring management in the ICU, and of acute flaccid myelitis/paralysis (AFM) of unknown etiology from many states across the United States. Concurrently with this outbreak in the United States, similar clinical cases were reported in Canada and Europe. Subsequently, enterovirus D68 was confirmed in some, but not all, of the paralyzed children. Although new to many of us, enterovirus D68 was already known as an atypical enterovirus sharing many of its structural and chemical properties with rhinovirus. For example, it most often was reported from respiratory samples and less common from stool samples. It also had been associated with clusters of respiratory disease since 2000 and a 2008 case of fatal AFM.

• Wash your hands often with soap and water for 20 seconds.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands.
• Avoid close contact such as kissing, hugging, and sharing cups with people who are ill.
• Cover your coughs and sneezes with a tissue or shirt sleeve, not your hands.
• Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces, such as toys and doorknobs, especially if someone is sick.
• Stay home when you are ill.

In 2014, it was speculated that the epidemic might have been a one-time event. It now appears more likely that enterovirus D68 activity has been increasing since 2000, and that children and immunocompromised hosts will be at greatest risk because of a lack of neutralizing antibody. Ongoing enterovirus surveillance will be critical to understand the potential for severe respiratory disease as will the development of new and effective antivirals. A vaccine for enterovirus 71 recently demonstrated efficacy against hand, foot, and mouth disease in children and may provide insights into the development of vaccines against enterovirus D68.

References

Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 May;16(5):e64-75

Emerg Infect Dis. 2017 Jan;23(1):140-3.

J Med Virol. 2016 May;88(5):739-45

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

In August 2014, we first heard of increased pediatric cases of severe respiratory tract disease, many requiring management in the ICU, and of acute flaccid myelitis/paralysis (AFM) of unknown etiology from many states across the United States. Concurrently with this outbreak in the United States, similar clinical cases were reported in Canada and Europe. Subsequently, enterovirus D68 was confirmed in some, but not all, of the paralyzed children. Although new to many of us, enterovirus D68 was already known as an atypical enterovirus sharing many of its structural and chemical properties with rhinovirus. For example, it most often was reported from respiratory samples and less common from stool samples. It also had been associated with clusters of respiratory disease since 2000 and a 2008 case of fatal AFM.

• Wash your hands often with soap and water for 20 seconds.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands.
• Avoid close contact such as kissing, hugging, and sharing cups with people who are ill.
• Cover your coughs and sneezes with a tissue or shirt sleeve, not your hands.
• Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces, such as toys and doorknobs, especially if someone is sick.
• Stay home when you are ill.

In 2014, it was speculated that the epidemic might have been a one-time event. It now appears more likely that enterovirus D68 activity has been increasing since 2000, and that children and immunocompromised hosts will be at greatest risk because of a lack of neutralizing antibody. Ongoing enterovirus surveillance will be critical to understand the potential for severe respiratory disease as will the development of new and effective antivirals. A vaccine for enterovirus 71 recently demonstrated efficacy against hand, foot, and mouth disease in children and may provide insights into the development of vaccines against enterovirus D68.

References

Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 May;16(5):e64-75

Emerg Infect Dis. 2017 Jan;23(1):140-3.

J Med Virol. 2016 May;88(5):739-45

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].